Indian children search for recyclable materials to sell in New Delhi, Sept. 5. (Reuters Photo)

Based on the just released U.N. report “The Inequality Predicament,“ increasing poverty and the growing gap between the rich and poor will be major threats to developing countries’ peace and stability. The report, prepared by the United Nations’ Economic and Social Affairs Department, found that the divide between rich and poor is now greater than it was a decade ago. That chasm, according to the report, will continue to breed violence and terror if it is not narrowed.
Poverty has caused many more deaths than terrorism, and has hindered the proper development of children worldwide. Malnutrition, illness and inadequate care during childhood hinder children’s learning and proper development.
Poor children initiate a vicious cycle passed on to future generations. Malnourished girls become malnourished mothers who give birth to underweight children who have greater mortality risks than newborns of normal weight.
According to Oxfam, 45 million children will die needlessly by 2015 because industrialized countries are failing to provide the resources they promised to overcome poverty. The World Health Organization estimates that the probability of dying in most developing countries before age 5 is five times higher for lower socio-economic groups than national averages.
Today it is estimated that 600 million to 700 hundred million children are struggling to survive on less than $1 a day, representing 40 percent of all children in developing countries. Many countries spend more on repaying foreign debt than on health and education services for their people. Today 80 percent of the world’s gross domestic product belongs to 1 billion people living in industrialized countries, while the remaining 20 percent is shared by 5 billion people living in developing countries.
Oxfam states that the budgetary percentage of foreign aid provided by rich countries today is half of what it was in the 1960s. Meanwhile, for the first time since the Cold War, global military expending exceeded $1 trillion in 2004. Almost half this amount was spent by the United States.
Poverty is the consequence not only of developing countries’ failed policies and corruption; it is also the result of industrialized countries’ imposition of unfair trade conditions and their support of corrupt regimes for political or strategic reasons and wrong economic policies imposed by international financial institutions. These policies have resulted in huge foreign debts that hinder social progress and contribute to high levels of violence.
Strategic aid is vital to enable poor countries to develop and extricate themselves from the cycle of poverty. To be effective, aid should be dissociated from the obligation to buy goods and services from donor countries. Funds should be delivered in a timely manner, and they should have adequate monitoring mechanisms to ensure that they are properly used. At present 20 percent of the European Union’s aid reaches beneficiaries a year late, and 92 percent of Italian foreign aid is contingent upon buying Italian goods and services.
Developing countries’ governments, for their part, should demonstrate a serious commitment to fighting poverty. They should meet the U.N. recommendation of spending at least 20 percent of their public budgets on providing basic health and social services to the poorest sectors of the population and on combating corruption.
This is a difficult challenge, since many leaders in developing countries are responsible for maintaining a predatory culture over public funds.
JAPANTIMES.CO.JP

Supporters of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan hold red and blue balloons, symbolizing Europe and Turkey, in Ankara. (AFP File Photo)

On 3 October, in less than a month’s time, Turkey will begin negotiations to join the 25-member European Union. This is a highly significant moment which Ankara has awaited for some 40 years. If the negotiations are successful, the impact will be considerable on Turkey itself, on Europe, on the Middle East and on the highly contentious relationship between the West and the world of Islam.
Until the very last moment, the decision to begin negotiations was clouded in uncertainty. There was always the danger that one or other of the EU’s member states might block the process by using its veto.
In recent months, opinion in Europe has hardened against Turkey, while the Turks, in turn, highly nationalistic in sentiment, have grown restive and irritated by what they see as European foot-dragging.
When, earlier this summer, voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the proposed new European Constitution, they plunged the Union into crisis and raised doubts about the wisdom of further enlargement. This, in itself, was bad news for Turkey.
At the same time, leading European politicians expressed public opposition to Turkish membership. In Germany, Angela Merkel, leader of the centre-right CDU, who is widely expected to replace Gerhard Schroeder as Chancellor following elections later this month, said that Turkey should be offered no more than a ’privileged partnership’ with Europe, rather than full membership.
Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s ambitious minister of the interior and potential presidential candidate at the 2007 elections, holds the same views. Austria also opposes Turkish membership. Many Europeans believe that Turkey is too big, too poor, too culturally alien, and above all too Islamic to be easily absorbed into the European family.
But last week, when the 25 EU foreign ministers met at Newport in Wales on 1-2 September, all these fears were dispelled. A decision to begin the talks was taken unanimously. Negotiations are expected to be arduous and could last ten or even fifteen years.
What factors caused EU foreign ministers to decide to launch negotiations with Turkey? First of all, the EU can ill afford a crisis with Turkey as it is already in difficulty over the rejection of the Constitution, which is widely seen to have dealt a blow to the process of European integration. There is simply no appetite among European leaders for another major row.
Secondly, it would have been difficult to renege on pledges already given to Turkey, notably in 1999 when it was declared a ’candidate’ for membership.
Thirdly, the EU was honour bound to take account of the bold legislation passed by the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the field of human rights, notably the adoption of a new legal code which has abolished the death penalty and made torture a criminal offence.
Fourthly, it was widely recognised that slamming the door in Turkey’s face risked alienating and radicalising Turkish opinion, thus injecting a large element of instability into an already highly volatile Middle East.
Fifthly, with Europe facing an unprecedented terrorist threat from Muslim militants, the need was urgent to build bridges with a state which had reconciled its Islamic identity with the secular and democratic legacy of Kemal Ataturk.
Finally, there was a large measure of self-interest in the European decision. In any future competition with the United States, China or Russia, Turkey’s membership would add considerably to Europe’s political weight, as well as to its military strength.
AGENCEGLOBAL.COM

With two weeks to go until the German elections, a victory of the two centre-right parties looks increasingly probable. Opinion polls have given Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union and the small Free Democratic Party a persistent lead over the three parties of the left. If this prevails, Ms Merkel will be the next chancellor, heading a coalition that promises a fresh start in economic policy, with labour market and tax reforms, and a renewed commitment to honour the European Union’s stability and growth pact.
This election matters because it offers Germans the choice of a genuine change of direction in economic policy. But it matters for the rest of Europe just as much--mainly because a Merkel victory would open up the chance for EU-wide economic reforms.
After the No votes in the French and Dutch referendums, the EU has been paralysed. The German election campaign has been the only noteworthy political event this summer. Europe is gridlocked over its budget, how to salvage all or part of the proposed EU constitution and the future of its social model. A change of government in Germany is necessary--though not sufficient--to break this gridlock.
Neither Ms Merkel’s CDU nor the FDP are Anglo-Saxon-style liberalisers. They are both committed to the social market economy, a form of “managed“ competition in which companies, banks and politics are deeply intertwined. Both support co-determination, which gives employees a say in how companies are run. Nevertheless, the labour market reforms they offer are significant because they will open up the economy to more competition.
Under the leadership of Gerhard Schroeder, the chancellor, Germany has become inward-looking, protectionist and increasingly hostile to the European Commission’s efforts to liberalise goods, services and financial markets. Anti-liberalism, trade protectionism and anti-Americanism have also emerged as some of the defining characteristics of the Franco-German alliance under Mr Schroeder and Jacques Chirac, the French president.
Under Ms Merkel, Germany would complement the relationship with France with a series of other strategic alliances. Germany’s ability to forge coalitions, especially with small countries, used to be strength of its EU diplomacy. Ms Merkel is committed to return to this style of diplomacy--to the great benefit of the EU as a whole.
A Merkel victory would strengthen Europe’s reformers, in particular Josˇ Manuel Barroso, the Commission president whose economic reform programme has hit a wall. He had a terrible first year in office because he miscalculated the balance of power within European politics. In particular he always lacked Franco-German support for his programme--Mr Schroeder recently criticised him for selling out to UK interests.
A Merkel victory would also affect the EU’s foreign policy. Ms Merkel and Wolfgang Gerhard, a senior FDP politician and most probable foreign minister, are both loyal atlanticists. But the main change will be one of style: the tone of the transatlantic dialogue will become more constructive after the poisonous diplomacy that followed the US-led invasion of Iraq. Most of the substantive disagreement will remain, however - and Ms Merkel’s opposition to Turkish membership of the EU is likely to open up a new one.
A Merkel victory will not by itself solve any of Europe’s problems. But at a time of crisis, it would offer a chance for the economic and political renewal without which the EU cannot make further significant advances.
FT.COM

Dear Mr. Bush:

Any idea where all our helicopters are? It’s Day 5 of Hurricane Katrina, and thousands remain stranded in New Orleans and need to be airlifted.
Where on earth could you have misplaced all our military choppers? Do you need help finding them? I once lost my car in a Sears parking lot. Man, was that a drag.
Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do, like helping with national disasters. How come they weren’t there to begin with?
Last Thursday I was in south Florida and sat outside while the eye of Hurricane Katrina passed over my head. It was only a Category 1 then, but it was pretty nasty. Eleven people died and, as of today, there were still homes without power. That night the weatherman said this storm was on its way to New Orleans. That was Thursday! Did anybody tell you? I know you didn’t want to interrupt your vacation and I know how you don’t like to get bad news. Plus, you had fundraisers to go to and mothers of dead soldiers to ignore and smear. You sure showed her!
I especially like how, the day after the hurricane, instead of flying to Louisiana, you flew to San Diego to party with your business peeps. Don’t let people criticize you for this--after all, the hurricane was over and what the heck could you do, put your finger in the dike?
And don’t listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget for New Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them that even if you hadn’t cut the money to fix those levees, there weren’t going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because you had a much more important construction job for them--BUILDING DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!
On Day 3, when you finally left your vacation home, I have to say I was moved by how you had your Air Force One pilot descend from the clouds as you flew over New Orleans so you could catch a quick look of the disaster. Hey, I know you couldn’t stop and grab a bullhorn and stand on some rubble and act like a commander in chief. Been there, done that.
There will be those who will try to politicize this tragedy and try to use it against you. Just have your people keep pointing that out. Respond to nothing. Even those pesky scientists who predicted this would happen because the water in the Gulf of Mexico is getting hotter and hotter making a storm like this inevitable. Ignore them and all their global warming Chicken Littles. There is nothing unusual about a hurricane that was so wide it would be like having one F-4 tornado that stretched from New York to Cleveland.
No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It’s not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get out of town. C’mon, they’re black! I mean, it’s not like this happened to Kennebunkport. Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for five days? Don’t make me laugh! Race has nothing--NOTHING--to do with this!
Yours,
Michael Moore
ALTERNET.ORG

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh became the first Indian leader to visit Afghanistan in almost three decades when he met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul this week. It was a country not represented in the meeting, though, that figured prominently in the discussions: Pakistan remains a central, unifying concern for both Afghanistan and India.
India has pledged $500 million in aid to Afghanistan, about $300 million of which has already been spent. Mr. Singh promised another $50 million during his trip, which will go towards “adopting“ 100 Afghan villages by applying the same rural development programs that are used in India. Also, Indian funds are going towards renovating and reconstructing Afghanistan’s parliament building, a $25 million project; spending $80 million to rebuild a hydroelectric plant in Herat; and bringing power lines into Kabul, with a price tag of about $110 million.
Where Afghanistan sees India’s role as that of benefactor, Pakistan sees the intrusion of a meddler. Traditionally, Pakistan has regarded its poorer neighbor as a source of “strategic depth“ for Pakistani forces, should they ever needed to pull back into Afghan territory in the face of an Indian military advance. Under the Pakistani-aligned Taliban rule, Afghanistan seemed to provide Pakistan with that depth. Given the new cooperation between Afghanistan and India, Pakistan has felt encircled.
It is in part for this reason that Pakistan has refused to allow Indian goods bound for Afghanistan to be moved through Pakistan. (Islamabad does allow, though, the passage of goods from the opposite direction, that is those coming from Afghanistan and other countries towards India through Pakistan.) Blocking the movement of Indian goods raises the price of Afghan-Indian trade, and prevents Afghanistan from becoming a land-bridge between India and Central Asia--an important natural asset for a country that has few of them.
During Mr. Singh’s visit, Afghan President Hamid Karzai called on Pakistan to allow the passage of Indian goods into Afghanistan. Pakistan has said in the past that it will not allow Indian goods to transit through Pakistan until progress is made with India on resolving issues surrounding the disputed territory of Kashmir, which both countries claim and control a portion of.
Pakistan should rethink its position. It would benefit financially by letting in Indian goods headed for Afghanistan and Central Asia by charging custom duties. While it is true India has not yet acted on some of Pakistan’s constructive proposals regarding Kashmir, Islamabad now has an opportunity to demonstrate its goodwill towards Afghanistan, the NATO mission in that country and India by allowing Indian goods to move through its territory.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said in his July visit to Kabul that “a strong, stable,vibrantandprosperous“ Afghanistan is good for its neighbors. That comment reflects the kind of post-September 11 thinking that the subcontinent needs. Pakistan should begin applying it more broadly.
WASHTIMES.COM