I think the Make Poverty History ads are nice, besides this white hand making black children disappear. MPH is part of Live 8, which recently staged concerts to send a message to the G8. I am glad that there’s attention to the subject, but I think Live 8’s demands will hurt the Third World. Their manifesto calls for greater government power and unconditional aid. That is, more money to the most corrupt governments on earth. It would make Africa, literally, a Welfare State. To quote the Kenyan Peter Kanans, "Even if they cancel the debt, even if they give our governments aid money, ordinary Africans will not benefit," he said. "That money will only make the corrupt people richer and Africans international beggars for decades to come." There is, I believe, a better solution (later post).
Make Poverty History Manifesto
1. Trade Justice: Fight for rules that ensure governments, particularly in poor countries, can choose the best solutions to end poverty and protect the environment. These will not always be free trade policies.
We need trade justice not free trade. This means the EU single-handedly putting an end to its damaging agricultural export subsidies now; it means ensuring poor countries can feed their people by protecting their own farmers and staple crops; it means ensuring governments can effectively regulate water companies by keeping water out of world trade rules; and it means ensuring trade rules do not undermine core labour standards. We need to stop the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) forcing poor countries to open their markets to trade with rich countries, which has proved so disastrous over the past 20 years; the EU must drop its demand that former European colonies open their markets and give more rights to big companies; we need to regulate companies – making them accountable for their social and environmental impact both here and abroad; and we must ensure that countries are able to regulate foreign investment in a way that best suits their own needs.
Trade justice for what? Corruption? The focus here is on nation states and their governments. Not on people’s right to participate in a free market, but the rights of their government to ‘protect’ and ‘regulate’ trade. They are asking for African governments to be freed of international accountability so that they can control trade as they see fit. Unfortunately, many Third World governments are deeply corrupt. The Ministers that regulate trade are the same Businessmen whose family and friends get contracts. This is basically a blank check for government corruption.
2. Drop The Debt: The unpayable debts of the world’s poorest countries should be cancelled in full, by fair and transparent means.
Many countries still have to spend more on debt repayments than on meeting the needs of their people… Rich countries and the institutions they control must act now to cancel all the unpayable debts of the poorest countries. They should not do this by depriving poor countries of new aid, but by digging into their pockets and providing new money… International institutions like the IMF and World Bank must stop asking poor countries to jump through hoops in order to qualify for debt relief. Poor countries should no longer have to privatise basic services or liberalise economies as a condition for getting the debt relief they so desperately need.
I’ll quote directly from Wikipedia for a response, but I’d just like to point out that the emphasis is again on government, not people. Those ‘hoops’ are things like accountability, transparency, and delivery of goods and services – all of which African governments lack. "Opponents of debt relief argue that it is a blank cheque to governments, most of which are plagued by corruption, and which immediately go out and contract further debts, partly in the belief that these debts will also be forgiven in some future date. They use the money to enhance the wealth and spending ability of the rich, many of whom will spend or invest this money in the rich countries, thus not even creating a trickle down effect. The money is also used to increase defence budgets, which are then used to promote war. They argue that the money would be far better spent in specific aid projects which actually help the poor. They further argue that it would be unfair to third-world countries that managed their credit successfully, or don’t go into debt in the first place, that is, it actively encourages third world governments to overspend in order to receive debt relief in the future."
3. More and better aid: Donors must now deliver at least $50 billion more in aid and set a binding timetable for spending 0.7% of national income on aid.
Aid should support poor countries and communities’ own plans and paths out of poverty. Aid should therefore no longer be conditional on recipients promising economic change like privatising or deregulating their services, cutting health and education spending, or opening up their markets: these are unfair practices that have never been proven to reduce poverty. And aid needs to be made predictable, so that poor countries can plan effectively and take control of their own budgets in the fight against poverty.
So, Live 8 is calling for African governments to be accountable to no-one. They get a check every year, no questions asked. They don’t have to make any structural reforms and there is no incentive for self-sufficiency. Why when you’re taxing the G8 at 0.7%? Furthermore, the money’s going to the government, so a small elite is going to get loaded. You can even parcel aid of for votes to stay in power, sounds perfect. The state can control the economy, write off their debts, and sit back and collect welfare. This is a recipe for the African Welfare State.
Good Government – Bad Assumption
One notable thing about Live 8 and Make Poverty History is that the sites tell me absolutely nothing about Africa. I was trying to find out what African countries they want to offer debt relief to, but I can’t find anything. The Live 8 concerts, too, included only a handful of African performers – as Damon from the Gorillaz points out. There’s also no input from Africans on what they need, or African candidates to actually implement these policies. It’s also funny that white wrist bands are the token for MPH. Anyways, I’ll just pick some countries and list their place on the Transparency International corruption scale (1-145). One is good and 145 is horrible.
- Sierra Lionne – 114
- South Africa – 44
- Ivory Coast – 133
- Zimbabwe – 114
- Nigeria – 144
- Botswana – 33
- Sudan – 122
- DR Congo – 133
- Tanzania – 90
To quote, "Anyone who has spent any real amount of time in Africa knows that corruption is the reality. It’s a disservice to ordinary Africans to not be honest about that," said Rose Mucheke, 35, a Kenyan health care worker in Nairobi. While her salary is barely enough to meet her monthly bills, she said bitterly, "the aid money will go into the pockets of corrupt officials to buy their fully loaded Mercedes-Benzes."(Washington Post)
These are parasitic governments. Ministers and officials take bribes, practice cronyism, give contracts as favors, give jobs to family and dependents, etc. Nigeria, for example squandered over £220 billion since 1960. Any money you give to these governments is at best wasted, and at worst hurts people. Live 8 still insists on giving to governments with records of military control, genocide, oppression and corruption.
In Tanzania, debt relief enabled the government to abolish primary school fees, leading to a whopping 66 per cent increase in attendance. As a result, 1.6 million more children now attend school. Debt relief helped kick-start Mozambique’s impressive recovery from civil war and terrible floods and enabled its government to vaccinate 500,000 additional children.
Those accomplishments are good, but are you going to get $50 billion of value out of African Governments? Do you want to enable corruption? Throwing money at this problem will only prop up governments that aren’t working. Live 8 rightly recognizes that there is a problem in Africa, but it seems to think that government is the solution. If you think the G8 is non-democratic and monolithic, wait till you see the Little 14. Yes, they may be black, but they’re still oppressive. Whether the guy behind you is black or white, you’re still getting fucked in the ass.
Fish, Not Fishing Rods
Live 8 et al seem to think that money equals development. The assumption is that forgiving debt and giving unconditional grants will magically build economies. This is similar to the Iraq war mentality, where America thought it could pull democracy out of a hat. Countries that have attained some prosperity (like India and China) did it through internal reforms, not through foriegn aid. Indians and Chinese people raised those countries up, and it was more complicated than cashing a check. At the very least, Live 8 could include a few token Africans in their consulation process, rather than dumping money wholesale. At the end of the day, no matter how much money you give, Africans have to spend it. Africa needs its own leaders and it needs to raise itself up. To quote from the Post again, "Ousmane Sembene, the prominent Senegalese-born filmmaker, shocked a crowd of earnest young people in London during a talk in early June when he condemned the G-8 and the Live 8 concerts as "fake," and added: "African heads of state who buy into that idea of aid are all liars. The only way for us to come out of poverty is to work hard."
I won’t toss out words like neocolonialist or paternalistic lightly, but Make Poverty History and Live 8 are certainly disconnected. They have made a bold prescription without really examining the patient – besides the Mandela photo-ops. Just from the Sri Lankan tsunami example I know that giving the government money is not a solution. In fact, their 100 meter law makes a bigger problem. In countries with parasitic governments, it’s unclear whether feeding the parasite will help. Live 8 seems to think that prosperity is a gift that they can buy for Africans, rather than something that Africans have to build, nurture, and own. There are ways to encourage prosperity – free markets, democracy, education – but it is not a problem you can throw money at. What Live 8 is calling for is an African Welfare State, governed by the corrupt. The debate is nice, but the manifesto is repulsive.
aiyo i was going to put a post on this but you beat me to it! anyway you’ve done a much better job than i would have :D I can’t agree more with what you’ve said. I watched live 8 on TV and saw bits of hypocricy and guilty conscience. Hypocricy bc the same ppl who hold banners at the concert saying “Free trade for the 3rd world” would on a different day be lobbying the government to maintain agricultural subsidies or to impose safeguard tariffs on Chinese garment imports. I’ve never had lots of faith in the WB/IMF/UNDP ppl, but of late i’ve seen some really purposeful thigns done by them in Sri Lanka. UNDP for instance is helping and pushing government bodies to implement public finance monitoring schemes to try and bring in a degree of accountability. They’ve also been involved in helping rationalize the size of governement institutions and try help stimulate some efficiency. The WB has been helping education funding tremendously, and there’s real partnership with the Ministry, not just one way work. As Indi said, just giving money to dodgy governments won’t help anybody (except the fat cats), the work needs to go in at a far more micro level.
But despite all this, the work needs to start at home. Our own government policies need to be on the right track, and however much money is thrown in won’t make that better. We need to be honest with ourselves before anyone else can take us seriously. About Africa, there have been success stories (Botswana) and they’ve often started with Democratic, accountable governance. However the answer isn’t conditional aid (only giving aid to democratic govt’s) but to try and support the creation of democratic processes, strengthen justice, try to instill a degree of accountability and transparency (like undp in SL). These are all new forms of aid and i’m still not sure how effective they are but I’m quite sure that its better than monetary aid.
Live 8 concerts are a good remedy for a bad condition. Elton John, Bono, Jay Z and the other great artists are doing a
fine deed to humanity entrapped inside of tragic conditions. In terms of a statement like: ” Live 8 concerts turning
third world countries into welfare States”–well that’s bull-sh–t with an upper-case S! Every incident where giving money to black people are concerned the connotational concept of welfare seems to creep into the schematic formula
of analysis. If you know anything about colonialism, then you know how Africa was raped and pillaged for its wealth
and natural resources for damn near ten centuries. If the African continent is receiving any British and American currencies for their troubles, those monies are only a small percentage of returned theft. Tony Blair and Mr. Bush both
know if they had to give all the money back out of what their countries stole from Africa, both governments would
have to shut down completely for lack of operating income. . .
But surely it depends on who you’re giving the money to? Giving cash to corrupt governments does no form of justice to the people of Africa. It’s just colonialism with a different face.
Do note that I praised the Live 8 concerts for raising awareness, I’m just criticizing their manifesto.
As ddm says, the question is where the money goes. I fail to see how giving billions to corrupt and autocratic governments helps African people. This from a Royal Africa Society Survey:.
There are a ton of comments on African Corruption on the is BBC Thread. Furthermore, a lot of capital doesn’t even trickle down, it simply leaves the country. This from Wikipedia:
Live 8 is all good intentions, but they could do with going to Africa and actually talking to people, who consistently raise corruption as a major concern. In Sri Lanka and Bangladesh poor people benefit from community based microcredit programs that include them in the system rather than making them beggars on the outskirts – waiting for a handouts from Ministers in Mercedes.
It may be a true reality that lots of African governments are corrupt; nevertheless, you are perpetuating a universal ,stereotypical myth by attaching the word welfare to deprived, third world children on the world stage. You don’t show a picture of the government begging–I see the image of victimized children inside your self-imposed welfare State analogy. And like I said, all the money that Africa receives is only a small percentage of what was stolen from the continent throughout the last ten centuries; that within itself knock the word welfare straight out the window. Africa can never be on welfare in no form simply because the greater percentage of what built the european world banks are based on the metals that actually came from mother Africa. If you give a corrupt government something back that you stole when you were an outrageous rogue because your conscience somehow managed to align with your civilization, dose this give you the authority to direct the internal affairs of a working–recognized legitimate government. If the issue is misappropriation of funds, then I would find it prudent to detach the victimized children from the entire debate and replace your connotation and imagery with ideas like the rogue,welfare king thinning bellies of their native’s sons and daughters and then highlight the hopelessness
sinking in the eyes of poverty strickened children. . .
I think the point is not to ease your guilty conscience, but to help Africans. I use the word welfare in the Wikipedia/US sense: ‘welfare refers more specifically to money paid by the government to persons who are in need of financial assistance, but who are unable to work’. In this case the money is paid to African governments (not people), hence Welfare State. You obviously feel bad about ‘poverty stricken children’, but pity isn’t a recipe for economic growth.
Despite the destructive nature of colonialism, countries like India and Sri Lanka are on their feet. Not because white people gave us money to make everything better, but because Indians and Sri Lankans worked hard. There is a disconnect between Western Live-8ers and the Africans they claim to serve, as this Christian Science article points out.
Most reports I hear from Africa complain about corruption, corruption, corruption – which is why unconditional aid to governments is destructive. The people taking your guilt money aren’t ‘poverty stricken children’, it’s corrupt ministers with Swiss Bank Accounts. It may make you feel better, but it is disconnected from the actual needs.
Mate India is on it’s feet. Sri Lanka is more likely on it’s knees. Not directly as a result of colonialism but because of the bungling of the transition from dependence to ‘independence’. We dont’ work hard – we’re lotus eating numpties. PPG you have a very valid point. Africa was divided by the use of rulers over a coffee table by the English and French. This is the least those bastards can do.
And what’s with the whole Live8 concept? Any charity actually. Would they raise so much money if U2 and Coldplay weren’t performing. Most people didn’t go there to help African children. They went their because they got cheap tickets to see U2.
The bus that exploded is literally a hundred metres from my place. I feel no shock, no remorse, no sympathy. Why is that?
Sophist, Are you saying that people who went to Live-8 should all have been pure in their selfless desire to help Africa ? Is their motivation quite as important as the fact that they did buy a ticket instead of watching it on TV ? Not everyone who contributes to a good cause does so out of altruism. Enough (sez I, attempting to be pragmatic) that they did help, let people worry about their motivations later. I’m sure the people of Mozambique couldn’t care less, for one.
Indi, your concerns about corruption are mirrored by many, including myself. The plan as it were is that the African nations that benefit follow a certain set of conditions, chief among them the requirement to stamp out corruption. Not that I think this will work (how is it going to be enforced and monitored, what happens if the conditions aren’t followed by the African leaders – will the debt be reimposed ? bwahahaha) but George Monbiot editorializes otherwise and what he said makes sense, in a way.
I’m also wondering what this debt cancellation does to the credit worthiness of the nations in question, actually. Will be they be able to borrow more money immediately ? If so, that’s pretty much like giving money to a crack addict and telling him to clean himself up. What happens now that the debt has been cancelled ? Some countries were keeping up with the repayments, but some of the countries in the first set of 18 (?) were not.. thus, the only change in the defaulting countries will be a slightly cleaner looking account book, nothing more.
Er. and to round out my one-comment-fits-all, ddm .. if you say monetary aid isn’t the answer, then what works ? I intuitively think money ends up in Swiss bank accounts, but viable alternatives elude me. Food aid ? the US sends millet and sorghum to Africa (the same stuff that they use to feed horses, but I digress). Equipment ? As in many relationships between the moneyed and not-quite-as-rich, writing a cheque is easier and quicker than sitting down, figuring out needs and then watching to make sure the money is spent properly. Give monetary aid and hope it trickles down is the policy employed thus far.. Would you, for example, take it upon yourself to go round and make sure the money you personally donate for a good cause is spent exactly as you intended ? How much more complicated when you’re dealing with a country ? :)
I’ve been meaning to go into in full, but some basic things we could do are
1) Ending European agricultural subsidies so Africa can reach that market
2) Investing in direct infrastructure projects (roads, hospitals) where somebody can watch the purse-strings
and, what I like from SEEDS here and Grameen in Bangladesh
3) Microcredit – providing small loans (usually much less than 500, though it increases over time) directly to people to support small business, etc. These are community programs that encourage people to save and invest wisely, and slowly draw them into the support structure of the market.
You’re right in that you can’t just chase every dollar around. Stuff like microcredit does self-regulate in that the money reaches people. They’re based around community banks, and if you welsh on a loan its your community that suffers. These people were considered unlendable, but they do pay back their loans and promote business in their communities.
In my opinion, simply dumping money does more to assuage post-colonial guilt than help Africa.
Heh, Indi.. the irony of subsidies:
It appears (although by no means conclusively) that third world nations don’t want all European agricultural subsidies to end. I’ve been watching investigations along this theme for a while now and the most recent is sugar. The EU negotiate as a bloc and purchase sugar from certain countries at a higher (than present market value) price. Jamaica and Swaziland were the two countries mentioned, maybe more exist. The price differential is said to be worth around $80 to $100 million. I saw an interview with the Jamaican PM who bitterly complained that they get 8-10 million in aid with a lot of fanfare and in the same breath, their farmers will lose $30-40 million through being forced to sell sugar at lower prices. (Maybe I got the country wrong. West Indian country, at any rate)
The howls of protest at how livelihoods would be destroyed if EU subsidies were abolished came from farmers within the developing nations. Sorry, too tired to toss you a link to substantiate it now; but Newsnight in the UK was carrying the stories.
The second ironic aspect is that there is a fair amount of investment in infrastructure already but aid utilization is shockingly horrifyingly low. SL, for example, has a utilization percentage of around 15-20% (figure from 2001 or so, I believe.. closest link I could find was here[Beware, Word doc]) Not that we’re models of virtue by any means, but infrastructure projects are prone to cost overruns, graft, wastage and outright theft as much as any other..
I’m not really able to speculate on the post-colonial guilt theory myself though… Some former colonies (ie: the US [hehehehe], Canada, Australia.. errmm. Malaysia, South Africa, India .. ) appear to have done alright, relatively speaking.. Yeah, I know, I know.. different circumstances and conditions apply to all the countries I mentioned.
Drac: The sort of stuff that i said the WB and UNDP are doing here in Sri Lanka, or at least trying to do. Public finance monitoring, rationalizing govt. etc. these are stepping stones to improved transparency and hopefully accountability, critical for good governance. With improved transparency and accountability there’s a good chance that monetary aid can be better utilised. As i said these are new forms of aid, and in theory they sound good, it remains to be seen whether they will work in practice.
And also at a more grass roots level, as Indi said, micro credit schemes have been fantastic in places like Bangladesh and to a lesser extent Sri Lanka. and infrastructural development, schools, ICT..I know this all sounds very cliche but I think its solid long term,sustainable development.
Finally, on subsidies, some countries may protest bc they lose their ability to sell at a higher price, but the overall effect of agricultural subsidies are very damaging for global trade, specially for small developing nations with little market power. Also, if subsidies are removed developing countries can sell a greater quantity of produce due to the greater market access, and so even if price per unit is lower their revenue will most likely be higher. The Carribean leader you referred to may well be getting a cut out of the higher prices that they receive now, hence the support for subsidies ;)
Sorry, DDM; I’m no economist.. I just play one on this blog when the fancy strikes me.. but it seems disingenuous to make a blanket statement condemning agricultural subsidies. I make this claim on two separate levels.
Firstly, the larger more organized farmers in industrialized nations wield more bargaining power on the world markets, have a better economy of scale in respect to production costs. Consider them, if you will, to be the Walmart of a particular crop. Now consider the subsistence farmer growing the same crop and you’ll see that market forces tend to give the smallholder a much worse deal in terms of market access, capital investment and negotiating power with buyers and suppliers. This is with all other things considered equal, mind you. Ergo, it logically follows that bigger industrial farmers (who are far and few between in developing nations to begin) have somewhat of an advantage over the smallholders in the open market. Subsidies are a (imperfect) mechanism to redress this inequity. I concede that subsidies (as with any other economic measure) applied incorrectly cause more harm than good; and subsidies are employed by the US and the EU primarily for protectionism. That doesn’t necessarily make them a bad idea.
Secondly, in the specific case of sugar; some developing nations got a guaranteed market for their wares. If 100% of your wares are being bought for X dollars, even though the actual market price is( X – 10) an expansion of your potential market does nothing for your profits.. (bright eyed and bushy tailed this morning, so I found some links here, another blanced blogger’s take here). And if these countries continue to be uncompetitive, imagine the effect of switching cash crops on their economies ? And these are the nations which need help the most. What percentage of the EU GDP is from sugar ? Alternately, what percentage of Jamaican or Swaziland earnings is comprised of sugar related sales? Being tossed into the cold sea of market prices would affect the regions in very different ways.
I’m not making a socialist argument for subsidies. But I’ve made layman’s observations about how subsidies can help equalize a market that would otherwise be dominated by existing large scale producers. In other spheres of economic activity, they’d be called incentives. Why is an agricultural subsidy incomparable to … say the BOI tax break in SL for new startups ? Foregoing taxation revenue vs pumping in money to try and save an industry… doesn’t seem all that much of a difference to me :)
ok this is a bit unrelated but does anyone know the ethnic origins of George Alagaya? (BBC World News Reader – was a correspondent from Sri Lanka) some say he has roots in eastern sri lanka – some say he is Ghanaian. either way…if you know i’d like to know (for good reason – not in a crazy stalker kinda way)
hi all
Obviously debt relief is good. That would reduce the burden of future payments. But it would not DO ANY LONG-TERM GOOD because these countries are indebted because they have a basic managment problem. Sri Lanka is a good example. If we applied the right policies, our GDP would double in a few years. The debt would be halved.
Our sustainable budget deficit is in the range of 6 percent of GDP. At that rate nominal GDP would equall or exceed debt growth, reducing the liability.
But what do we do.? We deficit spend 8-12 percent. We print money to do it. Each time we do it, people become poor because of inflation.
Another way to look at this is to see how a company is run. The bigger the company, the bigger the debt. Nobody pays down debt on a net basis. It is not needed. You acquire more debt as you grow. Japan’s debt is 130 percent of GDP (that is bad actually). US has more debt than anyone else – it is the biggest debtor nation inthe whole world, even our central bank has lent to the US government. Just like John Keells Holdings has huge amounts of debt.
Africa’s problems (just like ours) are, like most of you have said is corruption on one side and mis-management on the other. But you can still be corrupt and develop your country if you direct whatever meagre resources your have to the right areas.
Last year our treasury spent 18 billion rupees on a fuel subsidy. Basically to subsidize the cost of travelling on bad roads.
If this amount was spent on improving roads, the country would be way ahead. But now we have nothing to show for it, except a joy ride to nowhere by vehicle users.
If this 18 billion was spent on developing roads, even if 10 or 20 percent was siphoned off, by a rogue minister the country would grow. Even if 50 percent was siphoned off the country would still grow. See what i mean?
Morons run this country at the behest of the JVP. But remember JVP comes out looking good. They create poverty by inflation but the poor looks at them like some kind of god.
What the JVP and of course the finance minister did with this 18 billion is worse than stealing. It not only did no good, but also set off a balance of payments crisis.
JVP spent something like 200 or 400 million on repairing tanks. well and good. but they spent a few billions on the fertilizer subsidy. See how mad they are?
This is not only mad, it is criminal. Who benefits from a fertilizer subsidy? The consumer of course, because we cannot fix the farmgate price. So the city dwellers get the benefit.
Nationalization does the same thing. What would happen if the south african government nationalized de Beers? Global diamond prices would plummet and they would lose a massive source of revenue. This is what happened to other african countries.
This is what happened to our tea plantations also. Not only were they not giving revenue, but were eating Rs 400 mn treasury subsidy a month, when they were given to private managers!
African countries count among the worst money printers in history. Zimbabwe is a prime example. No amount of money would help these countries. Aid, grants, loans, nothing would help them.
Same with latin america. See Argentina. See Brazil. Same problem to a lesser degree. Last year Sri Lanka was as bad as any african country.
Debt relief does not work. We got a US $ 250 mn debt relief from lenders. Where did that go? Tsunami victims did not see a cent of it. So then where did it go? Has anyone asked this question?
See? There is no point in giving debt relief. Its gone. Nobody knows where. Africa has the same problem Sri Lanka has. That is why lenders would prefer to get the money back and re-direct the same thing to some capital project or reform or something.
The IMF the WB, nobody can fix this country. Basically we believe in this subsidy business. Our people think it is good to run deficits, print money etc. When IMF says raise prices of fuel, newspaper editorials and cartoons criticize them.
I saw something in the daily mirror the other day. This is the problem. We want to be lotus eaters. But really most sri lankans are hard working. we work hard but inflation takes away everything. that is why our people do really well when they go to a developed country with low inflation.
The very people who write these newspaper editorials work long hours into the night, while the oversized government service is paid with money printed at their expense.
It is really sad. I mean, imagine you going to a man on the street and saying prices are going up because the JVP made the government print money and created inflation? They will say the world bank or IMF did it, not the JVP.
I’ve been reading up on Africa this week and generally getting my hands dirty in this expansive, sexy continent. More on this soon but my gauge these days is anywhere that China is throwing money into is as good a place as any for the moment. Reason being that, even though they’ve been tremendously cautious about opening up their own markets and have recently been openly flouting trade agreements, they have a nose for investment. Hence projects like the Bitumani Hotel in Sierra Leone : http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec05/china_7-05.html. Noone likes the way they work, but they certainly can sniff out the best environments for investment. When it comes to debt relief as with all anti-globalisation buzz words and peeves du jour, debt servicing like drac points out is a sort of right of passage for developing countries – paying it back is guarantee, there is the issue of aid / loans to developing nations being tied to disastrous industry-pillaging policies that will never result in fruitsome / ful returns.
Indi, what are these little explosions?
George Alagaya is consideredto be of Sri Lankan tamil origin, at least in the lankan circles..
meh? What is this explosions?
thanks sara
rayray: u didn’t believe me abt George Alagaiah’s origin then? hehe..
savi3 – i was baffled becos of his appearance on BBC at his old school Christ the King in Accra, Ghana and our young friend’s insistence on his being Ghanain. But thanks for the additional conclusive evidence you sent me via email.
welcome.. but none of those web links still gave much detail into his background.. think one of us will hv to buy his autobiography to know the actual details. do u think George is dishy? :) i’m still undecided… hmm..
yes most definitely – although i think this may be a subject for email