America and Britain should join forces to end poverty: both nations "believe that peace and security are the foundation of any progress … that creating the right climate for economic growth … is the best way … to raise the finances needed to defeat poverty."

Fighting AIDS also is an issue of capacity, and it is one where the U.S. has shown great leadership. We are the two biggest donors in the global fight against AIDS. The U.S., like the UK, understands that it is vital to make sure that the way we offer help actually assists those fighting this disease on the ground; is a big supporter of the Global Fund; and recognizes the need to do more to help countries build their health care--doctors, nurses, drags, and clinics--if AIDS is to be defeated.

On some other issues, however--abstinence and condoms, come to mind--we have a different approach. I agree that there is good evidence that fewer sexual partners and delaying starting sex help reduce AIDS, but the truth is, not everyone can, or is able to, abstain from sex: some women sell sex for money or food; there are people who inject themselves with drugs using infected needles and then engage in reckless sex: and some men have sex with other men. Now, I know that these are difficult and embarrassing issues for some human beings and some societies, but people should not die because human beings like having sex. Embarrassment is temporary, while death is permanent. We therefore need to be open and honest, fight stigma, and give individuals the knowledge and the means to protect themselves if we are to win this fight.

Fourth, progress in developing countries will depend, above all, on good governance. This is about the capacity of governments to ensure security, be able to get things done, and give people the chance to be heard and to respond to what they want. It is about creating a climate in which people, local and from abroad, will want to come to invest their money, ensuring the role of law through effective policing and fighting corruption.

The UK employs proper safeguards and a rigorous system of audit and inspection. When we see a problem, we take tough action to prevent any repetition and send a clear message that corruption will not be tolerated. Those guilty of criminal offenses should be prosecuted and punished. Yet, some argue we should suspend our aid where problems arise. I do not agree. Why should children be denied an education, or mothers health care, or HIV-positive persons AIDS treatment just because some in their government are corrupt? If all poor people lived in well-governed countries, fighting corruption would be much easier--but they do not. Poor people live in nations affected by conflict, with few resources, and poorly paid public sector workers, and where governments and institutions often are weakest.

Walking away from our responsibilities to poor people is not the right thing to do. If necessary, we will change the way we give our aid but, if we are going to help weak and fragile states transform themselves into well-governed states, then we need to work with them and not around them.

Overcoming corruption

Corruption is, however, the result of a failure of governance, and the best check on corruption is to strengthen the governance with which to fight it. That means encouraging a demand for good governance by supporting civil society, the media, parliaments, trade unions, and communities so that people's voices are heard and governments are held to account. In the end, it is politics that provide the means by which those who govern--and those who give their consent to be governed--reach decisions on what is to be done.