African Debt Relief

[aerocontrols]

it seems like every second african nation has a 'rebel' army out there who are just thugs and bandits. Arms control would reduce their ability to cause havoc.

Zimbabwe instead of Sudan.

 

[aerocontrols]

Half of the money will go to help stage the concerts. The other half will go to the Prince's Trust charity (this is a UK charity that provides training, mentoring and financial assistance to young people. It does a lot of good work, despite having Prince Charles behind it!)

Nevertheless, the primary aim of the concerts is not a fundraising one..

Not wholly for fundraising, not primarily for fundraising... Same difference?

Certainly more correct than 'not a fundraising event'.

 

[richardm]

Never mind.

 

[Drooper]

Why does there need to be such a commitment across the entire continent before individual countries get their debts forgiven? It does not make sense to me to punish countries with good governance because other countries have bad governance.What happens in Zimbabwe is completely irrelevant to what happens in other African countries. The fact that Zimbabwe has a bad government is not 'ample evidence' that other African countries also have bad government.Which of the countries that are now elligible to debt relief do you believe have these problems?Zimbabwe has nothing with to do with the discussion, as it isn't going to get its debts forgiven.

Zimbabwe is an excellent example. A recipient of foreign and potential recipient of much more (ironically in this case it is being restricted by the Governent).

So you don't like giving Zimbabwe as an example.

OK, try Congo, Uganda, Nigeria, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Cote D'Ivoire, Angola etc. etc.

Zimbabwe is an excellent example of how bad government (meaning corrupt, lawless, socialist etc.) ruins even a relatively prosperous country - so even forget about trying to repair an impoverished one with similar governance problems regardless of how much foreign aid you pour in.

 

[Drooper]

Here is a question.

What is the difference between these sub-Saharan African countries and the following countries:

Indonesia
South Korea
Taiwan
Poland
Turkey
Thailand
Iraq(!)

None of these had massive debt write off. None of these had the massive foreign aid inflows seen into African countries. Many of these have had less than democratic Government and large amounts of military spending. Yet none of these are in need of the type of charity that people claim is the answer in Africa.

 

[Drooper]

Ok, I exaggerated. It appeared once. The word doesn't keep "propping up". It's just that the abuse of the word socialist is one of my pet-peeves. I'm what you would call a "social-democrat", and I hate it when "socialism" becomes the lazy cover-all word for all kinds of things, good and bad.

I should clarify that I when I use the term "socialist" I mean tendency towards central planning. This in itself is bad enough, but when coupled with corruption it is a recipe for complete disaster.

 

[a_unique_person]

Zimbabwe instead of Sudan.

An excellent example of a country no-one should be selling arms to.

 

[Drooper]

Which of the countries that are now elligible to debt relief do you believe have these problems?

I'm not sure where you are coming from. This is the movement at at hand:

By doubling aid, fully cancelling debt, and delivering trade justice for Africa, the G8 could change the future for millions of men, women and children."

Liv 8

The claim that universal and full cancellation of debt and a doubling of foreign aid to Africa (period) will "end poverty". [N.B. I happen to agree with the trade bit, but one out of three ain't good enough for me and I also have quibbles with their concept of "trade justice"].

I believe it will not do any such thing. If anything it will make things worse and worse for longer.

Let's turn this around. If you claim, as the Bono/Geldof movement does, that a lack of sufficient foreign aid and the foreign debt burden are the resaons why African nations (in a general sense) are impoversihed, please bring your evidence.

 

[Darat]

Can I suggest for a real understanding of (at least the UK’s) current position on aid etc. to African countries people have a look at this site: http://www.commissionforafrica.org/english/home/newsstories.html.?

Policies and even principles have changed a lot in the last few years, the idea of just giving lumps of money is now (if it was ever) a policy of many years ago.

For instance from the Commission’s report:

http://www.commissionforafrica.org/english/report/chapter4.html
<h3>Chapter 4 Summary - Building Effective States, Governance, and Nations</h3>

Effective states – those that can promote and protect human rights and can deliver services to their people and a climate for entrepreneurship and growth – are the foundation of development. Without progress in governance, all other reforms will have limited impact. While there have been improvements in many African countries, weakness in governance and capacity is the central cause of Africa’s difficult experience over the last decades. Improvements in governance, including democracy, are first and foremost the responsibility of African countries and people, and they take time and commitment. But there are also actions that outsiders can take both to support and to avoid undermining good governance. Two areas are crucial: capacity (the ability to design and deliver policies) and accountability (how the state answers to its people). This chapter proposes:
<ul>
[*]Providing strong political and financial support for the pan-African and regional organisations, particularly the African Union and its programme NEPAD;
[*]Making changes in donor behaviour, to get fully behind a comprehensive national strategy for capacity-building;
[*]Building up professional skills and knowledge, including by revitalising Africa’s higher education, especially in science, engineering, and technology;
[*]Broadening participation and strengthening institutions that improve accountability, including parliaments, local authorities, the media, and the justice system;
[*]Increasing transparency of revenues and budgets, especially in countries rich in natural resources; this also makes a powerful contribution to conflict prevention;
[*]Tackling corruption, including repatriation of stolen state assets;
[*]Strengthening the quality and management of data.
[/list]

 

[Drooper]

No it is not completely irrelevant to what happens in other African countries. It is most relevant indeed.

Or rather the reaction of other African countries to what happens in Zimbabwe is most relevant.

How many of the governments in sub-Saharan Africa have condemned outright the events in Zim? Lets count ermm.... none.

Doesnt the fact that other regional governments are happy to tolerate and even justify on the grounds of counter-neo-imperialism, what Mugabe has done and is doing to Zim say something about the region as a whole?

Even Mandela, the Liberal's favourite pet darkie is complicit- all that is needed is for Mandela to utter a single sentence to bring the whole nightmare in Zim to an end.

You are correct.

In fact, at an official level, the African Union is a supporter of the Zimbabwe government and have been quick to declare the past three election in the country free and fair (!!!). One of, if not the, political leader in that forum is the South African Government.

As for Mandela. What a complete irrelevance. Let's see what his approach to Zimbabwe was while he was in power and able to do something.

I should indeed take this opportunity to pay tribute to President Robert Mugabe whose contribution to the political and economic progress in the sub-continent has always been critical: a statesman whose force of example during the years of bitter struggle, whose wise counsel during our difficult negotiations process, whose profound advice as we entered government amidst threats by hostile forces, and whose ideas about the future of Southern Africa, are highly cherished by our people.

That was in 1997, when perhaps good old Nelson should have been counselling Bobby a little more wisely.

Is it any wonder that African regimes and leaders go off and do all sorts of things that impoverish their people and cause death and suffering, when their peers only pat them on the back and tell them how great they are - invariably with a view to getting the same endorsement in return.

 

[a_unique_person]

Here is a question.

What is the difference between these sub-Saharan African countries and the following countries:

Indonesia
South Korea
Taiwan
Poland
Turkey
Thailand
Iraq(!)

None of these had massive debt write off. None of these had the massive foreign aid inflows seen into African countries. Many of these have had less than democratic Government and large amounts of military spending. Yet none of these are in need of the type of charity that people claim is the answer in Africa.

The reason for the debt write off is that these are supposedly the most deserving of that consideration in the world.

Turkey has had a stable government since WWI when ataturk transformed it from a collapse colonial power into a modern one. Unlike many leaders he did not descend into corruption. It has not been a colony in the last century or so. It has a strong democratic tradition.

Poland has been educated and cohesive for it's time, despite WWII, and Russian occupation. It has managed to maintain a democratic tradition.

Thailand escaped being a colony, and has gradually transformed from monarchy to democracy.

Iraq is having so much money spent on it, it is ridiculous. IIRC, the amount of debt relief being offered is about a few months worth of war and aid spending.
South Korea has not been a colony, either.

Taiwan has not been a colony, and has a long tradition of learning and culture inherited from China.

The african nations do have a long tradition of culture, but not of written history, etc.

Some have been subject to exceptionally murderous colonialism, and slavery.

Africans are not more or less smart than anyone else, but the modern world requires a high level of education for success, just look at the ravages of aids on countries that do not understand it.

 

[shuize]

... South Korea has not been a colony, either.

Taiwan has not been a colony ...

Korea (North and South) and Taiwan were, for a period of time, colonies of Japan.

 

[a_unique_person]

Korea (North and South) and Taiwan were, for a period of time, colonies of Japan.

I stand corrected. The DRC, for example, was colonised for hundreds of years. These are relatively short periods of colonisation.

 

[Drooper]

Korea (North and South) and Taiwan were, for a period of time, colonies of Japan.

Is that what the said? He is so lame. Yeah, it's all down to those nasty colonist. Australia, Canada, India, USA, Ireland, New Zealand etc.etc.

Colonisation is clearly the root of the problem of povery in Africa.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Colonisation is clearly the root of the problem of povery in Africa.

Don’t you think it was a major contributing factor for some countries in Africa?

 

[Orwell]

You are correct.

In fact, at an official level, the African Union is a supporter of the Zimbabwe government and have been quick to declare the past three election in the country free and fair (!!!). One of, if not the, political leader in that forum is the South African Government.

As for Mandela. What a complete irrelevance. Let's see what his approach to Zimbabwe was while he was in power and able to do something.

That was in 1997, when perhaps good old Nelson should have been counselling Bobby a little more wisely.

Very few people (besides those that fight for homosexual rights, that is) were publicly condemning Mugabe before 1999 and 2000. Widespread international condemnation came after Mugabe used force to transfer land ownership from whites to blacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugabe

Is it any wonder that African regimes and leaders go off and do all sorts of things that impoverish their people and cause death and suffering, when their peers only pat them on the back and tell them how great they are - invariably with a view to getting the same endorsement in return.

Many of these African leaders were educated in western countries, and they were propped up and financially supported by western countries. They were getting "endorsements" from more than just other african leaders.

 

[Drooper]

Don’t you think it was a major contributing factor for some countries in Africa?

From what we can observe I can't reach that conclusion. Correlation is not causality for example, compare the experience of colonised countries outside Africa - contrary evidence there.

Another thing I would consider is comparison with areas not colonised, but that is a bit difficult in Africa.

And even then, there were some positive side effects from colonisation (increasing trade routes, improving general infrastructure), where in many cases this legacy has been destroyed (good old Bob Mugabe again for exmaple)

 

[Jon_in_london]

Another thing I would consider is comparison with areas not colonised, but that is a bit difficult in Africa.

Ethiopia- was only an Italian colony for a couple of years.

Botswana- was a Protectorate.

Don’t you think it was a major contributing factor for some countries in Africa?

Experience in sub-Saharan Africa shows that those countries colonised for longest (Zimbabwe* and South Africa) do better

*remember that Zim was "Africa's Switzerland" for 20 years until Mugs deliberately set out to ruin it.

 

[Drooper]

Very few people (besides those that fight for homosexual rights, that is) were publicly condemning Mugabe before 1999 and 2000. Widespread international condemnation came after Mugabe used force to transfer land ownership from whites to blacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugabe



Many of these African leaders were educated in western countries, and they were propped up and financially supported by western countries. They were getting "endorsements" from more than just other african leaders.

But we are talking aobut what needs to be done to reduce poverty in the region. Who did what to whom is irrelevant, it is about where these countries see the problems at hand.

Blaming history and those nasty colonisers, or western financial institutions or lack of foreign aid etc. is an excuse from taking responsibility and accountability for your own role in the perpetuation of the problem. To that end, it is and always has been, up to Africa leaders to prod each other to do the best thing, rather than the most self serving thing.

In so far as trying to reach a solution, we in the west are just observers, trying to assuage our collective social consciences (despite a complete absence of personal or individual culpability) by throwing money or wringing our hand while making statements that comfort our own emotions on the issue.


An interesting anecdote on that guilt issue. Did you know that U2 were one of the first acts booked to play at Live Aid and they pulled out the night before (like 2am)? The reason was because the logistics of the event meant they couldn't do a sound check before their slot. Now Bono flies around the world as an extremely wealthy man living in a tax haven telling everyone they have to cough up billions and billions of tax payers' money as a solution to poverty in Africa. Bollocks to him, his guilt, hypocracy and the soft headed thinking that makes a popular movement of a extremely flawed and potentially destructive policy.

 

[Earthborn]

Zimbabwe is an excellent example.

It is not a good example of a country that will get its debts forgiven. Your argument makes no distinction between different countries. It's like saying that because Mexico doesn't have a very good government, Canada can't be trusted because it is on the same continent.

Africa is a big continent, you know. It has many different countries, so you shouldn't generalise all those countries by looking only at the worst.

OK, try Congo, Uganda, Nigeria, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Cote D'Ivoire, Angola etc. etc.

How many of those will get their debts forgiven? That's right: only one.

Only countries that fulfill certain criteria, one of which is good governance, will get their debts forgiven. Since Uganda will, you'll have to present evidence that it's government is so horribly bad that it shouldn't.

Zimbabwe is an excellent example of how bad government (meaning corrupt, lawless, socialist etc.) ruins even a relatively prosperous country

The Soviet Union under Stalin is also. But similarly has nothing to do with the topic.

when their peers only pat them on the back and tell them how great they are - invariably with a view to getting the same endorsement in return.

To me that doesn't sound so different from what most other countries do. It's called 'diplomacy'.