The deadbeat of international aid

The vast conurbations of the developing world are largely unsewered. They have little clean water. They pile humans, pigs, chickens, dogs, cats and rats on top of each other. The largest cities each contain as many people as Australia. They are perfect incubators of species-hopping viruses of all kinds. And the viruses only have to make it to the nearest airport to make a global impact.

There is, however, no need to terrify ourselves about the inevitability of new pandemics.

We know how to prevent the spread of most pandemic diseases and to stop minor outbreaks from becoming major problems. A century ago, industrialised countries invested in sewers and water works and created basic primary healthcare systems available to all, regardless of income. Livestock was banished from the cities and instead raised and slaughtered in separate, hygienic new facilities.

It is in our own interest to give to our neighbours the power and resources to eradicate or mitigate these problems. We need to help them embark on massive sewering and water engineering programs, build robust primary healthcare systems and remove large-scale animal husbandry from the cities.

This may take decades, and cost trillions of dollars. But the investment will be dwarfed by the costs of a serious global influenza pandemic. A 2006 Lowy Institute paper by Warwick McKibbin and Alexandra Sidorenko estimated that a mild influenza pandemic would cost the world 1.4 million lives and close to 0.8 per cent of global gross domestic product (about $US330 billion in 2006 dollars). In an "ultra" flu pandemic, 142 million people would die and global GDP suffer a loss of $US4.4 trillion.

The costs of inaction about global heating are similarly staggering.

If we do not invest now in the public health and engineering required to make the cities of the developing world safe to live in, new pandemic diseases and global heating will bring about upheavals, suffering and the displacement of populations that will dwarf even the bloodiest wars of the 20th century.

Australia is contemplating spending vast sums on new armaments and engines of destruction to fight wars of a scope, scale and type unlikely to happen. We will lift our military spending to more than 3 per cent of GDP or about 10 times what we give to development assistance. But no Joint Strike Fighter can target an influenza virus, and no submarine can take out a molecule of carbon dioxide. As is sadly apparent in Afghanistan, armies cannot build or reconstruct nations or provide health care.

We all would be much better off if we immediately reversed the balance between military spending and development assistance. The billions should be spent where they will make a direct and rapid improvement in the human condition, not where they won't.