Virtually ignored amid boosterish reports of the $13 billion in pledges and grants for Iraq secured by the US at the Madrid conference  were the consequences for other impoverished regions. Development officials say that the sums cited by the World Bank  and the US as necessary to meet Iraq's needs over four or five years (between $33 and 55 billion) dwarf what other poor, war-torn countries have received in the modern history of aid projects. It could also mean that what aid there is for these countries would effectively dry up.
As economist Jeffrey Sachs  recently pointed out, it's crucial that the world development agenda be set by the world, not by the US alone. The Bush Administration  obsessively views "every problem through the lens of terror and accordingly considers itself excused from the struggle against poverty, environmental degradation and disease."
As Sachs rightly argues, "The irony is that without solutions to these problems, terrorism is bound to worsen, no matter how many soldiers are thrown at it." More alarming, Sachs continues, "at the same time, the US is starving international initiatives in disease control, development assistance and environmental improvement."
If Iraq, according to World Bank  and IMF  estimates, needs $55 billion over the next four years for reconstruction , "what do the poorest countries need to keep their people alive and get a foot on to the ladder of economic development?" Sachs asks. "The US champions Iraq's needs while suppressing an honest evaluation of the needs of…dozens of other countries that are in desperate straits."
While making the war on terror the master narrative of its international agenda, the US has allowed other global problems to fester. But it's a crucial moment to make the case that the war on terrorism is only one of many wars and that the battles against AIDS , infant mortality, TB and Malaria and environmental degradation demand as much of the world's attention.