To Be a Global Civilian Power Izumi Ohno
1. The Situation Surrounding the Developing Countries — Changes in the Strategic Environment
The world situation in the post-Cold War period has triggered several important changes in the strategic environment for the developing countries. Firstly, there has been diversification and expansion of the development agenda. Development assistance just after the Second World War was centered on capital transfers by governments for purposes such as for economic development and building large-scale infrastructure, but emphasis was also placed on structural adjustment programs that stressed market mechanisms as well as on social development that gave consideration to the poorest segment of the population, and on governance, etc. Since the end of the Cold War, on the one hand the amount of private financial flows toward the developing countries has increased due to globalization, while on the other hand there has been an increase in global-scale issues that extend beyond national borders. Ironically, the easing of East-West tensions has caused civil wars and regional conflicts rooted in differences of race, religion, etc., to flare up in many parts of the world. The synchronized terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) further raised the importance of supporting fragile states and peace-building in the sense of carrying on with “the fight against terrorism” in alliance with the US.
As a result, the development issues have become inseparable from the domestic issues of the advanced countries and have begun to be linked closely with economic, diplomatic and national security issues. The agendas of the G7/G8 Summits, which began in 1975 and are attended by the leaders of the major advanced countries, were initially centered on the world economy, but from the 1990s in particular, the focus of interest shifted to the development issues, such as Africa, environmental and climate change, global health and others. Taking global health issues for example, we have witnessed an expansion of their geographical scope, together with an acceleration of their expansion speed (e.g. new influenza viruses) and an expansion of the policy object areas (e.g. intellectual property rights issues associated with pharmacological products). In accordance with this trend, health issues have now become diplomatic issues. In the US and the UK,
not only organizations specializing in healthcare issues, but also think tanks addressing diplomatic issues are tackling global health as an important issue.i
Secondly, there has been a diversification of the actors involved in development as well as an increase in the complexity and a further diversification of the development aid system. By making use of the opportunities provided by globalization, emerging countries such as South Korea, China, India and Brazil have achieved sustainable growth and made the leap from being aid-recipients to becoming donors. According to a forecast made by the Japanese Cabinet Office, China would overtake Japan to become the world’s second largest economy in gross domestic product (GDP) terms in 2010, and would then go on to overtake the US to become the world’s largest economy in 2030. When we take in the rise of India too, it is estimated that Asia’s share of total world GDP will increase from approximately 25% in 2009 to approximately 40% in 2030, while the US share will decrease from 25% to 17% over the same periodii. Reflecting these changes in the balance of economic power, moves have begun toward adjusting and restructuring the traditional development aid system that the advanced donor countries of Europe and the US built up after the Second World War and the rules that control it. The growing presence of the G20 and the voting rights reforms and capital increases in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) (where China and India’s voices carry increasing weight) are symbolic of this trend.
Moreover, a variety of private actors such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society, private foundations and corporations are now among the leading providers of support for the developing countries, and they are increasingly influential with a presence exceeding that of government ODA in terms of scale of funding (Chart 1). Taking the example of global health once again, apart from the international organizations and government organizations, as represented by the World Health Organization (WHO), other actors have appeared, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, that exercise an important influence on aspects of policy backed by their huge capital power.
Chart 1. Trends in Capital Transfers from the Advanced Countries to the Developing Countries
In terms of bilateral ODA, the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) serves as a watchdog for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of aid by, for example, periodically carrying out peer reviews concerning the quantity and quality of the aid provided by its member countries. But in reality, the
“advanced countries club” is strongly colored by being centered on European donorsiii. Until South Korea became a member in January 2010, Japan had been the only non-Western nation among the 22 DAC member countries. Accordingly, South Korea’s participation in the DAC provides an excellent opportunity to bring Asia’s development experience and view of nation building into the mainstream within the organization, and the South Korean government itself is aiming to make an active contribution as an emerging donor (as will be discussed in 3.(3) below). In line with the increasing complexity of the development assistance system including the diversification of the DAC membership structure, there is a strong possibility that we will enter an era when the legitimacy of the values and rules made by the traditional donors will be questioned.
Thirdly, while the remarkable rise of the emerging countries is drawing wide-ranging attention, the reality remains that the disparities between different developing countries are widening. In the African countries and in the fragile states generally, there is a danger that the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGsiv), which are aimed at reducing poverty worldwide by 2015, will not be achieved. Chart 2 shows the status of MDG achievement by region. The target of halving the number of people living on less than US$1 a day has already been achieved in East Asia, but progress on this goal is lagging a long way behind schedule in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
A further widening of the disparities between developing countries could be a destabilizing factor for the world. It is very important to support nation building in the least developed countries in order to forestall destabilization and increase the number of friendly countries in future.
Chart 2. The Status of MDG Achievement by Region
Goal 1: Halve the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015
Ratio of people living on US$1.25 or less per day, comparison between 1990 and 2005 (Unit：%)
Sub-Saharan Africa
South Asia
South Asia except India
Asian Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries
Southeast Asia
East Asia
Latin America/Caribbean
West Asia
North Africa
Southeast European transitional economies
European CIS countries
Developing regions
1990 2005 2015 Target
Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN Millennium Development Goals Report, June 2010