The Class System of Catastrophe

• Share

(2 of 2)

As many as 3 million impoverished children will die this year of malaria, although easy prevention (bed nets to ward off mosquitoes) and treatments (antimalarial drugs) exist to save those children. Tens of millions of Bangladeshi citizens are being poisoned daily by drinking well water that is laden with natural arsenic, yet the rich world has not seen fit to help resolve this long-recognized crisis. And the list goes on. The failure of the U.S. and other countries to respond to such utterly solvable crises results not only in massive unnecessary death but also in a vicious circle of poverty and political instability that often pulls the U.S. directly into the fray.

After the Bush Administration's initial pledges of $15 million and then $35 million for tsunami relief were roundly criticized, the U.S. raised it to a more realistic $350 million. But at just $1.20 per American, even this increased number should be seen as simply a down payment on aiding the world's poor. Almost three years ago, the Bush Administration signed a pledge, the Monterrey Consensus, to "make concrete efforts" to provide 0.7% of national income in assistance to the world's poor. Currently, the U.S. provides less than one-fourth of that pledge, just 0.15%--a mere 15 cents out of every $100 of U.S. income.

If the U.S. raised its level to 70 cents we would save millions of lives and enable many more to escape their poverty and their extreme vulnerability to natural disasters. Currently, our military spending outpaces our development aid by roughly 30 to 1. U.S. leadership in another battle, the fight against global poverty, would not only help restore the hope and confidence of a shaken planet but would also do much to promote the U.S.'s own long-term security as well.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and author of the forthcoming The End of Poverty