It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK pushing for Africa debt relief

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

"The UK Chancellor Gordon Brown has put forward a bold plan to tackle poverty in Africa ahead of the G8 Summit of rich countries in Scotland next month.
He called for a doubling of European aid by 2010 and 100% debt relief, as well as an end to many trade subsidies.

But the plan is facing opposition in the US - and particularly from President George W Bush. "

So, I'm curious, what do people think about this idea? Will freeing poverty- stricken African countries from loads of debt help the continent in the long run? Should the US participate? Why the opposition?

IMO, I think this is a good idea. These countries will never pay back their debt and all it does stunt their economic progress. African economies have started to grow exponentially in recent years, just imagine what they could do without all this debt.

As to the US administration's refusal to support this...I think the article has it right. There's no constituency for Africa in the US and Bush has his mind elsewhere. There are no African nations like Saudi Arabia that have a significant grip in the US.

I'm really surprised at the UKs generosity...if that's what it is. I curious as to what they get out of this. Is it just an altruistic endeavor, or is there some, more political reason behind it. If this debt relief and aid effort truly is altruistic, I find that quite admirable. It's rare for a country to look past it's own interests and care about the well-being of the human race.




posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
now why would a president who supports spreading freedom not want to support fighting poverty?

because we can't afford it! It doesn't fit into our budget because the war on terror with the rebuilding of two nations is costing more than we ever expected.

Well I'm glad the U.K is willing to aid Africa, alot of other issues including terrorism and extreme ideology can be changed by getting people out of abject poverty.

sorry for thinking you were one of them


[edit on 6-3-2005 by worldwatcher]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
Well I'm glad your country is willing to aid Africa, alot of other issues including terrorism and extreme ideology can be changed by getting people out of abject poverty.


Er, actually I'm American. Born and raised in Houston, TX.


But I agree, money is alot more effective that force when it comes to doing away with extremism. So helping Africa might be beneficial to us after all (if altrusim isn't a good enough reason).



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I would like to believe that your countries inabilty to afford it is the reason for not backing it but i just cannot.
George Bush
is a very greedy man in my opinion and it did not suprise me in the least to see he opposed it. Still, I am very angry he does.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I don't agree with Gordon Brown on this, till we get rid of Dictators like Mugabe who take our charity and spend it on themselves instead of the starving population i will not donate 1 penny. Bush is right on this problem.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Not every African country with debt problems suffers under a dictator as well. It's like punshing the class for something a few students did.
But I agree that we (they in my case) need to make sure the money gets to where its supposed to go. I'm no expert in international aid, but I'm sure there's some way to do this.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I disagree with this. The best way to help African nations is to open up our markets to them and cease the protectionist policies we have been holding.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I disagree with this. The best way to help African nations is to open up our markets to them and cease the protectionist policies we have been holding.


I don't see why the two proposals are mutually excusive....



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
I don't see why the two proposals are mutually excusive....


Yes, they probably aren't but just cancelling the debts of these countries won't do much, they'll still be in the same position as before when they had to borrow the money.

Combining debt relief with market reform and an end to protectionist practices might make a real difference to poorer african nations.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I honestly can't believe i'm saying this but i'm solidly in Bush's corner on this one. The UK proposal is to forgive debt, eliminate trade barriers and sell gold reserves to finance an African Marshall plan.

Bush on the other hand is pushing the Millennium Challenge account which ties assistence to the governments fighting corruption by good governence and democracy. It also calls for all future aid to be in the form of grants, instead of loans, so they wouldn't have to be paid back.

All money sent to Africa so far has been stolen by the corrupt leaders and used for their and their cronies pleasure. Forgiving the debt will not stop them from stealing anything else that is sent their way.

Demanding they fight the corruption and start using the money for the good of the people is the least the western nations should demand.

Now, having agreed with Bush on this, i'm going to go take a shower.

Wupy



new topics




 
0

log in

join