The Reviewed and
Revised Compendium of Christian Projects
Addressing the Diseases
of Poverty: HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and TB
0.7 Initiative: A Christian Response- A Call to Action
Submitted by PC(USA)
I.
The Situation
Since the upheaval caused by the
terrorist bombings of 11 September 2001, many people are facing upheaval in their
lives and the faith that has grounded them.
We see a world in which the diseases of poverty (AIDS, Malaria and TB –
as defined by the World Health Organization in its Massive Effort Against the
Diseases of Poverty) have become rampant at a time when the technology has been
developed that could greatly reduce or eradicate them altogether. First we must look and learn, and then we
must decide how we, as Christians, should act.
The 0.7 Initiative is one response.
Today, 1.2 billion people are living on
less than US$1 a day. Another 1.3
billion are living on less than US$2 per day.
This means that at least two fifths of the world is living in abject
poverty. In poor countries, governments
cannot afford to provide their population with adequate health care, education,
sanitation and many other basic necessities.
Throughout the world, 3 million children die each year of diseases that
can be prevented by vaccines. Eleven million
children die, often from poverty-related diseases, before their 5th
birthday. On 5 October 2000, Dr. Gro.
Harlem Brutland, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO) observed,
“Poverty is the underlying obstacle to human well-being…Being poor is bad for
your health. But being ill also reduces
your chances of getting out of poverty.”
Of the 40 million people in the world
living with HIV/AIDS, 95% live in poor countries. One fifth of the world’s population is at risk for malaria,
mostly in developing countries. Each
year there are 8 million new TB cases and the poorest and most vulnerable
people are at the highest risk. TB
thrives in conditions of poverty and overcrowding. (Health, a Key to Prosperity; WHO/CDC, 2000)
At national level, when poverty is combined with
inadequate health care, people lack knowledge and support in staying healthy or
in being cared for in case of illness.
This is made worse when these same countries are losing their
professionals - educators, healthcare providers and government officers - to
AIDS. The situation is exacerbated by
the problem of debt. Paying off
external debt has weakened the ability of poor countries to provide health care
and education for their populations.
Although some debt has been relieved, the 23 countries that have had a
part of their debt forgiven by the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) are still repaying over US$2 billion every year. The same 23 countries, including many in
Sub-Saharan Africa, among those hardest hit by HIV/AIDS, are then only able to
pay US$1.4 billion per year on health care.
Poverty is a vicious circle. It puts countries at risk for debt burdens
so large that they lack resources for healthcare for their own citizens. As a consequence, their citizens are at
greater risk for both illness and continued poverty. At the same time, they do not contribute to the tax revenue or
the workforce needed to develop the country and help it move ahead.
Foreign Aid and
Development
Foreign
aid constitutes the resources provided to individuals, communities and
countries, usually through institutional channels, so that they can develop
higher levels of wellbeing in economic, political, educational and health
areas. Foreign
aid, or Official Development Assistance (ODA) includes both direct government
to government aid (bilateral aid) and aid channeled through international
institutions such as the World Bank (multilateral aid). Despite the
promulgation of the International Development Goals by the wealthy countries in
1996, which included a goal to halve the 1990 number of people living in
absolute poverty by 2015, aid budgets in most Organization for Economic
Development (OECD) countries were cut throughout the 1990s.
In 1970 the United Nations set the
international aid target for countries in the Organization for Economic
Development at a rate of 0.7% of GNP.
Since that time, 30 years ago, only the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands
have consistently given above the UN target of 0.7 % of GDP. Thankfully, there
are some signs that the tide may be turning as the enormity of the task becomes
recognized. Ireland and the UK for
example, are both planning to significantly increase their aid budgets in the
coming years.
(See table below.)
Many figures have been put forward as to
the amount needed to adequately address the needs of developing countries
today. One estimate is that it will
take US$10 billion a year, for a period of many years, to turn around the
HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa. What is
clear is that those who are capable of giving it are not giving enough.
|
|
Aid in 2000 US$ million |
Aid in 2000 as% of GNP |
|
Denmark |
1.664 |
1.06 |
|
Sweden |
1.813 |
0.81 |
|
France |
4.221 |
0.33 |
|
United Kingdom |
4.458 |
0.31 |
|
Germany |
5.034 |
0.27 |
|
Japan |
13.062 |
0.27 |
|
Canada |
1.722 |
0.25 |
|
Italy |
1.368 |
0.13 |
|
United States |
9.581 |
0.10 |
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
The current trend of declining levels of
ODA is not a matter of insignificance but greatly reduces developing countries’
ability to progress towards a healthier, more progressive society. There is a
growing realization that the HIV/AIDS pandemic, malaria and TB are all not
simply health problems but a challenge to global developmental progress. The current levels of ODA are not equal to
the eradicating of poverty and the fighting of diseases. With the projected increases of these
diseases, poor countries will not even be able to maintain their currently
inadequate levels of development, leaving them with no hope for meeting their
need to progress further in their development to be able to address the
impending explosion of these diseases.
There is no strategy for successfully addressing these diseases that
does not call for a quantum increase in financial resources. Practically speaking, these resources must
come from the rich nations.
Christian life demands good stewardship
in how we use the gifts, time and talents that God has given us. God demands stewardship from citizens of
rich nations not only in how they use their own resources but also how they use
their positions of influence and citizenship to influence governments,
policies, corporate structures and others for the establishing of a just and
compassionate world. We must be
advocates for the disenfranchised.
III. A Practical
Denomination-based 0.7 Campaign Model
The 0.7 Initiative is one response. The model presented here is based on one
developed for use in one denomination.
As noted earlier, although international aid is not the only answer, and
that aid is best provided out of a response to our relational connections and
caring for our neighbors, the reality of our world is that aid can make a great
difference. If countries were to put
their promised 0.7% of GNP into international aid, today, US$150 billion would
be available annually instead of the US$50 billion presently allocated.
Although not a ‘silver bullet’, this would go a long way towards providing the
health, education, clean water and resources needed to empower people in poor
countries to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, heal the sick and care for the
widows and orphans in their communities.
Why should
Christian denominations in the USA participate in the 0.7% Christian
Initiative?
1.)
"There is a moral imperative for wealthy countries to provide aid
to poor countries. That imperative is even stronger now with a
global HIV/AIDS crisis. Had wealthy donor countries met the target
of giving 0.7% of national wealth in overseas aid thirty years ago, the large
scale of the HIV/AIDS pandemic might have been prevented". (‘False Dawn: A Christian Aid Policy Brief’,
June 2001)
2.) The historical links between
Christian denominations in the USA and Europe with their partner churches in
the developing world, and the credibility of religious institutions both
positions and mandates the Church to play a major role in encouraging
donor nations to honor their commitment
3.) The 0.7 Initiative provides an
achievable and measurable opportunity for the church to make a significant
difference in the health and well being of people living in the world’s poorest
communities.
4.) The 0.7 Initiative provides an
opportunity for Christians in high-income countries to critically assess
individual, congregational and national response and responsibility toward a
world increasingly polarized between rich and poor nations.
5.) The 0.7 Initiative provides an
opportunity to demonstrate Christian concern and determination, as a community
bonded by love for God and God's people, to improve the living conditions,
particularly of the poor, and the wellbeing of all human beings.
Christian
individuals
1.) Educate your congregation and
neighbors about:
§
The problem of the growing gap between rich and poor nations
§
The 0.7% GNP Appeal by the International Monetary Fund and
World Bank
§
The USA performance regarding international aid
§
The Implications for Christian stewardship in the face of the
growing gap between rich and poor
2.) Lead by example
After assessing and adjusting (if
needed) your pattern of giving, challenge your Christian friends and church
members to determine if they are allocating at least 0.7% of the financial
resources provided to them by God, toward activities which will close the gap
between rich and poor nations.
3.) Facilitate your Congregation and other
Christians who have already reached the 0.7% target to take the next
steps:
§
Educate others through personal testimony, minute for missions,
literature distribution, and presentations at gatherings from small groups to
large Christian conferences
§
Write to your congressperson and urge others to write their
congresspersons in order to promote the US Government recommendations
(below)
1.) Set aside at least 0.7% of your
income for international missions.
2.) Resources should be targeted at
supporting Christian health care, education and social welfare projects that
address both the physical and spiritual needs in poor countries.
3.) When allocating resources, be sure
that members of the recipient community have been included in the creation and
implementation of the projects to ensure that projects are appropriate for
responding to the community’s needs and the community has a sense of ownership
of the project. Low-tech, low cost and
local solutions must be given priority. Also, the majority of funding should go
to community-based organizations.
4.) Direct funds toward strengthening
health care and education services in poor countries, giving priority to
small-scale organizations rooted in the community.
US Government
In writing to your congressional
representatives, direct them to ensure that the US government:
1.) Directs 0.7% of the GNP for
international aid.
2.) Adopts a combination of policies, including
changing trade rules and canceling excessive debt.
3.) When allocating these resources, at
least 30% should be targeted at increasing human productivity by repairing and
building up health care, education, nutrition, housing, clean water supply and
social welfare in poor communities.
4.) When carrying out goal #3, priority
should be given to micro-enterprise projects, i.e. small-scale organizations
rooted in the community (programs that tackle the root causes of poverty as
well as the common diseases).