Unfulfilled Commitments

"The United Nations Millennium Campaign is disappointed that the recently concluded G-20 meetings ended with nothing more than vague commitments to the needs of the world’s poorest represented by the Millennium Development Goals."

Slowwww Progress

ONE's DATA Report is an exercise in accountability. It charts a course from past promises made to Africa to present delivery. The hopes and prosperity of the 'bottom billion' depend, in part, upon the fulfillment of the pact made between the G8 and African countries at the 2005 Gleneagles Summit.

At the 2005 Summit, G8 leaders made historic commitments to Africa, pledging to provide leadership and support in the fight to eliminate poverty, improve health, strengthen education, boost trade, cancel debt and increase effective aid by 2010. The DATA Report is ONE's annual, in-depth look at how the G8 are moving towards fulfilling these promises, both individually and collectively.

So what does the 2009 DATA Report reveal on progress towards the Official Development Assistance (ODA) commitment? A majority of the G8 is making progress, but two countries-Italy and France-are dragging down the entire G8's efforts.

By the end of 2008, the G8 had delivered only a third, or $7 billion, of the total $21.5 billion in aid committed by 2010. Some countries fared better than others: Canada, Japan and the US will meet-or beat-their relatively modest commitments; Germany and the UK continue to work valiantly towards their more ambitious targets. France's progress is disappointing, and Italy's performance is an utter failure. Looking ahead to the end of 2009, ONE projects that the G8 will have delivered only a half of their commitment. That means by 2010, the G8 must deliver the entire other half.

What are some of the other key findings in the 2009 DATA Report? While aid effectiveness is improving, progress needs to accelerate; smart aid continues to deliver lifesaving results; the G8 is collectively failing to "make trade work for Africa;" and although the G8 are keeping their word on debt, the global economic crisis threatens to ruin past improvements.

With only 18 months to go before the 2010 deadline, it will be an uphill climb for the G8 to fulfill their commitments. But it's hard to imagine a more important time to keep these critical promises.

- from ONE.org

Row Row Row Your Boat

Nobody preaches about how hard it is to stay in the boat. There is a raging storm, the boat's probably about to capsize, there are no lights, and yet attention is always focused on the guy who abandoned ship. Why is that? Why does no one preach about how hard it is to try and stay afloat?

Yesterday, we heard a(nother) sermon based on the passage in Matthew 14 (vv.22-36) about Peter walking on water. We've all heard these sermons. Regardless of how well the homilist preaches, the majority of the sermons that I've heard focus on one of several things: Peter's great big faith that allowed him to leap out of the boat; Peter's tragic weakness and lack of faith in the face of a surging storm; Peter's ardent desire to be like Jesus; Peter's vanity in wanting to be like Jesus; Peter's faith restored; Peter willing to take risks; etc, etc etc. Whatever the homily, whatever the occasion, whatever the context, sermons that I've heard about this passage often focus on the narrative, the dramatic, the suspense. Even Children's Time talks often focus on the magical image of Peter walking on the surface (not even ankle deep, mind you!)...

So given that we're talking about the Sea of Galilee, the scale is like 100:1, but I want to imagine a bit here...

What happens when we are trapped in the middle of a large body of water, tossed about by raging winds, the boat flooded with salt water, boat-mates frozen in fear (or scared out of their wits with frenzy, fear), and the guy who always wanted to be in charge has suddenly abandoned ship by jumping overboard? Might we paddle a bit harder? Might we lunge after sails and ropes, try and secure our safety, strap ourselves to some planks, some barrels, maybe some railing? And if it be a little baby of a boat, wouldn't we be even more scared at the prospect of capsizing? Would the seemingly imminent death by drowning force us to cast about for some sort of rescuing device? If that little boat is about to overturn, would we be frantic about staying firmly planted, using those wooden buckets to prevent the boat from taking on water? Do we sit still and pray?

The more I hear this more, the less impressed I become with Peter's great faith. I don't doubt the strength or degree of faith that is necessary for him to lunge into the waters. I want to shift the camera just slight and pan the lens toward the people back in the little boat. Imagine the camera zooming in to see their faces, their concentrated eyes and scared faces. Sometimes, it is much harder to stay on board that it is to simply jump overboard. Sometimes, the people trying to keep the boat afloat often end up workig the hardest.

In my opinion, a lot of courage is needed to continue working and treading water when you feel abandoned, confused, lost, as if God was not present at all. It's one thing for Peter to head toward Jesus, to turn his faith toward God, but he did so at great risk -- one could even imagine at the cost of abandoning his friends and companions. How much harder it must be to row an entire group toward Christ, to steer the boat in the direction of hope, faith, and security!

At our church in Chinatown, how many of us feel like we want to jump overboard to head to some safer place, some better shelter away from the winds? How many of us want to find a church that is not decaying or retrogressing? How many of us want to flock to some megachurch with preplanned services, ready-made spiritual formation programs, or 95% full church pews that don't require us to do any work other than to show up on Sunday mornings or during Lent and Christmas? Wouldn't that make things easier? Why work so hard to waste our energy by staying behind to build up a faith community? Why save a dying church? Why not join another?

In our workplaces -- at CDSP even -- how many of us want to find alternate employment to help us out of our terrible economic rut? How many want to find some other organization with a different mission statement and differing views to work with and work for? How many of us want to jump ship to another office in another city in another state? How many other workplaces can we find, how many other institutions can we buy into without having to work overtime to help an academic institution with a rapidly decreasing donor base and a slowly growing (if not static) enrollment count? Why not jump overboard and join another institution?

And, how many of us want to escape to another country? I'll be honest and admit that during the presidential election, I spoke candidly to a friend about the possibility of moving out of the country, perhaps to travel or to work or study abroad, to escape at all cost if my candidate of choice did not win the presidential election. I considered becoming an expat; the prospect of abandoning ship was not so terrible but grew even more enticing when a certain candidate decided to name a female running mate whose politics and demeanor I disagreed with. The situation seemed bleak, and I was ready to jump in with any other country if any would have this American. I practically climbed over the side of the "American ship" to make my plunge b/c surely trying to walk on water was better than staying onboard.

Finally, how many of us want to escape off this planet? Clean, renewable energy seems so fantastical; the water's polluted and clean water is being depleted per every shower I take in the mornings; the trees are being cleared faster than I can count the number of pages I print from my personal printer; the climate is warming up at alarming rates, the ice is melting, the animals are dying. Poverty, hunger, sickness, death... all that should make us want to jump ship twice over.

Truth is, we can talk about moon colonies and Mars colonies, but there is only one planet Earth. At least in my lifetime and probably that of my children, I won't be able to abandon this planetary ship. We are stuck here and we are stuck good. We'll need to paddle harder, faster, smarter, and more creatively. We'll need to stick together, with no one going rogue. It's not easy to turn things around, not easy to overturn a boat that's 2/3 capsized, but it's not impossible if we do it together.

Consider the efforts of the United Nations and the Millennium Development Goals, consider the Heifer project, and consider the ONE Campaign. These are strong examples of people huddling together in that figurative boat trying to stay alive. If we imagine the earth as a massive ark in which we all have to contribute to keep afloat, we'll see the connectness of Creation. Sometimes a body (or nation) needs to be pushed just a bit harder (ahem, the U.S. only contributes 0.16% when every other nation promised to contribute 0.7% of the GDP to developing nations).

We need to make the (sometimes) harder choice of staying in the boat, of being chastised as being weak and poor in faith. And perhaps that's what we need to wake us up to the fact that we
all carry the responsibility to live well because we are a part of Creation -- to be good and faithful albeit scared stewards, we each need to stay firmly grounded.

One thing I forgot to mention? While Peter's jumped overboard and these guys were struggling in/with the boat, Jesus is headed in their direction. They were never far from the grace, peace, love, and calmness that they needed. We, too, are never far from the Peace and Love that we need in order to live through something so terrifyingly uncertain. We need to make a commitment now. Abandon ship, or stay onboard and row row row your boat.

We are That One

Their vision was to take a potentially divisive phrase like "that one" and represent it as something positive and unifying.

Go see this excellent video.

www.wearetheone.org

Oprah may think Obama is "the One." McCain may think Obama is "that one." But WE are the one voice to change America.

Global Poverty & Presidential Candidates

I'm tired of hearing inconsequential criticisms of and by various candidates. What I need to know is what our nation's future leader will do to address concerns about global poverty and many other issues of MDGs.

Only two questions about global poverty have been asked in the history of modern presidential debates.

It's a shocking figure and in 2008, we need debate moderator Jim Lehrer to ask John McCain and Barack Obama "Just ONE question" on their plans to fight global poverty.

I just signed the petition (to get Jim Lehrer to ask the Prez Candidates about what they'll do to end global poverty) by ONE Campaign and you can too, here.

"2008 marks the halfway point to the Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs, set in 2000, to halve extreme poverty and global disease by the year 2015. The next U.S. president will take office at a key moment in our struggle to transform those commitments on paper into reality on the ground for some of the world’s most vulnerable people. The actions of the next president could be the difference between success and failure, and Americans need to know where John McCain and Barack Obama stand. Let’s make sure they answer “Just ONE Question” on global poverty at this critical moment in our efforts to end it." (from Josh Peck of ONE campaign)

Update on the Millennium Development Goals

The following is the foreword written by Secretary General Kofi A. Annan in the 2005 Millennium Development Goals Report. I highlight them here even though this was written three years ago; I do so with the desire of reminding myself, and you, of the desperate need for all of us to think of whatever ways we can possibly help achieve these goals. We will not enjoy security in our American homes (whether in the midwest or on the West coast or in the humid regions of the south) if we do not have development, and we cannot achieve and sustain development if we do not respect human rights -- for everyone. What have you done to reach the development goals?

NOTE: The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound
and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions—
income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion—
while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability.
They are also basic human rights—the rights of each person on the
planet to health, education, shelter, and security as pledged in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Millennium Declaration.

How will the world look in 2015 if the Goals are achieved? More than
500 million people will be lifted out of extreme poverty. More than 300 million
will no longer suffer from hunger. There will also be dramatic progress in
child health. Rather than die before reaching their fifth birthdays, 30 million
children will be saved. So will the lives of more than 2 million mothers.

There’s more. Achieving the Goals will mean 350 million fewer people
are without safe drinking water and 650 million fewer people live without
the benefits of basic sanitation, allowing them to lead healthier and more
dignified lives. Hundreds of millions more women and girls will go to school,
access economic and political opportunity, and have greater security and
safety.

THE ADOPTION OF THE Millennium Development
Goals, drawn from the United Nations Millennium
Declaration, was a seminal event in the history of the
United Nations. It constituted an unprecedented
promise by world leaders to address, as a single package,
peace, security, development, human rights and
fundamental freedoms.

As I said in my March 2005 report entitled
“In larger freedom: towards development,
security and human rights for all”, to which
the present report is a complement:

“We will not enjoy development without security, we will not enjoy security without development, and we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights. Unless all these causes are advanced, none will succeed.”

The eight Millennium Development Goals range
from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread
of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education
— all by the target date of 2015. They form a
blueprint agreed by all the world’s countries and all the
world’s leading development institutions — a set of
simple but powerful objectives that every man and
woman in the street, from New York to Nairobi to New
Delhi, can easily support and understand. Since their
adoption, the Goals have galvanized unprecedented
efforts to meet the needs of the world’s poorest.

Why are the Millennium Development Goals so
different? There are four reasons.

First, the Millennium Development Goals are
people-centred, time-bound and measurable.
Second, they are based on a global partnership,
stressing the responsibilities of developing countries
for getting their own house in order, and of developed
countries for supporting those efforts.
Third, they have unprecedented political support,
embraced at the highest levels by developed and
developing countries, civil society and major development
institutions alike. Fourth, they are achievable.

The year 2005 is crucial in our work to achieve
the Goals. In September — 5 years after they adopted
the Millennium Declaration and 10 years before the
Goals fall due — world leaders will meet at the
United Nations in New York to assess how far their
pledges have been fulfilled, and to decide on what
further steps are needed. In many ways, the task this
year will be much tougher than it was in 2000.
Instead of setting targets, this time leaders must
decide how to achieve them.

THIS PROGRESS REPORT is the most comprehensive
accounting to date on how far we have come,
and how far we have to go, in each of the world’s
regions. It reflects a collaborative effort among a large
number of agencies and organizations within and
outside the United Nations system. All have provided
the most up-to-date data possible in their areas of
responsibility, helping thereby to achieve clarity and
consistency in the report.

Above all, the report shows us how much progress
has been made in some areas, and how large an effort
is needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals
in others. If current trends persist, there is a risk that
many of the poorest countries will not be able to
meet many of them. Considering how far we have
come, such a failure would mark a tragically missed
opportunity. This report shows that we have the
means at hand to ensure that nearly every country
can make good on the promises of the Goals. Our
challenge is to deploy those means.

As I said in my March report: “Let us be clear
about the costs of missing this opportunity: millions
of lives that could have been saved will be lost; many
freedoms that could have been secured will be
denied; and we shall inhabit a more dangerous
and unstable world.”

I commend this report as a key resource in preparing
for the September summit, which must be a time
of decision. The analysis and information contained
here can help citizens, civic organizations,
Governments, parliaments and international bodies
to play their respective roles in making the
Millennium Development Goals a reality.

minor revolutions

Just this afternoon, we felt another minor earthquake. There were quite a few of us still working in our offices, and when the building shook, it was such a little shake that we didn't even stop our activities. Everyone continued at such a normal pace that I'd have to say the quake was dismissed as insignificant. As we continue to experience these little shocks, I see more and more that we have become lulled into a comfortable disregard for such little things. We no longer pay attention, and we no longer hold our breaths as the buildings shifted left to right.

As I think about this, I can't help but wonder how much longer we will be able to ignore such movements. And, what other occurrences in our lives have we dismissed with such complacency, without so much as an acknowledgement?

Is this similar to how we respond to the rapid changes taking over the earth? Is this how we respond to the rapidly melting ice caps? The quickly deteriorating forests? The steadily rising ocean levels? The climbing carbon emissions? Is this how we choose to respond? To do nothing at all?

Actually, no. As I can personally attest, the greening revolution is catching on, and spreading fast -- even faster than wild forest fires. Haha. I'm a part of the greening initiative at my church and at my seminary. We are starting small, and starting slow but steadily. We are only a small contingent of the larger movements, which is proof that change is happening...

7/7/07

7/7/07 is an important day. Not because Eva Longoria is getting married in Paris on this day. Not because the casinos in Vegas have special discounts and games for visitors. Today marks an important mid-way point in our Millennium Campaign. We have reached the half-way point towards our 2015 deadline, by which time we would have, with the entire globe's efforts, achieved and hopefully surpassed all the Millennium Development Goals.

As some of you know, 7/7/07 is also the launch day of Earth Lab, "the leading online worldwide community for earth friendly individuals and companies [...], established to generate social capital through education and motivation".

Do something earth friendly today. Carpool. Change a lightbulb. Plant a tree.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

Cau chuyen cua ONE

Cac ban men, mot vai hom truoc, co mot nguoi ban cua minh da hoi tham ve ONE.ORG, va da nho HAT giai thich them ve trang mang cua ONE campaign. Den hom nay, HA da duoc han hanh ke cho them mot vai nguoi khac biet ve cai global campaign de tieu diet poverty. Bay gio thi HAT nghi rang da den luc minh post nhung gi HAT da viet trong la thu cho Bu, de cho cac ban khac cung co co hoi de biet them ve cai campaign nay. Roi day, neu co thieu gi thi xin moi cac ban hay giup HAT ma bo tuc nhe...

Vao nam 2000, tat ca nhung nuoc o trong Quoc Hoi (la United Nations?)
da hop lai va tao ra 8 "Millennium Development Goals" (8 MDGs), voi muc dich (giao uoc giua cac quoc gia?) de giai quyet nhung nan de quan trong nhat cua toan quoc. Muc dich cua su ket hop nay rat tao bao -- tat ca dieu dong y rang nhung nan de nhu doi kem, ben dich SIDA, v.v. dieu la nhung nan de "solvable" voi nhung kha nang cua tung quoc gia. Van de la, minh co du quyet tam hay khong. Quoc Hoi quyet dinh rang toi nam 2015, ho nhat dinh phai dat duoc 8 goals (la muc tieu?). Neu muon doc them ve 8 MDGs, hay xem trang nay cua Quoc Hoi.

Moi nuoc (tu Phap den Hoa Ky den Duc den cac nuoc Phi chau, v.v.) deu co nhung ke hoach rieng de giup ho dat duoc 8 MDGs. Co mot nhom goi la G8 (Group of Eight) la 8 quoc gia manh nhat trong kinh quoc te (world economy?) -- ho hop lai vao nhung dip G8 Summit de ban tinh ke hoach cua MDGs. (Tuan vua roi, ho hop tai Duc de noi ve World Poverty va World Climate). Cung co mot nhom khac goi la 05, la nam quoc gia ke la "largest emerging economies" -- la khong phai nhung nuoc manh nhat nhung ho dang phat trien. Gom trong 05 la: China, South Africa, Mexico, India, Brazil. Moi nuoc dieu hiep lai de thay doi tinh hinh decline, va tren nguyen tac la minh co du kha ang, nhung co nhung nuoc (nhu Hoa Ky) lai kg chiu lay het suc de cong tac (co nhieu ly do dc dua ra, nhung chang ly do nao hop ly het ca!).

Vao nam 2002, ong Secretary-General tai QH da commission UN Millennium Project de giup nhung countries tao ra nhung ke hoach rieng. Hay doc them ve Project nay tai day.

Tu UN Millennium Project co Millennium Campaign. Day la cach hay nhat va nhanh nhat de co dong ca the gioi de cung hop tac voi nhau. O tren toan quoc, co nhung nhom private va public hop lai de "tackle" 8 MDGs. Neu muon doc them ve Millennium Campaign, hay doc tai day.

Ghi chu: Hai hom truoc, HA da kiem duoc mot website rat hay, goi la GCAP: Global Call to Action Against Poverty. Sau khi luot trang nay, minh moi biet rang ONE.ORG la mot bo phan cua GCAP. Nhung nuoc nao muon tham gia trong campaign de eradicate poverty thi ho dang len GCAP, va neu cac ban vao trang nay, thi se biet duoc nhung website cua cac campaign cua nhung quoc gia tren toan cau.

Rieng o trong nuoc My thi co rat rat nhieu chuong trinh duoc thiet lap de giup minh hoan thanh muc tieu. HAT chi biet so so ve hai chuong trinh lon nhat (in my opinion thoi nhe!), la project (RED) va ONE.org. Theo minh nghi thi hai program nay co nhieu nguoi de y va biet den vi nhieu ly do khac nhau. (RED) duoc thiet lap boi ca nhac si Bono, cua ban nhac U2, la rat noi tien tren the gioi, va voi tieng noi manh me cua ong Bono, thi nhieu nguoi chu y den (RED). Chuong trinh nay chu yeu la de ung ho chien dau benh SIDA o tai Phi Chau.

ONE.org chu tam den rat nhieu nhieu "causes" hoac "concerns", nhung dieu rat quan trong ONE campaign la viec tieu diet (spelling?) poverty va chua benh va ngua benh AIDS. 2 y chinh cua ONE la: (1) voi su ung ho cua tung nguoi, chung ta co the giup do nhau ma tru tiet su doi kem; (2) yeu cau nuoc My contribute them 1% cua ngan sach cho OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE de giup nhung developing countries dang can food, clean water, health, education, v.v.

Co nhieu nhom cung tham gia trong ONE campaign. Hai vi du cu the la Hoi Thanh Giam Ly tai Hoa Ky va Hoi Thanh Episcopal tai Hoa Ky. O trong nhung buoi Hoi Dong trong may nam truoc, ho da quyet dinh commit dang hien 1% de giup eradicate poverty.

Nhung, Quoc Hoi da tinh ra rang minh kg can phai donate 1% cua gross national income cua tung nuoc. Tu dau nien ky, cac nuoc da commit de gop phan ban cach contribute 0.7% cua ngan sach. Khong den 1%, chi la 0.7% ma thoi. So voi income moi nam cua nhung quoc gia, 0.7% kg nhieu lam, phai kg? Nhung, rat nhieu nuoc kg lam duoc. O trong HT Episcopal, ho yeu cau moi Hoi Thanh dang 0.7% cua su dang hien.

Hien bay gio thi minh den dau roi? 2007 la nua duong, vay thi minh xem co the dat duoc nhung muc tieu cua minh hay khong? Su that la, co rat nhieu nuoc da donate duoc 0.7%, va ho dang tiep tuc chien dau, nhung cung co nhieu nuoc kg commit duoc. Hoa Ky la mot example rat te, Bu oi. Nuoc My la 1 trong 8 quoc gia manh nhat, ma lai la 1 trong 5 nuoc cham tre nhat de gop phan. Ke tu 2006, nuoc My chi contribute duoc
0.022% ma thoi. Thay buon cuoi kg? La mot trong nhung nuoc manh me nhat, ma lai gop phan it nhat. Nhieu khi minh rat nan chi khi doc duoc nhung tin tuc nhu vay -- tu hoi minh tai sao lai la cong dan o trong mot nuoc vo nhan dao nhu vay.

HAT thay dieu can thiet la minh phai co gang len va kg give up duoc. Theo ONE campaign, chi can tung nguoi mot cuong quyet thi se thu huc duoc mot nguoi khac, va dan dan chung ta se dat duoc ma thoi. HAT rat vui khi duoc Bu hoi ve ONE.org, vi day la mot co hoi rat tot de HAT chia se voi nguoi khac.

Trong nhung trang web cua ONE.org, ho co mot phan goi la "Take Action". Trong do, ho neu ra nhung dieu minh co the lam de spread the news ve program nay. Trong 5 dieu minh co the lam, HA da lam duoc 4 dieu. Chinh vi HAT da lam dieu #4 (host a banner tren blog) nen Ban moi hoi HAT ve ONE.org, va vi Ban hoi, nen HAT moi co the lam dieu #2. Chi con dieu thu 5 la minh chua lam duoc thoi.

Con nua, dung quen noi cho nhung ban be biet nhe! Minh hay cung nhau tao ra mot the gioi moi!

HAT

falling short of the goal

Comparing Official Development Assistance (ODA) figures between 2005 and 2006, in percentage of national income, the U.S. fell from 0.22 to 0.17, Italy from 0.29 to 0.20 and Japan from 0.28 to 0.25, while France and Germany stagnated at 0.47 and 0.36 respectively; only the U.K. increased from 0.47 to 0.52. Furthermore, a large share of aid delivered in the past two years has actually been debt relief (much of that for Iraq). The picture for sub-Saharan Africa is bleak; excluding debt relief, aid to the region is stagnant, and no poor country has seen the increase in aid that would enable it to achieve the Millennium Goals by 2015.

All we have to do is contribute 0.7% of our national income and we've regressed to 0.17%. It's not just tragic, it's absolutely shocking. This cannot continue, can it, if we want to be the change we wish to see in the world?

G8, The World Can't Wait. End Poverty Now.

0.7%: What HAT can do

I've looked at the list of "What You Can Do" to support the Millennium Project. Beyond the 0.7%, beyond the letter to my congresswoman, I think I have something better... and it involves you.

Option 1: Urge our government leaders to remain steadfast in this commitment. Hahaha. Sure, I'll write to The Governataur and see what happens. Or, let's write to W. instead.

Option 2: Organize a fundraiser. Not quite ready yet, but I'm thinking on it since I have friends in high places.

Option 3: Be informed and inform others: ok, this I can handle. You'll notice that I've put a virtual "wristband" on my blog (left corner) for the One Campaign of the Episcopal church. There's also a banner for the 2015 promise. Please put one on yours. Especially those of you who are extremely popular and are close to world domination (ahem, ahem, no names mentioned but you know who you are). If you've got passersby reading your blogs, please, it's the least we can do to inform everyone. Check out the other projects that are happening in the Campaign.

Oh, you can also buy an environmentally safe and recyclable wristband. It doesn't look very fashionable, I know. But it makes a statement. A very appropriate one.

Episcopalians for 0.7%

At its General Convention in June, 2006, when it elected its very first female Presiding Bishop (hooray!), the US Episcopal Church also passed resolution to support the UN MDGs through its ONE Campaign.

As a staffer at an Episcopal seminary, it is my privilege to say that I am a part of that campaign. Even though I am not a member of ECUSA, it is still exciting to know that I can contribute in significant ways that will eventually make an impact on this earth. Each diocese, congregation, and parishioner in the Episcopal Church nationwide is encouraged to participate by giving 0.7% by 07/07/07. It may be difficult for some of us, but it is not impossible. Not for me. If I calculated this correctly, 0.7% of a $10,000 annual income is only $70 (did I calculate that right?). And for every $10,000, it's another $70. My salary's not like Bill Gates' because as we all know, theological seminaries don't have much funding. Lilly and Kresge will only give so much. Nevertheless, I'm paid. Which means I am able to help in whatever way I can. Yay!

Find out how much you can contribute! (And I don't just mean in dollars!)

0.7%: What ONE can do

Even though the Millennium Development Goals were not set until 2001, the international community has persistently committed to the 0.7%. What is it? It takes only 0.7% of each of the budgets of the more developed nations to eradicate extreme poverty. Imagine what we could achieve if the U.S. and other nations gave 0.7% of the GNP.

There are 22 donor countries -- the richest nations -- that have agreed to meet the 0.7% target head-on. Have they done it? Well, they keep agreeing and affirming their commitments, so we have at least that much. In 2003, the total, official amount of aid given towards the development goals was $69 billion (a large number, right?). But, the nations had actually committed to $200 billion per year towards development aid. It doesn't mean that we're going to cut off an arm and a leg to do it, either. It's only 0.7%!!

16 countries have agreed that they will meet the 0.7% target by the 2015 the deadline. Wanna guess whether the U.S. has set a timetable for achieving the 0.7% target? We haven't yet, folks. Shame on us. The US is one of 5 countries that have not set a date for meeting our target. Is it because we're afraid we will fail? Is it because we are uncertain whether we want to commit to this worthwhile project? Are we only talking nonsense but not really interested in doing it?

As of 2005, there are five countries (yay, you honorable five) that have already met their 0.7% targets:

• Denmark, 0.81%
• Luxembourg, 0.87%
• Netherlands, 0.82%
• Norway, 0.93%
• Sweden, 0.92%

Guess where the US stands. As of 2005, the US has committed 0.22% of our gross national income in aid. The US and Portugal are the two countries offering the least amount of aid (that we are capable of offering percentage-wise) compared to the other donor countries. (Even though it's not a competition) We beat Portugal by 0.01%.

US = 0.22%
Portugal = 0.21%

It is pathetic, folks. The Spaniards are reaching the goal. The British are halfway there. The Norwegians have left everyone else eating the dust (and if we don't eradicate poverty, that's what literally will happen--we'll eat dust. Yuck). The Swedes, the Italians. New Zealand, for goodness sakes! We can do better than this!

By 2015, we pledge to:

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2. Achieve universal primary education
3. Promote gender equality and empower women
4. Reduce child mortality
5. Improve maternal health
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
8. Develop a global partnership for development

"We will have time to reach the Millennium Development Goals – worldwide and in most, or even all, individual countries – but only if we break with business as usual. We cannot win overnight. Success will require sustained action across the entire decade between now and the deadline. It takes time to train the teachers, nurses and engineers; to build the roads, schools and hospitals; to grow the small and large businesses able to create the jobs and income needed. So we must start now. And we must more than double global development assistance over the next few years. Nothing less will help to achieve the Goals." -UN Secretary-General Kofi A. Annam

UN Millennium Development Goals


Do your part. Join the Millennium Campaign. Keep the promise. Stay committed.