Monterrey is an unassuming suburb. Applebee's and Kentucky Fried Chicken sit across the street from one another, billboards line the streets advertising for Hampton Inn and Quaker State Oil, BMW's and Mercedes are not uncommon.
This wouldn't be worth noting if I was talking about Monterey, California. But I'm not talking about that Monterey. I am talking about the one that is "south of the border," and home to Mexico's most prosperous industries and richest citizens.
Monterrey is also the scene of one of the most important political conventions that will take place this year. It was chosen to be so because it is an example of what money can do for a place — along with the rule of law and market oriented policies.
171 countries from across the globe will be represented in Monterrey — 52 heads of state are scheduled to make appearances, including Fidel Castro and George Bush. This thing is big, and it all began two years ago in New York.
A group of nations got together in that innocent time and created the Millennium Development Goals. These were goals for the reduction of poverty, illiteracy, and disease over the next 15 years.
The Monterrey convention is set to draw up an actual plan for the achievement of these goals. In order for you understand what this convention is up against, I want you to imagine poverty the likes of which I've never seen — the likes of which you probably can't even imagine.
It's the poverty of a 14-year old girl in rural Bangladesh. She is being forced to marry because her parents cannot afford to keep her and education is not an option. Several years ago, this was the case for slightly more than one in four13-15 year old girls living in rural Bangladesh.
This number has been drastically decreased in the Narshingdi district where a pilot program has curbed these childhood marriages and led to sustainable development. The Narshingdi district now has lower birth rates, better health practices, less children dying in infancy and a more productive labor force.
This successful program involves providing money for schools and giving moderate stipends to girls attending school. While it's barely enough, it is working.
The United Nations threw money at the problem and magically it seemed to have disappeared. In the past, this wouldn't have worked.
Developed countries, the ones who fund the loans and grants for pioneer programs like the one in Bangladesh, have gotten smart, though. They have learned to require changes in the institutions of a country in exchange for loans.
Strings have been attached to dollar bills and destitute nations are slowly being coaxed into the 21st century. In order to see the money, a receiving country must fight against corruption in their government, adopt market-oriented policies, respect human rights and the rule of law, and spend more on the needs of their poor.
This is a marked departure from the Cold War era, when money was given to toadies in exchange for political allegiance. The new system works to help lesser-developed nations and their people. The old system didn't.
The simple solution of throwing money at the problem has not worked in the past and will not work in the future unless the above constraints are kept. Yet, it appears that some of the developed nations, the United States included, do not understand this.
Some nations are coming to Monterrey in order to beg for debt forgiveness and to ask for grants that do not need to be paid back.
European leaders who oppose these ideas note two things. The first is that 95% of the loans are paid back which allows the money to be recycled (i.e. loaned out to other needy countries). If the money were not paid back, it would drain the coffers of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (two groups who loan money to countries), forcing developed countries to continue to shoulder the burden.
Loans help nations to help themselves. Still, European leaders realize that these nations are in trouble and that they have a responsibility. They have pledged to increase their aid by $20 billion over the next four years.
What United States President George Bush and his cohort in Argentina, President Eduardo Duhalde, suggest is a grant system and a debt forgiveness program. Here's how their numbers crunch.
Bush suggests tossing out $5 billion in aid. Argentina has a $22 billion debt, and Duhalde is requesting an additional $23 billion in aid to shore up his shaky economy.
As I see it, the Bush solution falls about $40 billion short — in other words, it's a solution that won't work.
The Bangladesh model, however, did work and continues to work for its people. The poor of the Narshingdi district are reaping the benefits of their loan in the form of a higher standard of living. Additionally, Narshingdi is now more prosperous and has sustainable development.
It is vitally important that we get it right in Monterrey. Millions of people, and our future, count on it. If we provide loans to lesser-developed nations and keep the strings attached, global citizens will have more to look forward to.
North Noelck is a biology sophomore. Reach him at
north.noelck@asu.edu.
