At last week's World Economic Forum, held in New York this year instead of in Davos, Switzerland, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Bono, lead singer for the rock band U2, announced a plan to focus the world's attention on issues confronting Africa. The program is called the "DATA Agenda": Debt, AIDS and Trade for Africa, in return for democracy, accountability and transparency in Africa. Gates and Bono view the DATA Agenda as a Marshall Plan for Africa.

Bono stated: "The United States invested in Europe after the Second World War as a bulwark against Sovietism. And it had debt cancellation as part of it, and trade, etc. At the moment," he continued, "Africa is in the same kind of vulnerable position that Europe was--to other extremists and ideologies. And I think it would be very smart for the West to invest in preventing the fires rather than putting them out, which is a lot more expensive."

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has been a major supporter of health initiatives (including the IPPF), will be a source of funding for DATA, hopefully along with governments of industrialized countries. Gates and Bono are approaching the leaders of the G8 countries--the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia--to get their support for the plan and to open trade with Africa. Africa, as the poorest and least healthy continent, is in dire need of new approaches to improve the health of its people and its economic viability. The Gates-Bono proposal is an example of farsighted philanthropy aimed at motivating governments to respond in a like manner.

Other areas of the world, in addition to Africa, could use this kind of leadership, particularly Latin America and the Caribbean.

Why does this region of the world get ignored, except when the United States unilaterally intervenes to replace a government it doesn't like? Is it because it has a lower incidence of AIDS than Africa? Or is less poor? Has less oil? Has no nuclear missiles? Or because none of its citizens have led suicide attacks on U.S. civilians? U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere varies between isolationism and interventionism, with the hemisphere usually being ignored in comparison to other parts of the globe. Latin America is seen as neither a strategic threat nor a benefit.

The United States seems stuck in a 1960s Cuban time warp where its hemispheric policy is still dictated by the unrelenting hatred held by politically organized Cuban refugees against an aging dictator named Fidel Castro. Castro ceased being a Soviet power pawn ten years ago, yet President Bush has maintained the U.S. embargo against Cuba, a stand that was reinforced by last week's appointment of Otto Reich, a longtime embargo supporter, to head the State Department's Latin America bureau.

Meanwhile, Colombia is in the middle of a civil war, Argentina is in economic meltdown, Haiti is a political mess, the Venezuelan government is in crisis, and Bush's former favorite, Mexico, is now a wallflower at the Clash-of-Civilizations Ball. When the U.S. public thinks about Latin America, it thinks about drugs and immigrants, which seem to come equally quickly over the border. Given the increased Hispanic presence and power in the United States, perhaps it is time for a new look at our policies in the Western Hemisphere?

Why is there no Marshall Plan for Latin America? When we look for a U.S. policy relating to Latin America, mostly we see a failed drug policy. We don't see a major economic investment policy, or programs to increase democratic rights and to strengthen governmental legitimacy. Bono and Gates rightly point out that African governments have a long history of graft and corruption in foreign aid to overcome before trust can be established and Western coffers opened. Latin American governments are not immune from graft and scandal, but virtually all governments in Latin America have been democratically elected, and there are the beginnings of public and political accountability throughout the hemisphere. There is still much work to be done to ensure civil, political and property rights in Latin America, rights we take for granted in the United States. But there is a far better chance that U.S. aid delivered to Latin America will actually go to the people who need it.

Furthermore, the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other free trade agreements have opened up much of the hemisphere to freer trade. There are continuing controversies over how much, if at all, the average citizen in Latin America has benefited from freer trade, and there are continuing labor and environmental disputes around these agreements. Nevertheless, the process for going forward is institutionalized, and parties with differing views will be heard. Globalization and its forces are affecting Latin America as much as other areas of the world.

In referring to his new DATA Agenda, Bill Gates said: "The time is really now to change these things. That's true from the point of view of the relationship between the rich world and the poor world, it's true from a security point of view, an economic point of view. . . . We're hopeful that the U.S. and other governments will see this as a turning point."

Britain, France and other European nations have been pushing plans to boost aid from the world's wealthiest nations to poor countries and regions, but the Bush administration has blocked these proposals. In November, Treasury Secretary O'Neill in effect vetoed a proposed call by the finance ministers of the wealthy Group of 7 nations that they all aim to devote 0.7% of their gross domestic product (GDP) to international aid programs. This was the target set at the Cairo Conference in 1994. Few now are close to that goal; the furthest away, figures show, is the United States, where an estimated 0.1% of the GDP goes to foreign aid.

More recently, the U.S. Treasury torpedoed proposals to have wealthy nations pledge an eventual doubling in their foreign aid commitment. Proponents had hoped to have the pledge adopted at a U.N. conference on foreign aid next month in Mexico, but the administration told conference planners that President Bush would cancel a planned appearance there if specific aid commitments were adopted, diplomats at the United Nations said. The proponents backed down, and Bush will go to Mexico for a dance.

In a further slap at the world, one year after reinstating the Global Gag Rule (GGR), President Bush is now holding up funds authorized by Congress for one of the most important providers of international family planning, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The House and Senate reached a compromise on the Foreign Operations bill that appropriated some $446 million to support overseas family planning assistance for 2002, in addition to as much as $34 million for UNFPA. However, the compromise removed language from the bill, approved by the Senate, that would have overturned the GGR policy. UNFPA's funding was subject to approval by President Bush, who earmarked $25 million for the agency in his original budget proposal. His threat to withhold U.S. funding is being done at the behest of anti-choice U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J.

The Gates-Bono proposal should be seriously looked at by our government. Rather than issuing blanket refusals to increase foreign aid and holding back moneys appropriated for UNFPA, our government should see that increasing humanitarian investment abroad, tied to accountability, democracy and transparency, is an important part of ensuring world stability and U.S. security. The private philanthropic foundations of the world and the nongovernmental organizations of the world can't do this alone.

Alex Sanger
2/8/02