A matter of choice: to act or not to act

"Will the legacy of our generation be more than a series of broken promises?" - Nelson Mandela, 2001

Imagine a person swimming at a local beach or pool. We see them begin to struggle. They wave their arm in our direction as if to attract our attention. We are uncertain as to what we should do. We know that they are in trouble but we appear paralysed, unable to act. Where is the lifesaver? Is there nobody on duty that can help? We are not very good swimmers ourselves. Meanwhile, the person appears to tire, it looks as though they will go under at any moment. Finally it dawns on us. We need to take action. We need to do something. Find the lifesaver or perhaps dive in and save them ourselves.

Who among us would say that to stand there and watch and do nothing to help would be fine? What about turning and walking away, would that be OK? Because we cannot see the person struggle and perhaps go under, does this make our lack of action any more acceptable? Would it be any less cruel if we called out to the struggling person that we would help them and then took so long to act that they went under anyway?

Moral decision-making is not always about what we decide to do but also about what we decide not to do. We have the choice to act or not to act. Deciding not to act when you know the consequences of your inaction will cause suffering to another is as bad as deciding to harm someone. Whether we see the harm or deliberately turn away makes no difference.

We and the world's leaders are in that same position of deciding to act or to do nothing. To make the position even more serious, our leaders have already promised to act and have not acted with the commitment or the haste required. It is now almost 5 years since our leaders committed themselves (and us) to making a real difference to our world by agreeing to the Millennium Development Goals, the central goals being to halve the rate of poverty and hunger across the world by the year 2015. And yet the rich countries have not done what they have promised.

If they don't improve their response to making the Millennium Development Goals a reality, tens of millions of children will die a preventable death, extra hundreds of millions would be living on $1 per day or less, tens of millions of children would still be denied basic schooling and tens of millions of extra people will lack decent access to clean water and sanitation. The lack of action would directly cause needless death and suffering.

Surely at a time when we have never been more capable of reducing suffering in our world, we should decide to do so. We cannot turn our backs and blame someone else. We made the commitment in the year 2000 and now we must do what we promised, not walk away and abandon the most vulnerable in our world. 1200 people an hour die from preventable malnutrition. Not to act to stop this is as Nelson Mandela said in a recent speech, "a crime against humanity".

The way to achieve the Millennium Development Goals is clear. A recent report to the United Nations by a group of economists led by Jeffrey Sachs has laid out a blueprint for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Despite being behind schedule in many countries, if action is taken now, hundreds of millions of unnecessary deaths can be prevented.

The way ahead is clear:

• The amount of aid must be doubled from 0.25% of the incomes of the rich countries to 0.50%. This is only 50 cents out of every $100 earned. The total cost would then be an extra $66 billion, much less than the $1,000 billion outlaid each year on military spending and much less than the rich countries spend on subsidies to protect their own agricultural and other producers.

• Aid spending must more effectively reach the poor. Much aid is of the "boomerang" type, which "bounces back" to the donor country. Micro credit schemes are a proven effective form of aid.

• Trade rules must be made fairer so that producers in poor countries can compete fairly on global markets and so support themselves.

• Debt must be abolished for the poorest countries so that debt repayments can be redirected to the provision of essential services for their own populations like health and education.

Immediate benefits can be gotten from simple, straightforward measures like those suggested by Jeffrey Sachs:

• Distribute free mosquito nets and anti-malarial medication to children in Malaria prone areas

• End fees for primary education and essential medical services

• Get ant-retroviral medication to 3 million AIDS sufferers in developing countries

• Use locally produced food to provide school meals in hunger "hot spots"

The cost of inaction

• Tens of millions more children will die between now and 2015

• Hundreds of millions of extra people in sub-Saharan Africa will be trying to survive on less than $1 a day in 2015

• Tens of millions of children will still not attend school in 2015

• Tens of millions more people will lack basic sanitation and access to clean water

There has been much talk I recent times of the benefits of freedom and democracy. Yet what is the good of democracy if we never tell our elected leaders what we want? The generous response of the general public to the Tsunami disaster in Asia gave a clear signal to our government that we wanted to help. We need to give a clear signal to our government that we take our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals seriously and that we want them to act just as decisively in response to the "Tsunami" a week of preventable deaths that occur in our world.

"I say to all those leaders: do not look the other way; do not hesitate. Recognise that the world is hungry for action, not words. Act with courage and vision." – Nelson Mandela, 2005