| |
Back to Index
A
truckload of nonsense
George Monbiot
June 17,
2005
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?area=/insight/insight__economy__business/&articleid=243316
An
aura of sanctity is descending on the world’s most powerful men.
Last weekend the finance ministers from seven of the G8 nations
promised to cancel the debts the poorest countries owe to the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The hand that holds
the sword has been stayed by angels: angels with guitars rather
than harps.
Who could deny that debt relief is a good thing? Never mind that
much of this debt should never have been pursued in the first place.
Never mind that, in terms of looted resources and stolen labour,
the rich owe the poor far more than the poor owe the rich. Some
of the poorest countries have been paying more for debt than for
health or education. Whatever the origins of the problem, that is
obscene.
You are waiting for me to say "but", and I will not disappoint
you. The but comes in paragraph two of the finance ministers’ statement.
To qualify for debt relief, developing countries must "tackle
corruption, boost private-sector development" and eliminate
"impediments to private investment, both domestic and foreign".
These are called conditionalities -- the policies governments must
follow before they receive aid, loans and debt relief. At first
they look like a good idea. Corruption cripples poor nations. Money
that could have given everyone a reasonable standard of living has
instead made a handful unbelievably rich. The powerful nations are
justified in seeking to discourage it.
That’s the theory. In truth, corruption has seldom been a barrier
to foreign aid and loans. Robert Mugabe, the West’s demon king,
has deservedly been frozen out by rich nations. But he has caused
less suffering and is responsible for less corruption than Rwanda’s
Paul Kagame or Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni, both of whom are cited
by the G8 countries as practitioners of "good governance".
Their armies are largely responsible for the meltdown in the eastern
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which has so far claimed four
million lives, and have walked off with billions of dollars’ worth
of natural resources.
Yet Britain remains their main bilateral funder. It has so far refused
to make their withdrawal from the DRC a conditionality for foreign
aid.
"Corrupt" is often used by the West to mean regimes that
won’t do what they’re told. Genuine corruption, on the other hand,
is tolerated and even encouraged. Twenty-five countries have so
far ratified the United Nations convention against corruption, but
none is a member of the G8. Why? Because corporations do very nicely
out of it.
The idea, swallowed by most commentators, that the conditions rich
governments impose help to prevent corruption is laughable. To qualify
for World Bank funding, model client Uganda was forced to privatise
most of its state-owned companies before it had any means of regulating
their sale. A sell-off that should have raised $500-million for
the Ugandan exchequer instead raised $2-million. The rest was nicked
by government officials. Unchastened, the World Bank insisted that
-- to qualify for the debt-relief programme the G8 has now extended
-- the Ugandan government sell off its water supplies, agricultural
services and commercial bank, again with minimal regulation.
And here we meet the real problem with the G8’s conditionalities.
They do not stop at pretending to prevent corruption, but intrude
into every aspect of sovereign government. When the finance ministers
say "good governance" and "eliminating impediments
to private investment", what they mean is commercialisation,
privatisation and the liberalisation of trade and capital flows.
And all this means is new opportunities for Western money.
There is an obvious conflict of interest in this relationship. The
G8 claim they want to help poor countries develop and compete successfully.
But they have a commercial incentive to ensure they compete unsuccessfully,
and that our companies can grab their public services and obtain
their commodities at rock-bottom prices. The conditionalities imposed
on the poor nations keep them on a short leash.
That’s not the only conflict. The G8 finance ministers’ statement
insists the World Bank and IMF will monitor the indebted countries’
progress, and decide whether they are fit to be relieved of their
burden. The World Bank and IMF, of course, are the agencies that
have the most to lose from this redemption. They have a vested interest
in ensuring debt relief takes place as slowly as possible.
Attaching conditions like these to aid is bad enough. It amounts
to saying: "We will give you a trickle of money if you give
us the crown jewels." Attaching them to debt relief is in a
different moral league: "We will stop punching you in the face
if you give us the crown jewels." The G8’s plan for saving
Africa is little better than an extortion racket.
Do you still believe our newly sanctified leaders have earned their
haloes? If so, you have swallowed a truckload of nonsense. Yes,
they should cancel the debt. But they should cancel it unconditionally.
-- © Guardian Newspapers 2005
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
