Gordon Brown and the Neocon Guide to 3rd World Debt Relief
Posted by: 7V on 05 February 2005
Leaving aside for a moment my view that Gordon Brown would have been better off campaigning for fairer trade for the 3rd World by ending unfair EU, US, Japanese and other subsidies and trade barriers...
What a pity that Mr. Brown didn't link his 3rd World, 100% debt relief proposals to democratization of the countries involved.
Not only would there have been a greater chance that the funds generated would end up in the hands (and mouths) of the people for whom they were intended but also he would have had a better chance of selling the package to the USA who would have found it far more difficult, politically, to turn down.
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 05 February 2005 by long-time-dead
Nice idea in an ideal world but the fact they have accrued all the debt is surely an indication of just how un-ideal the world is.
Maybe he took the stance he did in order to get something rather than the alternative of nothing if a massive political change was required.
The US may well have taken greater notice but the opposition may have been stronger - and then we know what GWB would do then.......... invade.
Posted on: 05 February 2005 by 7V
LTD,
Do you mean that the situation is un-ideal because 3rd World countries can't compete on an even playing field because of unfair subsidies by the rich nations or because 3rd World countries are often run by oppressive regimes who cream off much of the money for themselves?
If the former (unfair subsidies) than I totally agree. Unless these are stopped, poor countries have little chance of getting out of their poverty trap.
If the latter then offering debt relief as an inducement to a process of liberalisation (leading toward democracy) can't hurt.
There is a precedent in the opinions of a number of ex-Soviet dissidents who credit Ronald Reagan with much responsibility for bringing down the Soviet Union when he offered the Soviets 'detente', free trade and enhanced economic cooperation in the Helsinki Agreements - but only subject to a commitment to certain provisions for human rights.
I don't see why the opposition might have been stronger. Did you mean opposition from within G7 or from the 3rd World? If the opposition comes from 3rd World dictators then good, let them object while their freer neighbours become richer. That's the point.
In my view such agreements with the 3rd World would make US or allied invasions, war with their neighbours or internal strife less likely not more.
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 06 February 2005 by long-time-dead
Hi Steve
Maybe it is a bit of both.....
Western countries happilly get the 3rd world countries into so much debt that they can hardly afford the repayments.
There are some 3rd world countries that do have oppressive regimes and do not put the funding to the use it is intended for.
Regarding the former, I think the best situation would be to identify these specific countries and cancel the interest totally. Let the countries repay the original capitol but restrict borrowing. Aid could be given in a more sensible form to establish a more profitable economy that would hopefully be self-sustaining and then provide a better economic platform for growth rather than being a debt sponge.
The latter could be offerred debt relief but this could be offset by limiting the inward funding - reducing the "pillaging" of the cash.
I meant the opposition from within the G7 as the Iraq situation is still very fresh in the minds of all and tying debt relief with political change towards democracy could be interpreted by many as an attempt by the US to take over the governing of the planet.
My views and knowledge are not as in-depth as yours but I find these threads and viewpoints totally fascinating and better than any of the programmes on TV that pertain to "discuss" these, and other, issues.
Posted on: 06 February 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by long-time-dead:
...I meant the opposition from within the G7 as the Iraq situation is still very fresh in the minds of all and tying debt relief with political change towards democracy could be interpreted by many as an attempt by the US to take over the governing of the planet.
Love it or hate it, for all practical purposes the US
have taken over the governing of the planet.
However, I'm struck by something that I read in today's Online Telegraph by Mark Stein (and let's just take the boos and hisses as read):
Would you trust these men with $64bn of your cash? Of course notquote:
From the article by Mark Stein:
...As you may have noticed, the good people of Darfur have been fortunate enough not to attract the attention of the arrogant cowboy unilateralist Bush and have instead fallen under the care of the Polly Toynbee-Clare Short-approved multilateral compassion set. So, after months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan managed to persuade the UN to set up a committee to look into what's going on in Darfur.
Sometimes
inaction can cost many thousands of lives too.
Regards
Steve M
