Bringing progress and prosperity to struggling nations

George W Bush gave a long speech to the Global Leadership Campaign yesterday, focusing on international development and clean energy. The title of this post is a phrase Bush used four times. He also emphasised as many times that each initiative was ultimately in the interests of American peace and prosperity, a concept BritainAndAmerica strongly believes in, and that America was a leader in these issues. Continue reading to read the key sections of the speech:

Compassionate America

"We are a compassionate nation. When Americans see suffering and know that our country can help stop it, they expect our government to respond. I believe in the timeless truth, and so do a lot of other Americans, to whom much is given, much is required. We're blessed to live in this country. We're blessed to live in the world's most prosperous nation. And I believe we have a special responsibility to help those who are not as blessed. It is the call to share our prosperity with others, and to reach out to brothers and sisters in need."

Helping others is in our own interest

"We help the least fortunate across the world because our conscience demands it. We also recognize that helping struggling nations succeed is in our interest. When America helps lift societies out of poverty we create new markets for goods and services, and new jobs for American workers. Prosperity abroad can be translated to jobs here at home. It's in our interest that we help improve the economies of nations around the world. When America helps reduce chaos and suffering, we make this country safer, because prosperous nations are less likely to feed resentment and breed violence and export terror. Helping poor nations find the path to success benefits this economy and our security, and it makes us a better country. It helps lift our soul and renews our spirit."

Free trade lifts people out of poverty

"Bringing progress and prosperity to struggling nations requires opening new opportunities for trade. Trade is the best way to help poor countries develop their economies and improve the lives of their people. When I took office, America had free trade agreements with three countries. Today we have free trade agreements in force with 14 countries, most of which are in the developing world. Three weeks ago, my administration and Congress agreed on a new trade policy that will be applied to free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea. And I look forward to working with Congress to get all these trade bills passed. These bills are good for our economy. But it's important for members of Congress and the people of this country to understand free trade is the best way to lift people out of poverty."

Results-driven giving

"We're focusing increased American assistance for developing nations on three key goals -- in other words, we have some goals, we're not just going to spend money. We have a reason to spend the money and we expect there to be results when we spend that money -- so do the taxpayers of this country. It's one thing to be compassionate, it's another thing to be accountable for the money."

Incentivising democratic reform

"We're going to use our aid to help developing countries build democratic and accountable institutions and strengthen their civil societies. To succeed in the global economy, nations need fair and transparent legal systems; need free markets that unleash the creativity of their citizens; need banking systems that serve people at all income levels; and a business climate that welcomes foreign investment and supports local entrepreneurs.The United States is helping developing nations build these and other free institutions through what we call the Millennium Challenge Account. Under this program, America makes a compact with developing nations. We give aid, and in return they agree to implement democratic reforms, to fight corruption, to invest in their people -- particularly in health and education -- and to promote economic freedom."

Strengthening African financial markets

"Today, I'm announcing a new project called Africa Financial Sector Initiative. Through this initiative, we'll provide technical assistance to help African nations strengthen their financial markets. The U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corps, OPIC, headed by Rob Mosbacher, will work with the financial community to create several new private equity funds that will mobilize up to a billion dollars of additional private investment in Africa.If you're interested in job creation, there's got to be capital available. It's in our interest that we help provide capital to African entrepreneurs. We want them to find access to capital, and we want them to have access to markets because we want to improve their lives. And when people's lives in countries on the continent of Africa improve, it helps the United States of America. It's what our taxpayers have got to understand."

Educational opportunities

"If boys and girls in Africa and other developing nations don't learn how to read, write, and add and subtract, this world is just going to move on without them. And all the aid efforts we'll be trying will go to naught, in my judgment.And so in 2002, I launched the African Education Initiative to help address the great need. Through this initiative, we have provided about $300 million to expand educational opportunities throughout the continent, and we're going to provide another $300 million by 2010. We will have doubled our commitment."

Goals for tackling disease

"Three years ago, about 50,000 people on the continent of Africa were receiving antiretroviral drugs for help. Today, over 1.1 million people are receiving lifesaving drugs. And this is a good start. It's a necessary start, and it's a promising start; but we need to do more. Yesterday I called on Congress to greatly expand our efforts in the fight against HIV/AIDS, by doubling our initial commitment, by dedicating an additional $30 billion to this struggle over the next five years in the year 2009. And here's the goal: support treatment for nearly 2.5 million people, to prevent more than 12 million new infections, and to provide compassionate care for 12 million people, including 5 million more orphans and vulnerable children."

A long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases

"It's hard to grow your economy if you don't have energy. Yet, producing that energy can create environmental challenges for the world. We need to harness the power of technology to help nations meet their growing energy needs while protecting the environment and addressing the challenge of global climate change.In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it. The United States takes this issue seriously. The new initiative I am outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week."

Technology-driven environmentalism

"The way to meet this challenge of energy and global climate change is through technology, and the United States is in the lead. The world is on the verge of great breakthroughs that will help us become better stewards of the environment. Over the past six years, my administration has spent, along with the Congress, more than $12 billion in research on clean energy technology. We're the world's leader when it comes to figuring out new ways to power our economy and be good stewards of the environment."

Low-cost financing options for clean energy

"We're also going to work to conclude talks with other nations on eliminating tariffs and other barriers to clean energy technologies and services by the end of year. If you are truly committed to helping the environment, nations need to get rid of their tariffs, need to get rid of those barriers that prevent new technologies from coming into their countries. We'll help the world's poorest nations reduce emissions by giving them government-developed technologies at low cost, or in some case, no cost at all."

Related links: Click here for the fact sheet that accompanied this speech, and here for Tim Montgomerie's defence of Tony Blair's foreign policy principles.

Comments

[Derek]

George Bush talks a lot of good sense. He is right when he says that if we are to have any agreement on CO2 reductions it must be agreed by all the major industrial nations. If they can't all agree then no agreement will work.

[JF]

This speech hits all the right notes, but unfortunately, we've heard this before in Bush's first term. Either the progress has not been well reported or the initiatives are not functioning correctly, but they don't seem to produce much in the way of results. And with the recent World Bank controversy, I have to ask: where is Europe in all of this?

[Steevo]

Such money and initiative hardly ever produce much except our taxes going down the inept, ignorant, corrupt and greedy drain. I'm tired of it. To me its more America the Savior pie-in-the-sky foolishness. I can't even credit good intentions. And frankly who wants to give us credit even when they are? The more Bush talks the more I want him to go.

[Dennis]

"We're going to use our aid to help developing countries build democratic and accountable institutions and strengthen their civil societies. To succeed in the global economy, nations need fair and transparent legal systems; need free markets that unleash the creativity of their citizens"

Under the heading 'Incentivising democratic reform' Bush demonstrates why all he says is a load of hot anal flatulence.
The use of aid as a bargaining tool is tantamount to blackmailing nations to tow the US line or suffer economic sanction & consequently deprivation.
I am not suggesting that the US should support countries who are not governed in keeping with US principles.
However when nations decide to distance themselves from the US model, they should not be automatically prescribed as 'un-democratic.

Is the US Justice system fair & transparent?

Do U.S subsidies and protectionist tariffs help or hinder developing nations from advancing and develop free markets?

Pres.Bush has neither the will, intent or ability to challenge & alter the policies which maintain the inequalities inherent in the global economy.
He should ensure he fixes the problems Americans are suffering from in the US and the disaster he engineered in Iraq before taking on any global challenges.
I think the world in general(US & UK included) has more of chance without his & his adminstrations twisted logic.

[JF]

Dennis, that's a splendid idea. We should withdraw the billions of dollars that we spend on the UN, IMF, World Bank, and other useless multilateral institutions, and instead cut taxes instead. The UK should do the same to reverse the Brown tax increases. US and UK growth (and consequent trade) does more to help the poor than aid to kleptocrats.

[Kevin Sampson]

Through in NATO and I'm there.

[JF]

Kevin, I actually think NATO can be salvaged. All we need to do is expel everyone but the Netherlands, Canada, the US, the UK (i.e. those doing the real work in Afghanistan), and invite Japan, Singapore, and Australia to join, and then we'll have an alliance worth more than the paper it's contracted on. But the underlying structure of NATO is a good one and should be preserved.

[Kevin Sampson]

I have serious doubts about the Netherlands and Canada, but the question is academic. The Charter does not provide for us, or anyone else, to 'expel' anybody. However, I'm not at all certain we need another NATO. It was a product of the bi-polar world of the cold war, and without the unifying threat of the Soviet Union, I doubt it would be possible to assemble, much less maintain, an alliance as geographically far-flung as you describe. The perceived threats, as well as the preferred solutions, are simply too disparate.

[JF]

Kevin, I'm not a lawyer, but Articles XII and XIII seem to provide an opening for the expulsion of members (directly or indirectly through changes that certain members would find unacceptable, causing their withdrawal).

The hollowness of Article V's 2001 invocation may have already doomed NATO, but ultimately, the war on terror is a new global threat that I believe a formal alliance could successfully combat (intelligence sharing, joint commands, pooling of resources). NATO may be too hard to reform, as you point out, but a new organization could be helpful in that regard, as "coalitions of the willing" don't hold anyone to account, as we have seen in Iraq.

I would rather focus on dismantling the UN, IMF, and World Bank, but I could accept the destruction of NATO in the process.

[Kevin Sampson]

This sounds like our cue to exit Europe, stage right:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070602.wputin01/BNStory/International/home

The Left, and a good bit of the Right as well, will use this to demand a halt to the deployment of the ABM system in Eastern Europe on the grounds that it puts their own safety at risk. And they're right, it does. But the corollary to that is that extending our nuclear umbrella to include Europe puts the US at increased risk. Therefore, I think we should accede to the Lefts demands and pack it in, post haste.

[MILAN THOMAS]

sir, iam MILAN THOMAS.an 18 years old boy living in india, my family is a poor family ,and i finished my education upto plus-two and i didn't continue it because of some financial problems in my family ,my dream is to continue my education and take any jobs in u.s.a. or in any other countries.