It is never enough. Private Australia gives .69 of our GDP to alleviate poverty. The Australian government gives somewhere around .36%. Well over the 1% apparently required. But people keep asking and calling it a moral failure.

It isn't a moral failure Tim. It is an intellectual failure. On your part. As many posters here have said....aid as it has been given has been worse than ineffective. It has made things worse. Instead of asking for more money or trying to get our government to FORCIBLY take it from us to give, start by asking how we can better use the money we get.

Also, trying to link poverty and terrorism with statements like "Australians understand that we cannot win a war on terrorism unless we wage a war against poverty. Too often the slums of the world’s poorest countries can become the recruiting grounds for terrorists and their ideology of hate." is also a failure of intellect. Scaremongering to try and raise funds is certainly a moral failure too Tim. Worse than that, it is a very very dangerous thing to do.

Terrorism and recruitment directly relates to political rights situations in the countries, and if anything, inversely to poverty.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1415550.ece
http://www.nber.org/digest/may05/w10859.html

All that will happen if we act on the supposed link between poverty and terrorism by giving more money is that we will get better financed terrorists. Dangerous Tim....very dangerous.

http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2006/09/poverty-and-terrorism-aiming-for-well.html
http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2007/02/poverty-and-terrorism-causes.html

Miacat and Tim,

While the idea that terrorism is causes by poverty might seem plausible in theory, in practice the evidence shows it’s not true. The hungry and oppressed citizens of the world’s poorest countries – Zimbabwe, for example - pose no significant threat to anyone beyond their borders.

The terrorists that most threaten western countries tend to be alienated immigrants and their offspring (the London bombings), rich, western-educated young men from Islamic countries (the S11 bombers) or multi-millionaires (bin Laden).

A recent study found that three quarters of terrorists were from middle or upper class backgrounds (see Sally Neighbour’s piece “Mates 'til the death” in The Australian of 19 Feb – alas no longer on their main website, so I can’t link).

When we identify poverty as a cause of terrorism we risk creating the mistaken impression that terrorists are victims and – worse – that ultimately we are the perpetrators, by our failure to alleviate poverty.

Now that is real "moral failure".

There are a number of points in the article that simply don't add up for me.

Maybe I'm looking at the problem from the wrong angle, but can somebody please fill in a couple of gaps for me.

>>Almost 30 years ago world leaders agreed that if the world’s richest nations gave 1 per cent of the gross national income we could end extreme poverty<<

It is of course a noble thought, and one that must have sounded great when the world leaders made this assessment.

But did they actually bother to write down how this was going to occur? Who would get the money, who would point the money towards proper "solutions", who would ensure it wasn't siphoned off into some despot's Swiss bank account? Or some UN official's Swiss bank account?

I can guarantee they didn't. They simply plucked a round number out of their... out of the air, and went away patting themselves on the back for doing something clever.

No doubt, a thousand quangos sprang up in the aftermath, who are still sucking on their respective taxpayers' teat thirty years on, having twice-yearly meetings where they can chat about how concerned they are. And play golf.

Proof, if proof were needed, is Mr Costello's admission:

>>In 2005 the world gave $US106.8 billion in aid when $140 billion is needed to make extreme poverty history<<

Can we assume that these contributions, 76.28% of $140 billion, made 76.28% of extreme poverty, history?

Of course not, otherwise the article would have had a completely different headline.

So come clean, Mr Costello.

Is the figure required actually $140 billion?

Is this a constant figure, or does it rise each year with a) inflation? b) population? c) a changed definition of what constitutes extreme poverty?

If it is indeed $140 billion, could you please point me towards a document, report, plan, strategy, outline, back-of-envelope... anything, in fact, that explains why this is actually the number and how it will be used.

The first step to solving a problem is to understand its dimensions.

Welllll Pericles.. hoo-bladi-ray.. its about time you showed some of your good ol analytical skill there.. and in this we are on the same page for sure. Why the heck do you suddenly morph into some thick-headed (no offense) dill when it comes to things like understanding culture and religion etc ?
I note here.. you look at the big picture.. see the obvious flaws, and capture it all very well. Yet.. when it comes to some other matters, you just don't seem to get it..or.. you have some other reasons for taking a 'contrary to the obvious' approach.

RHIAN.. a point very well made "When we link terrorism to poverty" etc.. I'm sure 'some' instances of terrorism are poverty related but you can almost guarantee its not the poor themselves initiating it, they don't have the resources, more likely some Marxist group seeking to capitalise on underlying resentment of 'the system' to gain a revolutionary foothold.
Its possible that any group, including Islamic fundamentalists may take advantage of whatever gripe the poor have to further their own agenda's "See..its the Western Crusader Imperialists and the Jews" (Islamic Radicals) "See..its the Western Capitalist/Neo Colonialist pigs" (Marxists)

I am very cynical of Tim Costello's motives when a clearly intelligent man speaks only in headlines which are prone to collapse at the slightest serious scrutiny. Now much of a simpleton do you have to be to simply believe that 'Poverty' can be fixed by throwing some western money at it ?

The cynic in me asks "Tim, is this some ploy to heap a guilt trip on the government so that World Vision can receive more funding" ? I don't suggest Tim would take such an approach for any personal gain..not at all, I just take issue with shallow soundbites like he has used. In fact its as shallow as saying "All Muslims are terrorists" or "Christians are right wing fundies"

If people must talk about terrorism they shoulld not ignore the Tamil Tigers. The TTs raised suicide bombing to new levels not exceeded until the implosion of Bagdad. They are secular Maoist communists. Terrorism is not only a Western problem in fact head for head we get off lightly. We just have better news coverage.
Guilt is an odd word, it is of unknown orign, it has no root meaning like belief or attitude. But it winds people up, there is a lot of emotion and invective in this blog. I wonder does this go back to eternal argument, the one common amongst the Kalahari bushman or Koi San the close decendants of the first modern humans. Who is greedy and who is lazy. Can we move on please.

I agree with Pericles...Maybe I need to up my medication....