Because only UN peacekeeping counts, Greece, Norway and Portugal score much higher than Australia. What were we doing in East Timor. Having fun?
The last entry, the environment, disregards the debates about global warming and how to deal with it, so that signing Kyoto is the principal test. The highly tendentious nature of measuring "warming" and its tenuous relation to current, or even medium-term development is ignored. So is the use of nuclear power in France.
Closing down dirty, unsafe mines in Germany and the United Kingdom gets a big tick, while Australia's efficient coal production earns opprobrium.
Advertisement
It is irrelevant to the index that this "nasty" Australian coal creates power for jobs in India and China. A little mouse that lives off delicious crumbs in a private dining room high over 19th Street in Washington DC (centre of the aid universe) tells me that this index was cooked up over a lunch in its hearing.
The Centre for Global Development and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace are no doubt sincere in their compassion for developing countries. These NGOs believe by making taxpayers in rich countries feel guilty they can make them contribute more aid, and that more aid will lead to development.
Unfortunately, the evidence is growing that a great deal of aid is inversely related to development as it keeps dysfunctional governments in power.
The principal beneficiaries from aid are elites in developing countries. It would perhaps be going too far to say that as constructed and measured, this index of "commitment to development" is inversely related to helping developing countries, but, at least in its present form, the index should not cause Australians any embarrassment.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.