With the media already besotted by an event seven
months away, it was good to see the Observer`s editorial concentrating on
something more relevant to the world today.(The world must unite and act quickly
on Ebola,05/10/14) With the possibility of "1.4m new cases" by the end of next
January, the Ebola outbreak, as you rightly say, is "a matter of truly
international concern".
The truth is that the world`s commitment to the
possibility of a global pandemic "spiralling out of control" has been
practically non-existent, with even sums like the £125m given by the UK to
Sierra Leone looking totally inadequate, when compared with money spent on air
attacks in the Middle East, or given to enrich the wealthy, in the form of tax
reductions. Isn`t it funny how money is often no problem for governments intent
on winning elections or making war, but when health problems erupt in poorer
parts of the globe, the national deficit suddenly appears too problematic to
enable sufficient financial support to be sent? When vast sums are needed, for
example to give the American economy a boost, or to re-stabilise British banks
to the tune of £375bn, quantitative easing is seen as the solution, so why
cannot the same method of money creation be employed to provide the WHO with all
the required experts, medicine and equipment? The usual German objection to such
measures, about fears of repeating 1923`s hyper-inflation, would have even
less relevance than normal, and it would be an opportunity for politicians to
prove that there is more to their world than hypocrisy and duplicity, bribing
voters and election victories.
No comments:
Post a Comment