Page 1 of 3

G8 pardons debt of world's poorest nations

Posted: 14 Jun 2005, 01:22
by dead stars
African relief: Praise and caution
Monday, June 13, 2005 Posted: 0739 GMT (1539 HKT)


(CNN) -- The new head of the World Bank has praised a historic agreement by Group of Eight finance ministers to cancel up to $55 billion in foreign debt owed by some of the world's poorest nations.

But Paul Wolfowitz on Sunday also urged G8 nations to extend the relief package to Nigeria, Africa's biggest debtor.

Speaking a day after the G8 announcement, Wolfowitz said creditor nations "will hopefully come up with a deal to forgive Nigeria's debt. I'm very positive that something serious will happen."

Wolfowitz, who took over as president of the 184-nation development bank last week, said he was "really delighted" with the debt deal.

He was speaking to reporters after arriving in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, on the first leg of a four-nation Africa tour.

On Saturday in London, the G8 ministers backed a plan that calls for an immediate scrapping of 100 percent of the debt owed by 18 countries.

Those countries -- many in sub-Saharan Africa -- owe about $40 billion to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the African Development Bank.

The G8 ministers also said 20 other countries could be eligible for debt relief if they meet targets for good governance and tackling corruption -- bringing the total package to more than $55 billion.

Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation and the most heavily indebted country on the continent, owing $35 billion. But as the world's seventh-largest oil exporter, Nigeria doesn't meet the World Bank definition of a low-income country.

The G8 ministers said Nigeria's foreign debt would be considered separately by the Paris Club of international lenders.

Saturday's agreement was reached ahead of a G8 summit July 6-8 in Gleneagles, Scotland, were the debt relief package will need to be endorsed by member countries -- the United States, Britain, Japan, Canada, Russia, Germany, Italy and France.

The countries to received immediate debt relief are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

Sub-Saharan Africa owe about $68 billion to international lending agencies.

The debts would be written off by the lenders in an effort to allow the debtor countries to start fresh, get their books in order and eventually be able to borrow again for economic development, health, education and social programs, rather than simply to repay existing loans.

While the accord was generally greeted with enthusiasm, others struck a note of caution.

A spokesman for Make Poverty History -- coalition dedicated to the eradication of poverty -- said this is "good news, but more needs to be done."

"This is some of the debts of some of the world's poorest countries. And we have been campaigning for that 100 percent to be 100 percent of all the debts of all the world's poorest countries," Stephen Rand said.

On Sunday, South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu said the accord was as "a splendid start" but urged the G8 to extend the relief deal to cover about 62 countries that are heavily indebted.

Tutu, who is on a speaking tour of Britain, also called on officials to closely monitor the debt relief package to ensure funds were not diverted by corrupt leaders.

"It's so important that NEPAD (New Partnership For Africa's Development) and the AU (African Union) should begin to be quite serious about applying their review system to ensure that money that is going to be saved does in fact go to the people who most need it," Tutu told BBC Television.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europ ... index.html

What do you think of this?

Re: G8 pardons debt of world's poorest nations

Posted: 14 Jun 2005, 01:39
by Francis
dead stars wrote:Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation and the most heavily indebted country on the continent, owing $35 billion. But as the world's seventh-largest oil exporter
Where has all the money gone then?

Re: G8 pardons debt of world's poorest nations

Posted: 14 Jun 2005, 03:52
by Dan
Francis wrote:Where has all the money gone then?
Probably in the pocket of whichever dictator is in charge of the country.

Posted: 14 Jun 2005, 07:47
by hallucienate
I think it's about bloody time!!!!

Tutu is spot on though. AU and NEPAD and even SADC must start doiing what they're meant to and not pulling the any punches.

Posted: 14 Jun 2005, 09:38
by Almiche V
Does this mean the Floyd won't reform?

Posted: 14 Jun 2005, 10:58
by boudicca
I still want there to be rioting in Edinburgh. :twisted:

Posted: 14 Jun 2005, 11:47
by andymackem
Can I get my mortgage paid off now? It would greatly benefit my long-term financial status and prospects for development.

I can stop making repayments, if that helps.

Posted: 14 Jun 2005, 11:50
by hallucienate
andymackem wrote:Can I get my mortgage paid off now? It would greatly benefit my long-term financial status and prospects for development.

I can stop making repayments, if that helps.
yeah, but you don't have starving people in your back garden.

Posted: 14 Jun 2005, 11:51
by Almiche V
Gotta make the people strong enough to choose their own government.

It's that or we send in Blair and Bush.

Posted: 14 Jun 2005, 11:57
by andymackem
hallucienate wrote:
andymackem wrote:Can I get my mortgage paid off now? It would greatly benefit my long-term financial status and prospects for development.

I can stop making repayments, if that helps.
yeah, but you don't have starving people in your back garden.
Don't have much in back garden, to be fair. One could starve in there if the need arose.

Posted: 14 Jun 2005, 17:03
by Dan
The only problem I can see is some of the aid never reaches the people, it just lines the pockets of corrupt people. Where a country is ruled by a corrupt dictator, cancelling the debt only makes the dictator richer.

Posted: 14 Jun 2005, 17:08
by Almiche V
Well, y'man mentioned the Poverty Action Fund on tv last night. This is in place to prevent the dics getting their grubbies on funds.

http://www.gm-unccd.org/FIELD/Countries ... FR_PAF.htm

Posted: 14 Jun 2005, 19:57
by dead stars
Ah!
How I love your opinions!
I knew this was the right place to ask!!! :wink:

Posted: 15 Jun 2005, 11:42
by andymackem
Given the current corruption in Africa, were most of these countries actually better off in the imperial days?

Is it better to be ruled corruptly close to home, or indifferently from afar?

Instead of loading ourselves up on post-empire guilt, it is possible to put a case for Africa's greatest advancement coming under foreign rule?

Just a thought. I don't know much about this topic so I'm seeking the views of those who might.

Posted: 15 Jun 2005, 12:05
by boudicca
andymackem wrote:Given the current corruption in Africa, were most of these countries actually better off in the imperial days?

Is it better to be ruled corruptly close to home, or indifferently from afar?

Instead of loading ourselves up on post-empire guilt, it is possible to put a case for Africa's greatest advancement coming under foreign rule?

Just a thought. I don't know much about this topic so I'm seeking the views of those who might.
What you mean like this guy?

Image

Maybe there is an argument that people in SOME African countries were better off in the days of Empire. I can't pretend I have enough knowledge of the past few hundred years of that continent to give specific examples (nor can I tell you what half those countries were called 50 years ago :roll: ), but judging by the current state of affairs it wouldn't be too hard to believe that things may have been more peaceful and stable at least under British (or insert other Western European nation) rule.

However, I don't think it necessarily follows that we should continue to rule them from afar. Surely a period of great instability is almost guaranteed as these countries get to their feet? I don't think you can expect a smooth transition to democracy. Our path (in Britain) to democracy took several hundred years to walk down. And maybe it wasn't strewn with corpses, but we didn't have this legacy of Empire to break free from. Unless you count being ruled by Rome - don't start me on that! :innocent: ;D

Posted: 15 Jun 2005, 12:06
by hallucienate
andymackem wrote:Given the current corruption in Africa, were most of these countries actually better off in the imperial days?

Is it better to be ruled corruptly close to home, or indifferently from afar?
Corruptly and indifferently from afar, surely? Imperialism opened the gates wide for what followed. There is currently a huge movement in Africa to get our act together. Take a look at NEPAD, AU and SADC. I only hope these bodies achieve their goals.

South Africa, at least seems to living up to the goals. Yesterday we fired our Vice President after he was implicated in fraud and corruption. A great day for our little democracy (no irony).
andymackem wrote: Instead of loading ourselves up on post-empire guilt, it is possible to put a case for Africa's greatest advancement coming under foreign rule?

Just a thought. I don't know much about this topic so I'm seeking the views of those who might.
Who did it advance?

Being invaded, having alien cultures forced upon you, being forced to foreign countries for slave labour? Having your land's natural heritage f**ked so some toff thousands of mile away can have an easier life at your expense is hardly what I would consider advancement.

Posted: 15 Jun 2005, 21:56
by dead stars
On colonialism.

Before Portugal was the s**t of a country we are now (because we are), Portugal used to be a big colonial empire. Brazil aside (they were given independence in the 19th century), Portugal had as colonies Mozambique, Guinea (Bissau), Cape Verde, Angola and São Tomé e Príncipe. After our 1974 revolution, they were independent. It was messy and the results are there to see.
Nowadays people are coming everyday to Portugal, either as refugees or as immigrants. The other day I was thinking how do they distinguish from both situations because refugees also seek work in the country and don't mean to go back.
It is so intense that I went to Spain and wondered "what have you done to all the black people?". "We don't have them", I was answered, but instead I'd never seen so many Latin Americans from ex-Spanish colonies.

In no way am I advocating colonialism, merely providing food for thought.
But my personal opinion is that (especially in the case of ex-Portuguese colonies) they are a lot, but a lot, worse than before.

Posted: 15 Jun 2005, 22:35
by andymackem
To continue playing devil's advocate ....

@ boudicca - it _did_ take us a long time to reach a functional democratic system, but we were among the first to attempt that journey. Might subsequent nations not manage to learn from our mistakes and avoid some of the problems we suffered? Places like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania seem to have adopted democratic government's far more swiftly after their succession from the USSR, despite no significant democrat (or even independent) tradtion pre-1990. Why have they done so, while Belarus remains a kind of Stalinist theme-park, the Caucuses erupt into violence (and start blowing up Russian trains, to my considerable disquiet :eek:) and the 'Stans compete for 'more bizarre cult of personality in central Asia'? Most of Africa seems to be falling into the latter category of autocracy and internecine violence.

@ hal: first, it's only fair to point out that my knowledge of Africa is (rather shamefully) derived solely from European TV news. In short that's famine, civil war, Aids, a bit more civil war which is causing a famine and racial/religious tension.

I recognise your points about the imposition of an alien culture and the damage to indigenous culture, and I'm not about to advance a defence of slavery.

But weren't African tribes quite happily doing this to each other before Europe sailed over to have a look? I find it hard to believe that Hutus and Tutsis got along just fine for thousands of years and then suddenly 'learned' attempted genocide from the wicked white man. Slavery has been commonplace in non-western society as well: think ancient Egypt, since we're talking about Africa. You'll struggle to convince me that pre-imperial Africa was a bastion of liberal democracy, any more than post-imperial Africa is.

I'm in danger of turning Africa into the Heart of Darkness (we haven't touched on traditions like cannibalism - that may not have happened in Africa, but colonists certainly encountered it in Polynesia - or other 'barbarous' practises). Also, I'm not naive enough to believe that the age of Empire was built on pure altruism. But even if the methods were misguided, there were people who wanted to use empire as a positive force to bring education, better healthcare and sanitation, transport infrastructure and the like into the colonised areas. It may only be enlightened self-interest, but you could put that forward as evidence of advancement.

And I do share your hopes for the pan-African movements you mention, and have been encouraged by what has happened in South Africa. I'm just not holding my breath for a continent-wide shift any time soon, debt relief or not.

Posted: 16 Jun 2005, 07:28
by hallucienate
andymackem wrote:@ hal: first, it's only fair to point out that my knowledge of Africa is (rather shamefully) derived solely from European TV news. In short that's famine, civil war, Aids, a bit more civil war which is causing a famine and racial/religious tension.
Oh, that's all on African TV as well. The problem with news is they're always shy on reporting the uneventful stuff. Africa is the second biggest continent with God knows how many countries and God knows how many more tribes.
andymackem wrote: I recognise your points about the imposition of an alien culture and the damage to indigenous culture, and I'm not about to advance a defence of slavery.

But weren't African tribes quite happily doing this to each other before Europe sailed over to have a look? I find it hard to believe that Hutus and Tutsis got along just fine for thousands of years and then suddenly 'learned' attempted genocide from the wicked white man. Slavery has been commonplace in non-western society as well: think ancient Egypt, since we're talking about Africa. You'll struggle to convince me that pre-imperial Africa was a bastion of liberal democracy, any more than post-imperial Africa is.
And I doubt that too. I do believe that the tribes had an easier time avoiding each other. Modern Africa's borders aren't based on tribal borders but on old colonial ones. This means that tribes that formerly had their own territories and had little to do with one another now have been forced to govern together. Imagine France and England being forced into a common government at the dawn of their democracies.
andymackem wrote: I'm in danger of turning Africa into the Heart of Darkness (we haven't touched on traditions like cannibalism - that may not have happened in Africa, but colonists certainly encountered it in Polynesia - or other 'barbarous' practises). Also, I'm not naive enough to believe that the age of Empire was built on pure altruism. But even if the methods were misguided, there were people who wanted to use empire as a positive force to bring education, better healthcare and sanitation, transport infrastructure and the like into the colonised areas. It may only be enlightened self-interest, but you could put that forward as evidence of advancement.
All the above were put in place almost exclusively for the benefit of the ruling colonialists. Africans were treated as second class citizens and would've rarely been allowed to make use of the facilities. The only exception is probably education but that would've been used by bible bashers to bring their religion and western culture to Africa.

It's impossible to say what Africa would be like if colonialism hadn't happened, but I can't possibly see it being any worse off. It desperately needs a Marshal Plan and seeing as the G8 played a part in f**king it up I do believe they should play a part in uplifting it.

Posted: 16 Jun 2005, 14:06
by boudicca
andymackem wrote:To continue playing devil's advocate ....

@ boudicca - it _did_ take us a long time to reach a functional democratic system, but we were among the first to attempt that journey. Might subsequent nations not manage to learn from our mistakes and avoid some of the problems we suffered? Places like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania seem to have adopted democratic government's far more swiftly after their succession from the USSR, despite no significant democrat (or even independent) tradtion pre-1990. Why have they done so, while Belarus remains a kind of Stalinist theme-park, the Caucuses erupt into violence (and start blowing up Russian trains, to my considerable disquiet :eek:) and the 'Stans compete for 'more bizarre cult of personality in central Asia'? Most of Africa seems to be falling into the latter category of autocracy and internecine violence.
Perhaps the "success" of the Baltic states is due in part to their geographical position (i.e. in lovely stable democratic Europe). My beloved "Stans" are several thousand miles away from them, and in close proximity to all the current unrest in the Middle East, Iraq etc. It's not a happy part of the world at the moment is it?
Another factor which determines how smoothly and quickly a country or state is going to move towards democracy is whether or not there are major racial or tribal divisions amongst the people. If they are divided under the rule of London or Moscow, the tensions will erupt once that is gone.

The Baltic states seen to be the exception rather than the rule.

Posted: 16 Jun 2005, 23:03
by Francis
hallucienate wrote:I do believe that the tribes had an easier time avoiding each other. Modern Africa's borders aren't based on tribal borders but on old colonial ones. This means that tribes that formerly had their own territories and had little to do with one another now have been forced to govern together. Imagine France and England being forced into a common government at the dawn of their democracies.
That strikes me as a highly pertinent observation.
hallucienate wrote:It's impossible to say what Africa would be like if colonialism hadn't happened, but I can't possibly see it being any worse off. It desperately needs a Marshal Plan and seeing as the G8 played a part in f**king it up I do believe they should play a part in uplifting it.
I agree in principle, but, from where I'm standing, Africa looks a hell of a lot messier than post WWII Europe.

As an aside, how's the reconciliation process going in South Africa? Do blacks and whites of your generation mix? Or is there too much resentment/ guilt?

Posted: 17 Jun 2005, 00:31
by Almiche V
Francis wrote:As an aside, how's the reconciliation process going in South Africa? Do blacks and whites of your generation mix? Or is there too much resentment/ guilt?
Yes, is it still Us and Them?

Posted: 17 Jun 2005, 08:11
by hallucienate
Francis wrote:I agree in principle, but, from where I'm standing, Africa looks a hell of a lot messier than post WWII Europe.
Which is why the need is even greater?
Francis wrote: As an aside, how's the reconciliation process going in South Africa? Do blacks and whites of your generation mix? Or is there too much resentment/ guilt?
There is a lot that needs to be accomplished before we get to the "blacks and whites living in harmony" thing. It's not just an issue of race, but also of culture and economy. Those issues need to be addressed too.

My generation was still educated under apartheid and so it affected us in some ways, but I do hold hope for the kids of my generation. It's only been 10 years and things have changed hugely, give us another 10 and we will no longer be a raced based society, just a class based one. :roll:

Posted: 17 Jun 2005, 10:21
by Francis
hallucienate wrote:
Francis wrote:I agree in principle, but, from where I'm standing, Africa looks a hell of a lot messier than post WWII Europe.
Which is why the need is even greater?
Some observations:

The Marshall Plan was devised by a benevolent victor with a view to rebuilding and rehabilitating its defeated 'enemies' and assisting its allies. Clearly this is not the case with Africa. Indeed, the US played little or no part in its colonial past, with the obvious exception of being a ready market for the slave trade.

I suspect that gaining widespread support for real financial assistance from the G8 electorates would require guarantees of improved governance, measureable achievements and, in some cases, possibly regime change. Are African states really prepared to be subjected to such conditions by their former 'masters'?

Given the sudden increase in resource usage by the rapid economic growth in China, what would be the consequences of similar growth in Africa? Or will it be the G8's testing ground for the viability of eco-friendly consumerism?

Posted: 18 Jun 2005, 22:29
by pikkrong
andymackem wrote: Places like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania seem to have adopted democratic government's far more swiftly after their succession from the USSR, despite no significant democrat (or even independent) tradtion pre-1990.
Just a remark - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were independent and democratic states in 1918-1940.
Well, not a long time and that's also true that in 30s some authoritarian tendencies appeared there - still nothing like in Germany or Italy - but on the other hand Baltic provinces had a specific position even in the Russian empire before revolution in 1917. It's not the place to bother you talking about relationships between local German nobility, Russian power and local people but briefly - those provinces had remarkable authonomy (bigger than later in the USSR) and - for example - in the beginning of the 20th century ethnically Estonians got majority position of some local municipalities - by quite democratic elections. And most important Estonian political parties came into being by 1905.
Not talking about education - among ethnically Estonians literacy was approximately 100 % in the 19th century.
Yes, it's true that there influences of German culture were dominating.