Bush, Blair push African debt relief

[Philip_P]

Republican, Democrat, who cares as long as we’re moving forward on important issues. Good for Bush and Blair. Article below. Also, for those curious on Church statements on the issue of debt relief:
usccb.org/sdwp/international/statements.htm
and more generally,
usccb.org/sdwp/international/debtindex.htm

Bush, Blair push African debt relief

President pledges additional $674 million for humanitarian aid

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The United States and Britain are working on a plan to provide full debt relief for African countries that are “on the path to reform,” President Bush said Tuesday.
Bush’s comment came after meeting at the White House with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is pushing an ambitious African aid plan as this year’s chairman of the Group of Eight economic powers.

"We … agree that highly indebted developing countries that are on the path to reform should not be burdened by mountains of debt, Bush said a joint news conference with Blair.

“Our countries are developing a proposal for the G-8 that will eliminate 100 percent of that debt,” Bush said.

“There is a real desire to make sure that we cancel the debt, and cancel the debt in such a way that it doesn’t inhibit or disadvantage the international institutions,” Blair said.

Bush said the plan would call for G-8 nations to provide additional funding for the World Bank and the African Development Bank to protect these institutions.

The president has opposed key elements of the 10-year, $25 billion British plan, which would commit donor nations to double their aid to the poorest African nations.

In a compromise, Bush pledged an additional $674 million for “humanitarian emergencies” in Africa.

The money will be in addition to approximately $1.4 billion the Bush administration is spending on humanitarian needs this year, a National Security Council official said.

Bush said U.S. aid to Africa has tripled during his tenure, but he said his administration wants the money to go to countries with “open economies and open markets.”

Blair said the time was right for wealthy countries to foster decisive change in Africa. “But it is a two-way commitment,” he said.

“We require the African leadership also to be prepared to make the commitment on governance against corruption – in favor of democracy, in favor of the rule of law,” Blair said.

He said political reforms were needed to make sure that aid reached the people who needed it the most.

“No developed nation is going to want to support a government that doesn’t take an interest in their people, that doesn’t focus on education and health care,” he said.

Blair won a new mandate from British voters in May despite the unpopularity of the war in Iraq.

But his ruling Labor Party lost more than 90 seats in the House of Commons, and British lawmakers say it is time for Bush to lend a hand to his staunchest ally on the issues Blair wants to address.

Tuesday’s announcement was a way to show Blair’s critics back home that he can pry commitments out of Washington on his priorities.

For years Blair has had a mission, one he outlined in a memorable speech after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in America.

“The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world, but if the world as a community focused on it we could heal it,” Blair told his Labor Party that autumn.

This year’s G-8 summit of the world’s leading industrialized nations is scheduled for July in Scotland. Besides Britain and the United States, the other members are France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and Russia. The European Union also sends a delegation to G-8 summits.

Last week, South African President Thabo Mbeki said July’s summit “has the possibility to communicate a very strong, positive message about movement on the African continent away from poverty and development.”

“Your contribution to the practical outcomes of the G-8 summit is critically important,” Mbeki told Bush.

CNN’s Dana Bash and Robin Oakley contributed to this report.

 

[walstan]

Philip P:

In a compromise, Bush pledged an additional $674 million for “humanitarian emergencies” in Africa.

The money will be in addition to approximately $1.4 billion the Bush administration is spending on humanitarian needs this year, a National Security Council official said.

And America’s defence budget? 400 billion dollars a year!!! So 2 billion is 0.5% of the defence budget, Humm…

Seems that having the means of killing people is better business than keeping them alive.

 

[FightingFat]

US President George W Bush is set to pledge $674m (£350m) for famine relief in Africa as part of a joint initiative with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

But Mr Bush’s promise falls far short of what Mr Blair wants, analysts say.

The US has already rejected several of the elements of Britain’s so-called “Marshall Plan for Africa”, ahead of next month’s G8 summit in Scotland.

Why will Bush not commit to the plan?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4613987.stm

 

[Matt25]

Aid agencies today welcomed the US concessions on debt relief for Africa announced following Tony Blair’s meeting George Bush, but warned the deal did not go far enough on debt cancellation or increasing aid. The prime minister’s trip to Washington had produced some useful movement on multilateral debt, the agencies said, but even on this subject the deal fell short of expectations. Mr Bush said yesterday the US would provide the additional funding to cancel around $15bn in debt.

The announcement from the US signalled only a deal on debt owed to the World Bank and African Development Bank, not the IMF, they said. In addition, only around 15 African states would initially meet the conditions imposed by rich nations for debt relief, and some heavily indebted countries, such as Nigeria, were not eligible at all. Mr Blair said today that he would also press the US and other G8 nations to open their markets to African products, and tackle the issue of US and European farm subsidies that put African producers at a disadvantage. He told the House of Commons during prime minister’s question time that he had discussed the issues with Mr Bush…

Action Aid said yesterday’s announcement marked the first time that Mr Bush had conceded that debt cancellation must be financed through additional funds rather than existing aid budgets, which would cut payments to African countries.

Romilly Greenhill, the charity’s policy director, feared that G8 finance ministers meeting this weekend in London would be unable to reach a deal on IMF debt cancellation using the organisation’s own resources. The result would be that poor countries continued paying out to the IMF, which currently accounts for about a third of the debt owed, she said.

The US has refused to back chancellor Gordon Brown’s plans to finance IMF debt relief through a revaluation or sale of IMF gold reserves. Mr Blair had indicated before the meeting that he did not expect the US to back Mr Brown’s international finance facility proposal.

“It looks like a serious debt initiative is on the table, and Christian Aid is firmly supporting it,” said Jonathan Glennie, a senior policy officer at the agency. He added, however, that the scheme needed to cover far more countries, and insisted that forcing poor countries to make often harmful economic concessions before delivering debt relief would only harm their chances of development.

One of the main planks of Mr Blair’s plan to help Africa meet its millennium development goals has a been a doubling in aid to the continent from $25bn to $50bn. Here the agencies felt he had walked away with very little.

“It’s a slap in the face for Tony Blair, who went over to Washington to have the US sign up to increased aid, and got nothing in terms of aid,” said John Hilary, the campaigns and policy director at War on Want.

It was not immediately clear whether the single announcement of increased US aid - £370m targeted for famine relief in Ethiopia and Eritrea - was new money, or simply an allocation from the existing US aid budget, the agencies said…

Mr Bush and Mr Blair met as the UN prepared to release a study saying three million children under five will die in the poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa as a result of the failure to meet millennium development goals by the target date of 2015.

The study, conducted by the UN development programme and due for release tomorrow, found that on current trends, five million children would die if Africa misses its goal to cut infant mortality by two-thirds, as compared to two million if the target were met.

guardian.co.uk/g8/story/0,13365,1501907,00.html

 

[Philip_P]

I agree with the criticism that Bush’s committment on this is not nearly enough. But I still welcome strides in the correct direction. This is how change starts. If a Republican president much beloved by conservatives is talking about debt relief, that’s a great sign in my opinion, and shoudl be welcomed.

 

[Richardols]

Philip P:

I agree with the criticism that Bush’s committment on this is not nearly enough. But I still welcome strides in the correct direction. This is how change starts. If a Republican president much beloved by conservatives is talking about debt relief, that’s a great sign in my opinion, and shoudl be welcomed.

Yes, especially when members of his base are not so willing to go along with him on that. Good for him, but he must do more.

 

[Franze]

And what about corruption in South America and Africa, someday, this will end?

 

[Lisa_N]

Franze:

And what about corruption in South America and Africa, someday, this will end?

Yes and why is it OUR task to prop up some t(name removed by moderator)ot dictator who allows his own people to starve through his corruption? Sorry but they need to demonstrate that any funds or relief is going to the people, not to some despot.

Lisa N

 

[vern_humphrey]

Lisa N:

Yes and why is it OUR task to prop up some t(name removed by moderator)ot dictator who allows his own people to starve through his corruption? Sorry but they need to demonstrate that any funds or relief is going to the people, not to some despot.

Lisa N

IF we had proper controls on the money, we could do a lot of good in Africa. As it is, we’re only feeding the monster that preys on those unfortunate people.

 

[Philip_P]

Lisa N:

Yes and why is it OUR task to prop up some t(name removed by moderator)ot dictator who allows his own people to starve through his corruption? Sorry but they need to demonstrate that any funds or relief is going to the people, not to some despot.

Lisa N

Bush made the exact same point when talking about debt relief, and I dare say you’ll find very few people who have looked seriously into this issue who are in favor of simply throwing money away. Inevitably corruption finds its way into any human endeavor, but I think you’ll find that those who truly care about this are also concerned with making sure aid gets to those who need it most.

As to why we should do this, the simplest answer is that we can. If people can make the argument that attempting to help people justifies a war (and whether you agree or not, it is at least a position that needs serious consideration), then it seems a much easier and logical argument to make that we can engage in such a peaceful and signficant exercise of good will as debt relief.

Secondly, there IS a moral responsibility on our part. Not that countries suffering under crushing debt are blameless - there’s any number of example of very poor governing one can hold up - but as one of the pillars and chief beneficiaries of the current economic order, we do share in the blame for a system that makes it virtually impossible to get out of debt once a country has fallen into it. No, it’s not ALL our fault, but it is at least partially ours, and so it fulfills both justice and mercy to do what we can to help alleviate the financial burden.

 

[Philip_P]

Franze:

And what about corruption in South America and Africa, someday, this will end?

I certainly hope so, and I hope corruption in the U.S. and Canada, and France, and Russia, and every place else will someday end, too. Bu if we were to wait for a perfect world before we lift a finger in aid, we would be waiting until the coming of the New Jerusalem and meet a Christ who I’m sure would be unimpressed at our scrupulous caution.

 

[walstan]

What I find interesting is the comment that these corrupt officials “salt” all the aid money away in secret bank accounts. Well, yes they do, but, who runs the banks? who makes lots of money from these people keeping their ill gotten gains in these banks? whose industries and economies do these banks invest in for their; and their clients, profits?

If you want to stop this “ripping off” of aid money try looking at those in the western world who hide in the world of commerce and claim they are squeaky clean, when it is they who aid, abbet and create the situation and environment that allows these despots to gain so prolifically.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

As to why we should do this, the simplest answer is that we can. If people can make the argument that attempting to help people justifies a war (and whether you agree or not, it is at least a position that needs serious consideration), then it seems a much easier and logical argument to make that we can engage in such a peaceful and signficant exercise of good will as debt relief.

We should also look at why we should NOT do it:

1. It rewards brutal dictators, allowing them to borrow and steal even MORE money.
2. It re-starts the cycle of borrow-and-steal.
3. It increases the power of the dictators – the more wealth they steal, the more troops, guns, prisons and other means of power they can buy.
4. It does’t help the people – they won’t see any benefits from any additional borrowing.

Philip P:

Secondly, there IS a moral responsibility on our part.

And if we simply wipe out the debt and lend the dictators more money we compound our moral failure.
Philip P:

Not that countries suffering under crushing debt are blameless - there’s any number of example of very poor governing one can hold up - but as one of the pillars and chief beneficiaries of the current economic order, we do share in the blame for a system that makes it virtually impossible to get out of debt once a country has fallen into it. No, it’s not ALL our fault, but it is at least partially ours, and so it fulfills both justice and mercy to do what we can to help alleviate the financial burden.

It isn’t impossible to get out of debt – I would suggest 90% of the people on this forum have some debt, from mortgages to car payments. The problem is we have subsidized brutal dictators, and they have stolen the money. Forgiving the debt simply re-fuels these dictators.

I’ll make a prediction – if we forgive the debt, in 20 years Africa will still look like it does today, sunk in debt, with hundreds of millions of poor, oppressed peasants ruled by a handful of mega-wealthy oligarchs.

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

We should also look at why we should NOT do it…:

And if we simply wipe out the debt and lend the dictators more money we compound our moral failure.

Which would mean that we must add restrictions as to who gets the money so that it is not wasted.

Not every poor country is controlled by a rapacious dictator, so those should be helped. As to the rest, some may not deserve relief as you suggest.

That a conservative president favors such action, however, is most heartening.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

Which would mean that we must add restrictions as to who gets the money so that it is not wasted.

Like the restrictions on the Oil-for-Food program in Iraq?

The lesson is, the watchdogs will simply share in the spoils.

A comment was made about how it is partly “our” fault – because these dictators use western banks and financial institutes. And that’s right – Europe is willing to take every penny the dictators are willing to deposit.

Richardols:

Not every poor country is controlled by a rapacious dictator, so those should be helped. As to the rest, some may not deserve relief as you suggest.

Indeed we should help nations that can be helped. Nor do I say some nations do not “deserve” relief. The problem is to give the relief to the PEOPLE, not to the DICTATORS.

Richardols:

That a conservative president favors such action, however, is most heartening.

That is the essense of conservativism – recognizing economic reality.

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

That is the essense of conservativism – recognizing economic reality.

If that is so, it’s a pity that conservatives aren’t particularly enthusiastic about their reality-recognizing President’s intentions in this regard.

 

[Philip_P]

Many of the concerns raised by critics of debt relief are valid, but have also been addressed before. I would recommend exploring the materials on the USCCB site I linked to at the beginning of this thread.

For instance, in the education resources section (http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/educres.htm), one can find answers to frequently asked questions (http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/ccdebt/common.htm)), including such questions as “Shouldn’t everyone have to pay their bills? Why should some countries be granted debt relief?” and “Won’t debt relief encourage economic mismanagement and reckless policies?”

For those interested in going beyond generalities to specifics, there are papers, statements, and testimonials, such as the “Testimony on 2003 Foreign Assistance” (http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/ftesap02.htm#v) which includes discussion on such things as the Millennium Challenge Initiative and Aid Effectiveness.

The internet, and these discussion forums, are indeed a great resource, but it is important in these discussions not to give in to the temptation to simply discuss these issues in terms of generalities and ideology. Instead, we should make full use of the resources available to us and inform ourselves of the specifics. I think those interested in the problem of international debt will find much of the information at the USCCB site helpful in gaining a deeper understanding of the moral and practical questions involved in this issue.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Many of the concerns raised by critics of debt relief are valid, but have also been addressed before. I would recommend exploring the materials on the USCCB site I linked to at the beginning of this thread.

The opening paragraph sums it up:

"
**What is International Debt? **

Like individuals and families who borrow money to pay for a house or an education, countries borrow money from private capital markets, international financial institutions, and governments to pay for infrastructure such as roads, public services, and health clinics; to run a government ministry; or even to purchase weapons. Also like individuals, countries must pay back the principal and interest on the loans they take out. But there are important differences between individuals and countries. If a person borrows money, he or she receives the money directly and can use it for purposes benefiting the borrower. But if a country borrows money, the citizens are not necessarily notified or informed of the purpose of the loan or its terms and conditions. In practice, some governments have used loans for projects that do not meet minimum standards of social, ecological, or even economic viability. At times, these loans have been used to enrich a small group of people."

The bold text shows the problem.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

The opening paragraph sums it up:

"
**What is International Debt? **

Like individuals and families who borrow money to pay for a house or an education, countries borrow money from private capital markets, international financial institutions, and governments to pay for infrastructure such as roads, public services, and health clinics; to run a government ministry; or even to purchase weapons. Also like individuals, countries must pay back the principal and interest on the loans they take out. But there are important differences between individuals and countries. If a person borrows money, he or she receives the money directly and can use it for purposes benefiting the borrower. But if a country borrows money, the citizens are not necessarily notified or informed of the purpose of the loan or its terms and conditions. In practice, some governments have used loans for projects that do not meet minimum standards of social, ecological, or even economic viability. At times, these loans have been used to enrich a small group of people."

The bold text shows the problem.

I applaud your taking the time to read these materials. I’m sure you also continued reading, where it says

"In other cases, although the money was used for legitimate purposes, financial conditions beyond the government’s control made loan repayment impossible"

and points out that, though this distinction exists,

“countries cannot file for bankruptcy. There is no such procedure, no arbitrator. At the international level, the creditors, not a court, decide whether and under what conditions to require a country to pay its debt.”

Many of the creditors are in the U.S. and Europe. It is incumbent on us, then, to pay attention to such distinctions and not to allow the irresponsibility of some governments to doom the people of all indebted nations.

 

[jlw]

**"

In other cases, although the money was used for legitimate purposes, financial conditions beyond the government’s control made loan repayment impossible"

**

Conditions…like?? I’m not disputing that there are good reasons. Disease diverts funds. Civil war diverts funds. Aversion to western culture?? Stops economic progress in it’s tracks.