Showing posts with label david cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label david cameron. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Olav Kjørven says that "stakes are high for UN panel replacing MDGs" - but doesn't explain why were MDGs expired and what did they achieved so far?

Read full article on The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/sep/25/replacing-millennium-development-goals?newsfeed=true

Stakes are high for UN panel replacing millennium development goals

The UN panel starting work on a post-2015 development vision faces huge pressure to cover issues left out of the original goals, to decide who to consult and how to set measurable targets
MDG : High Level panel post Millennium Development Goals : washing clothes in Niger River, Mali
Residents washing clothes on the banks of the Niger River, in central Mali. Their future, along with millions of others, is the focus of UN discussions to replace the MDGs. Photograph: Francois Xavier Marit/AFP/Getty Images
 
For the past 12 years, the millennium development goals (MDGs) have shaped policy, guided political agendas, and channelled hundreds of millions of dollars of aid money around the globe. But with the MDGs due to expire at the end of 2015, the international community is starting to tackle the huge, inevitable follow-up question: what comes next?

The post-MDG process will officially begin on Tuesday, when a UN-appointed committee of international political big-shots will meet for the first time in New York. Led by the UK prime minister David Cameron, Liberia's President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the 26-member committee has been assigned the task of creating a "development vision" to replace the MDGs after they expire.

"The stakes are very, very high," says Ben Leo, global policy director of the anti-poverty organisation, One Campaign. "Not just in terms of money, but also how much time and energy is going to be spent on monitoring and implementing these goals – and creating additional political momentum over the next 10 to 15 years."...

Read full article on The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/sep/25/replacing-millennium-development-goals?newsfeed=true

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Cameron Places Aid at Heart of UK Foreign Policy

click here for this on ONE.ORG

Last night UK Prime Minister David Cameron issued a strong defence of UK aid and development policy during his Mansion House speech on foreign policy. In a wide-ranging address on ‘Foreign Policy in the National Interest’ Cameron took on the “pessimists” who have called for Britain to pull back from its aid commitments:

“I believe in the moral argument for aid…that we have obligations to the poorest in the world but I also believe that it is in our national interest. Isn’t it better to help stop countries disintegrating – rather than end up dealing with the consequences for our own country: immigration, asylum, terrorism? Aid can help us avoid crises before they explode into violence, requiring immense military spending. And the answer to the legitimate concern that too much aid money gets wasted – isn’t to walk away. It’s to change the way we do development. By 2015 UK aid will secure schooling for more children than we educate in the UK but at one-fortieth of the cost. And we will help vaccinate more children against preventable diseases than there are people in the whole of England. That’s the kind of aid I believe in…”

ONE Europe Director Adrian Lovett welcomed the speech last night. He said:

“The Prime Minister is right to place aid at the heart of modern British foreign policy. Aid costs just over a penny in each pound of government spending – a tiny proportion of what is spent on things like the NHS and benefits. Well spent aid is obviously in the interests of people living in extreme poverty, but it’s very much in Britain’s national interest too. The UK is a world leader on international development. Now it needs to use its muscle to bring other countries up to the mark too.”

TAGS: Development Assistance, UK

Sunday, October 30, 2011

UNDP will have to distribute DFID/UK foreign aid based on "who is Gay and who is not"! David Cameron says: "no aid to anti-gay nations"

Iran and Syria's in question?


Cameron threat to dock some UK aid to anti-gay nations


David Cameron has threatened to withhold UK aid from governments that do not reform legislation banning homosexuality.

The UK prime minister said he raised the issue with some of the states involved at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Australia.

Human rights reform in the Commonwealth was one issue that leaders failed to reach agreement on at the summit.

Mr Cameron says those receiving UK aid should "adhere to proper human rights".

Ending the bans on homosexuality was one of the recommendations of an internal report into the future relevance of the Commonwealth.

Mr Cameron's threat applies only to one type of bilateral aid known as general budget support, and would not reduce the overall amount of aid to any one country.

Malawi has already had some of its budget support suspended over concerns about its attitude to gay rights. Concerns have also been raised with the governments of Uganda and Ghana.

British empire

Mr Cameron told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show that "British aid should have more strings attached".

But he conceded that countries could not change immediately, and cautioned that there would be a "journey".

"This is an issue where we are pushing for movement, we are prepared to put some money behind what we believe. But I'm afraid that you can't expect countries to change overnight.

"Britain is one of the premier aid givers in the world. We want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights.

"We are saying that is one of the things that determines our aid policy, and there have been particularly bad examples where we have taken action."

Mr Cameron said he had spoken with "a number of African countries" and that more pressure had been applied by Foreign Secretary William Hague, who deputised for him during parts of the summit.

Some 41 nations within the 54-member Commonwealth have laws banning homosexuality. Many of these laws are a legacy of British Empire laws.

The discussion in the Ugandan parliament of an anti-homosexuality bill in 2009 sparked particular controversy, and earlier this year Ugandan gay rights campaigner David Kato was beaten to death in a suspected hate crime.

Nigeria's Senate is currently discussing a bill banning same-sex marriage, that includes penalties for anyone witnessing or aiding a same-sex marriage.

A spokesman for the Department for International Development said that budget support, which accounts for about 5% of the UK's annual aid budget of £7.46bn, is conditional direct assistance to governments. To qualify, recipients must adhere to rules on poverty reduction, respect of human rights, good governance and domestic accountability.

Malawi recently had £19m of budget support suspended following various infractions including poor progress on human rights and media freedoms and concern over the government's approach to gay rights, the DfID spokesman said.

Reacting to the news, Uganda Radio Network journalist, Charles Odongpho, said he was puzzled by the move.

"I welcome any move to pressure our government to be respectful of democratic values and human rights but speaking as a Ugandan I think we have much more important issues to deal with than the rights of homosexuals.

"This is your money and you know where you want to put it but we face very serious issues of corruption, poverty, education and hunger. These are the most critical issues for us, not homosexual rights."

Appointing a human rights commissioner to address this and other human rights issues was one of the 100-plus recommendations of the internal report, by the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, which includes former UK foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

However, objections from a number of countries blocked adoption of the recommendation, according to Australia's prime minister Julia Gillard, speaking at the end of the three-day summit in Western Australia.

Besides the homosexuality rights issue, Sri Lanka's human rights conduct also came under scrutiny at the summit. The country will host the next head of government's meeting in two years' time.

Sri Lanka's army has been accused of war crimes during the civil war with the Tamil Tigers.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he will boycott the 2013 summit unless there are major reforms in the country.

Succession question

In earlier comments, Mr Cameron said there had to be a "proper, independent exercise to look into the whole issue of what happened, and whether there were war crimes, and who is responsible" in Sri Lanka.

BBC correspondent Nicholas Witchell said the summit had been seen as a "watershed" for the organisation as it "struggles to demonstrate its relevance, particularly on human rights".

Though the summit agreed to draw up a written charter and strengthen its ministerial action group, our correspondent said the outcome will be viewed by many "as a disappointing one and an opportunity missed".

Two other developments came from the summit - a reform of royal succession and action on polio.

It was agreed that sons and daughters of any future UK monarch would have equal right to the throne. They will also be allowed to marry Roman Catholics without giving up a claim to the throne.

The move was agreed by the 15 Commonwealth realms where the monarch is head of state.

And Mr Cameron joined the leaders of Canada, Australia and Nigeria, in committing tens of millions of pounds towards eradicating polio in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria.

The campaign will be supported financially by Microsoft magnate Bill Gates.

CLICK HERE FOR THIS STORY ON BBCNEWS.COM

Thursday, February 3, 2011

On Egypt, Ban plays the waiting game


CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS ON FOREIGN POLICY

Posted By Colum Lynch

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned today's attacks by pro-government mobs on peaceful Egyptian protesters as "unacceptable," called on security forces and demonstrators to show restraint and warned that the world should "not underestimate the danger of instability across the Middle East."

Ban's remarks, made to reporters following a meeting in London with British Prime Minister David Cameron, came one day after the U.N.'s high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, urged the Egyptians authorities to "avoid excessive use of force" against "peaceful" demonstrators. The Geneva-based rights advocate also called for investigations into the police's handling of the crisis, and criticized Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's government for demonstrating through 30 years of iron-fisted rule that "human rights have not been one of its prime concerns."

The combined remarks of the top U.N. officials marked an escalation in the organization's criticism of President Mubarak's handling of the current crisis, and offered moral support for the protesters who came under attack by Mubarak's loyalists. While Ban and Pillay stopped short of calling on Mubarak to step down, their remarks constituted an extraordinary public rebuke of the leader of a country that wields enormous political influence and power in the United Nations.

But the tough talk masked an essentially tentative substantive approach by the U.N. leadership to the popular uprisings sweeping across Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and the broader Arab world. After six weeks of near-daily protests in the region, Ban has still not yet convened his top advisors for a major strategy session on the crisis.

U.N. policy advisors, unlike their counterparts in Washington, have not met with Middle East experts to discuss the crisis. Only on Tuesday did the U.N.'s top communications officials meet with the organization's senior political advisors for the first time.

In the meantime, Ban's chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, and other top U.N. political advisors have counseled a cautious approach to the crisis, arguing in closed door meetings that it would not be appropriate for the United Nations to initiate bold ideas or proposals in an effort to shape the outcome of events or to be seen taking sides in a fluid political crisis whose outcome remains unclear. These officials maintain that the U.N. can only maintain its relevance over the medium- and long-term if it scrupulously avoids taking sides in the region. The most that Ban and other select officials should be doing, according to these officials, is offer broad public statements that endorse basic human rights.

Nambiar's approach has frustrated other U.N. officials, particularly within the communications division, who have been pressing for a tougher response to Mubarak's rule, and counseling the U.N. leadership to more closely align itself with the protesters. The U.N., they argue, needs to be positioned on what they see as the right side of history if or when Mubarak and other Arab autocrats fall.

Critics within the organization say that the U.N. leadership's caution is fueled by a fear of undertaking a politically risky initiative in a year when Ban is seeking reelection for a second term. They also note that the U.N. is concerned about upsetting other Middle East governments, including Saudi Arabia, which staunchly support Mubarak.

A deeper problem, they note, is that the U.N. lacks the intellectual expertise. None of the senior advisors in Ban's office are Arabic speaking, and none of the five top key policy makers in the Department of Political Affairs, which is taking the lead in fashioning the U.N. response, speak Arabic.

"These guys want to wait and see how this shakes out. They are not willing to stick their necks out because they don't know where this will end up, and they don't want to piss anybody off, particularly in an election year," one U.N. official said of Ban's top advisors. "If we were serious we would at least be briefing senior staff members on the crisis, hosting a panel of wise men, or bringing in experts from DC or from New York's foreign policy community. We're not doing that."

Ban's defenders say that the perception of U.N. inaction has been driven more by the fact that Ban has been traveling abroad, where he has been closely monitoring events in the Middle East and consulting with top regional representatives and advisors accompanying him on the trip. They say many of his critics in New York are not privy to those discussions.

U.N. officials also say that, even in the absence of a broadly coordinated strategy, there have been a number of individual initiatives from the organization in response to the crisis, including an offer to provide electoral assistance to Tunisia.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch