<http://www.macroscan.org/cur/jul05/cur150705Debt_Forgivness.htm>

 Debt-Forgiveness as Imperialism
Jul 15th 2005, Jayati Ghosh

There was a time, some decades ago, when analysts could write of "aid
as imperialism". Today, when official aid is all but defunct, it is
more correct to describe the current tendency of debt-forgiveness as
imperialism. There is much that is appalling about imperialism today –
the dastardly occupation of Iraq which has brutalised the entire
society, is but one particularly telling example. But the militaristic
and resource-grabbing aspects of imperialism may be distracting from
other deep and continuing features which are also doing great damage
to countries across the world.

What is even more obscene is when imperialism is not naked in its
violence, but disguised as charity and empathy for the oppressed, and
when the rest of the world is made to applaud the benevolent concern
expressed by the great powers. This is what has been happening around
the recent G-8 Summit meeting, which made it a point to continue
despite the London bombings, in order to push through what it claimed
was a "historic" and "unprecedented" debt relief package for some of
the poorest countries of the world.

This was accompanied by a concert extravaganza of the trendiest
"feel-good" pop stars around, such as Bob Geldof and Bono, to provide
entertainment to accompany the good deed, as well as a media blitz
supported by almost the entire world's press and television. So much
so that even otherwise well-informed and progressive people in the
developing world were fooled into thinking that, for a change, the
leaders of the core capitalist countries were actually thinking about
doing some good for people desperately in need of it.

Unfortunately, a more cynical perspective is actually the correct one.
The G-8 debt relief deal is actually a paltry and niggardly reduction
of a small part of a debt that has grown to gigantic proportions more
because of adding on unpaid interest than because of any recent flows
of fresh resources. And this pathetic amount is being traded for yet
more major concession made by the debtor countries, in terms of
sweeping and extensive privatisation of public services and utilities,
which is about all that is left for governments to sell in these
countries, as well as large increases in indirect taxes which fall
disproportionately on the poor.

Consider the main elements of this "generous" deal. To begin with,
only 18 countries are to "benefit" from the G8's so-called generosity.
They are all countries that have been through this before – most
recently through the highly publicised HIPC initiative (for heavily
indebted poor countries) launched in 1996. The HIPC initiative, which
was greeted with similar if less musical fanfare, has since failed
utterly, either in relieving the burden of debt or improving
conditions in the countries concerned. Estimates by UNCTAD suggest
that the 27 HIPC beneficiary countries, for example, will be making
bigger debt repayments in 2005 than in 2003.

Even for these 18 countries, the debt relief is very partial and is
nowhere near complete cancellation. It mainly concerns only some
bilateral debt and the debt held by the World Bank and the African
Development Bank, which amounts to a very small proportion of the
total debt of the concerned countries. The British proposal only
intended to take over repayments between now and 2015.

The total financial burden on the G-8 of the entire operation would
amount to some $2 billion a year, which should be compared to the
estimated $350 billion annually devoted by the G8 to farming subsidies
or the $700 billion spent by the G-8 on military expenditure. The
annual amount spent by all these G-8 countries put together for the
announced cancellation is less than half of the amount the US
government spends every month on its continued illegal occupation of
Iraq. Even this trivial amount for the US would be financed through
the US development aid budget, reducing aid provided elsewhere and not
involving any additional resources.

It is true that the current deal is an improvement on the HIPC
initiative in that what has been agreed upon is a real cancellation
that would bear on the principal of the debt, rather than simply a
financial contribution towards the debt service paid to multilateral
institutions. But even so, the announced cancellations would not even
amount to a complete cancellation of debt for these 18 countries, who
would still have to deal with a large amount of multilateral debt.

What do the recipient countries have to provide in return for this
munificence which will not even be noticed in the budgets of the
governments of rich countries? The answer is that they will have to
further sell their natural resources, their public assets, and deprive
their people of the basic conditions of a decent life, in order to
advance the profiteering by large corporations from the G-8 countries
and elsewhere.

The G8 decision represents a continuation of the HIPC initiative,
which insisted upon the imposition and intensification of heavily
neoliberal policies that have already ravaged poor debtor countries.
Consuder some of the main elements of the conditionalities:

• privatisation of natural resources and of strategic economic sectors
to the benefit of large multinational corporations;

• higher cost of health care and education, directly affecting the
access of the poor to these basic socio-economic rights;

• increases in VAT, a regressive tax, which means increased costs and
lower real incomes of ordinary people;

• free flow of capital, which leads to great volatility of exchange
rates and capital flight by the elite;

• lower tariff protection, which leads to thousands of small and
middle producers losing their livelihoods because they cannot compete
with imported goods.

It is not hard to see that this is a deal designed to further the
economic interests of imperialism, which has once again been sold
across the world as a huge concession made to the world's poor. In the
words of the poet, "After such knowledge, what forgiveness?"
-- 
"Dialetheism is not a one trick pony" [John Woods]

Reply via email to