28.7.10
Some questions to the (ex?) Honorable Dr. Jack C. Chow
By Michael Hermann
Dear Jack C. Chow
Re: Your propaganda article "China's Billion-Dollar Aid Appetite" of 21.07.
Congratulations to your well-written piece of propaganda, which has spread over the media like a wild fire.
I would like to ask why you write such des-informative article on the Global Fund's work and why to try to politicize this global institution?
Why this extension of usually commercial China-Bashing now into the Global Health Policy?
It would be interesting to know what your real strategy is � because as Kennedy School Graduate, Professor for Global Health, Venture Capitalist, McKinsey Associate, former US Ambassador, the first Assistant Director-General of the World Health Organization for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, etc � with all the credentials and intellectual and social capital you have - you could have delivered a well-informed and argumentative contribution to the development of social justice mechanisms in the Global Fund � but you seemingly just delivered a piece of biased political des-information.
So why?
*Why do you state that "Even more alarming, China's persistent appetite threatens to undermine the entire premise behind the Global Fund"?
Until now, the GF never has limited the scope of any application so China did not undermine any other country's chances to obtain a grant.
*On which data do you base your claim that China "can more than pay for its own health programs"?
China's county governments, which are responsible for most health spending and collect most taxes, are so cash strapped that they sell land to meet about 50 percent of their revenue needs.
*Why do you claim that the GF system has a 'Loophole'?
GF allows funding for HIV, TB and Malaria hit countries with a GDP up to US$12,195/capita (top GDP for upper middle income countries)
*Why do you try to portray that China uses this loophole unethically through its 'aggressive pursue'?
Any country could apply for any disease in any of the 9 rounds, totaling 27.
China has got 15 grants, Cambodia has gotten 15 grants, Bangladesh 15, Indonesia 17, India 20, Zambia 23. (you can download the grant portfolio table at the GF website)
*Why do you try to imply that China in reality is a rich country, which evades its burdens by hiding in the wrong World Bank classification? ("China stays in this lower-middle-income category because its huge population keeps per capita figures down")
China simply has the number of people it has � 1,328,000,000.
They are all like you and me � moms and dads, sons and daughters, poor or middle class or rich � needing food, health, education, etc � like everybody else on this plant.
It will take another 30-40 year of peaceful continuous development of annually 8-10% to let these people reach the upper limits of the current eligibility.
*Why do you keep quiet on the facts of GF principles, systems and working methods?
Why do you imply that China is suppressing 'rightful opposition' from poorer nations to its grant receiving? ("It is intriguing that health ministers from the poorest countries have expressed neither concern nor opposition to China winning grants")
*Why do you NOT mention that China has one the most alarming TB problems in the world?
Why do you NOT mention that China's NSA grant for Malaria is to ELIMINATE Malaria in China? If you oppose the global Roll-Back Malaria Strategy � why do you not say it?
Why do you NOT state, how the Technical Review Panel decisions are made which award the grants to China?
Or where you as medical professional disagree with them?
Do you imply that the TRP has not enough capacity to fulfill its role? Or that the TRP is 'Bought' by China's Board membership?
Why do you NOT state that the GF for 10 years has worked objectively, technically oriented to solve global health issues WITHOUT POLITICAL COLD WAR MENTALITY?
Why do you NOT state that EACH AND EVERY proposal from China was rigorous checked, revised and approved according to the same global standards as all GF grants?
Why do you NOT state, that Round 3 RCC HIV grant negotiations took 1 year to work out due to the transparent, clear mechanisms of the GF and the challenges of a unified national HIV program for 20% of humanity?
Why do you NOT mention that China implements most of its grants with A-rating � so it gets eligible for continuation (RCC and NSA) funding?
Why do you NOT acknowledge the hard work of all the GF staff, LFA staff and other supervisory systems which rigorously check that continuous funding is based on continuous delivery of results?
Why do not mention that GF funding helps to strengthen civil society in China?
That more than 375 grassroots organizations � most of them not even registered, because it is not easy to register in China � are funded through GF programs?
Why do you not mention that GF programs have supported 'de-facto' (not formally) de-criminalization of Commercial Sex Worker and IDUs?
Do you really not know all of this?
Or what is your incentive not mention all of this?
You only mention 'Loopholes'.
Misused by a greedy country with an unqualified Ministry of Health driven by its internal impotence to get funding from communist Party controlled state coffers.
Your way of des-informing your readers is appalling.
Why do you NOT state or applaud, that the GF from this year on evaluates country proposals based on a 'composite index' where 1/3 of the points are based on World Bank poverty level classification, 1/3 on disease burden and 1/3 on technical merit of the country proposal?
Why do you NOT mention all the other lower middle income countries which get funding from GF?
Do you actually would like to propose a reform of GF to that point that lower and upper middle income countries should be excluded?
This could be a relevant point � if supported by a forecast of its potential consequences for global health. But if this is your point � why only China Bashing?
Why do you not mention that China has a GDP/capita in 2009 of US$3,687, which ranks it at rank 87, in the rank of countries like El Salvador, Fiji, Angola and Albania?
Why do you not mention that Russia has a GDP/capita in 2009 of US$8,676 with rank 46?
Why do you not mention that Russia is the world's largest exporter of natural gas and the world's second-largest exporter of oil.( With prices at historic highs, the country is swimming in cash: Washington Post 22.08.2006) It repaid US$23.7 billion in debt to the Paris Club of Creditors in 2006 � 14 years before the due date. Yes � and they paid US$250 million to the GF � great, it certainly deserves applause.
The only number you provide the readers as background for your disgust against the US$1 Billion grant by the GF to China is the foreign exchange reserve of US$2.5 trillion.
So what?
What about a little primary school arithmetic?
China has a foreign exchange reserve of US$2.5 trillion that is US$1850/capita.
That is 1/3 of what Algeria has per capita (they have US$4800).
Or 75% of what Thailand has per capita (they have US$2380)
Or slightly more than Iraq (they have US$1680/capita)
(All 3 countries receive grants from GF)
Do you not know these numbers?
They are on the internet. Publicly available.
Why don't you want to use them?
Or do you want to propose that neither Algeria nor Thailand should be allowed to continue to receive grants from the GF based on a ceiling on foreign exchange reserves?
BUT probably � that is not want you want with your article.
AND � I agree � foreign exchange reserves are not a way of judging a country's development.
They are just a part of how GDP is produced, saved and allocated.
You could ask UNDP for ways of evaluating the development of countries � e.g. the "Human Development Index".
Why do you not state that China has between 130-160 million people living below the World Bank Poverty line standard of US$1.25/day in PPP?
Of course � with a Gini index of about 0.5 and all the glitzy Maybachs and BMWs in Shanghai and Beijing a foreign tourist can be excused to forget about the 700 million farmers in China � but an analysis from your side should describe the real average China � not only the show-off stadiums at the East coast.
You might have heard that the Chinese government works on the unequal and unbalanced development. As Wen Jiabao said at the last National People's Congress: "Social equality and justice shine brighter than the sun." So let us hope and support that China can realize this aim.
You state, that "It is audacious for China to assert that it needs international health assistance on par with the world's poorest countries".
You are wrong - No � China does not assert that.
As you explain yourself � there are rules for GF assistance to lower middle income countries � which are different from upper middle income countries like Russia � and low income countries.
China is simply part of the world community � like it or not - and it has the conditions it has.
Especially it has the number of people it has.
Surpassing the populations of Europe and Africa together.
A country in its own class � together with India � un-comparable as a 'country' with e.g. Botswana or Namibia, which have less than 2 million people � less the size of an average prefecture in China.
You can try to ignore the facts, you can misinform your readers, you can make political propaganda for your own world view, you can defame the GF which you have contributed to create yourself � but you cannot change the facts.
Did you never wonder why nobody else found this 'loophole' in the GF where you imply China takes from the poorest countries?
What about � if there simply is no 'loophole'?
But a fair system of judging countries by a recognized measure of development � like the GDP?
Could it be more audacious that a man of your caliber and media-influence disregards these facts?
Would it not be more open just to write � 'I dislike China and its so-called Socialist System with Chinese Characteristics and suggest that the GF singles China out as un-eligible' based on a special discriminative rule?
A Nuremberg law for the PRC?
Why not � if that fits into your world view, then why not go for it.
I am afraid that this world view is outdated.
History will not be made by Nuremberg laws.
History will be made by the masses.
All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality, they are not so powerful. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are powerful. (Mao Zedong, 1946)
But you seem to recognize that this wish will not realize:
"Changing eligibility policy, for example to exclude China, would entail time-intensive negotiations that may well pit groups of grantees against one another."
If your intention was to persuade China to donate to the GF � then why not based on solidarity with China to develop a positive approach?
Or like the Michel Kazatchkine � go to Beijing and talk to the Premier?
But that requires consistent and friendly interaction………..
I myself am not so sure, how China should do:
It is one of the most disaster hit countries in the world, with both droughts, floods, earthquakes, etc � direct economic losses this year until July alone amounted for more than US$ 7 Billion, and the flooding and hurricane season continues 2 more month.
Anyhow � again congratulations to a well-done piece of propaganda, and I look forward to future enlightening conclusions and suggestions of the RAND Corporation and its adjunct staff.
On the other hand I suggest that the RAND corporation and you better throw your political weight into reaching the MDG's, especially assuring that the OECD countries realize the political pledge to deliver development aid of 0.7% of GNI, and not only 0.19% of GNI as the US does with its US$27 Billion (2008 figures of OECD) of which 5 Billion go to re-build Iraq and Afghanistan. By raising US ODA with 67 Billion to reach 0.7%, there would be plenty of money available for putting 10 million people more on ARV as required, solve the 'Born HIV free' �task, WASH, task and reach plenty of other MDGs.
Best regards
Michael Hermann
China Representative
Humana People to People
(This letter represents my personal opinion, and not that of my employer)
Country Representative
The Federation Humana People to People
www.hppchina.org.cn
www.humana.org
No comments:
Post a Comment