If you got rid of 3rd world debt would that solve the proble

[RAM]

Maybe but then give them free money to buy means to be self sufficent

[James]

Well done for that good observation.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Yeah, right, just hand it to them for nothing. See, no one likes capitalist nations, cheifly America,"meddling in their business". But when countries are in trouble, who is the 1st country that is called for help? The USA!!! No one can deny this.

[IzmSchism]

ram, ? what is your point?

[Stormin Norman]

The anwer to your question is no. Most of these countries have a large debt, but many of them do not pay it down. In any event, these debtors are not concerned about their debts, so how much effect does it really have on their poor economic structure? These countries would still follow the failed economic systems they currently have in place. Until, warlords and dictatorships are exstinct the problems in the third world will persist.

[Moskitto]

Granted, before we should think about cancelling the debt we should be working to create workable institutions for them to manage their own affairs without warlords and dictators.

But if we just let them try and sort themselves out on their own isn't the interest from the debt going to grow to the point that they will never be able to pay it off?

I also think that fairtrade is a good idea, for more infomation go to http://www.traidcraft.org.

[James]

1st country that is called for help? The USA!!! No one can deny this.

I';m going to stick my neck out here.

America gives a very VERY small % of its money in aid. One of the smallest in the world in fact. I believe that it doesn't even make up 1%, whilst the Uk gives around 6%, i'm not sure though. So don't shoot me if i'm wrong.

These countries would still follow the failed economic systems they currently have in place. Until, warlords and dictatorships are exstinct the problems in the third world will persist.

Urm...again i'm going to stick my neck out.

http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/paper/155fa...acts_myths.html (http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/paper/155facts_myths.html)

The Worldwatch 47


Forty-seven countries meet World Bank statistical criteria for being very poor and very indebted. Only forty-one are currently eligible for the World Bank’s recent debt cancellation initiatives. Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan, the largest debtors in the 47 are excluded. (p. 58)
At the end of 1999, these 47 countries—home to 1.1 billion people—owed $422 billion to foreigners. (p. 22)
Average debt per capita in the 47 is $380—exactly equal to their average gross national product (GNP). (p. 22)
Thirty-seven of the Worldwatch 47 rank in or just above the U.N.’s lowest category of human development. Thirty-five are in Africa. (pp. 22–23)
Average GNP in rich countries* is $24,100. These countries spend $422 billion in agriculture subsidies every 16 months. They spend that much on weapons and soldiers every 12 months. The U.S. government spends that much in interest on the national debt every 24 months. (pp. 22, 62, 66)
Estimates suggest that the Worldwatch 47 are capable of repaying only $131 billion—or 31 percent—of the debt. That leaves $291 billion that will never be repaid. (p. 25)
Creditors have committed to canceling $33 billion for 22 countries under recent programs. (p. 58)


The cost of paying off the debt


Many poor countries are using new loans to pay off the old. Among the poorest countries (GNP per capita less than $885 a year) in 1999, of every dollar received in new loans, 83 cents went right back to pay old ones. (p. 21–23)
The need for foreign exchange has spurred export-oriented mining, logging and agriculture in developing countries. Several studies have found statistical links between high debt burdens and deforestation. (p. 36)
In Cameroon, Tanzania, and Zambia, debt crisis forced governments to cut funding for environmental agencies in the 1980s and early 1990s. (p. 36)


The irony of the past


In 1999, the Indonesian military used British Hawk fighter jets against East Timorese who had voted for independence. The country then defaulted on $250 million in loans taken out previously to purchase the Hawks from British manufacturers. As the British government had guaranteed the Indonesian government’s loans they then picked up the tab for the jets. In effect, British tax-payers paid for the Hawks used over East Timor. (p. 27)
Among the Worldwatch 47, the 17 included in Transparency International’s 2000 corruption survey scored an average of only 2.6 out of 10 (with a lower number indicating more corruption). (p. 26)
The average score of the 47 on Freedom House’s seven-point political rights scale was 5.9 in the 1970s and 1980s (indicating a lack of political rights) and 5.1 in the 1990s. (p. 27)
International debt crises have occurred roughly every 50 years since 1820. Major crises broke in the 1820s, 1870s, 1930s, and the 1980s. Sixty-four percent of the countries that defaulted during 1820–1929 ran into trouble again starting in the 1980s. (pp. 14–16)


Three myths
Myth: Rich-country lenders cannot afford to cancel much more debt.

Fact: Most of the debt of the Worldwatch 47 will never be repaid. Lenders are maintaining appearances by granting new loans so countries can repay old ones. Canceling worthless debt costs nothing. The losses have already occurred, and they have not crippled the lenders, which are among the richest institutions on earth. (p. 25)



Myth: Debt kills 19,000 children a day (7 million a year).

Fact: In the 47 poorest, most indebted nations, “only” 5.25 million children under the age of five died in 1998, and only a fraction of those deaths could be blamed on debt. There is no simple link between debt and child deaths. Poor countries will receive nothing from cancellation of debt they could never have paid anyway. If creditors also cancel payable debt, some countries would spend more immunizing children while others would buy more weapons. (p. 64)



Myth: The World Bank and the IMF exercise absolute power over the economic policies of developing countries.

Fact: In general, governments of poor countries, like governments of rich countries, only adopt policies to which they are committed as a result of domestic politics and circumstances. The World Bank and the IMF have required dozens of poor-country governments to make “structural adjustments” such as privatizing state companies and cutting spending, in return for loans. Yet borrowers have for the most part only implemented measures they would have taken anyway, such as cutting spending in order to repay debt. A new World Bank survey of ten African nations found that only two, Ghana and Uganda, had made and stuck to the reforms demanded of them. (pp. 38–39)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[James]

Until, warlords and dictatorships are exstinct the problems in the third world will persist.

I'm going to use the old good fashioned argument. Does this mean that the U$A will have to be destoryed first? them sponsering dictators etc etc etc etc .....

[Guest]

This is CF,

Getting rid of the debt won't do anything, considering that the debt is mounting and increasing daily. You need to get rid of the conditions and practices that allow debt to accumulate. Let's say all debt was cleared today, by next week half the african countries would still be owing heaps because their practices have not changed and just keep on making them indebted. Not enough to decrease rate of indebting but to eliminate the practices altogether to ensure stability in the region.

[Guest]

Also i agree with James and subsequently his website that claims debt is not in fact responsible for the deaths of children and the like. Governments in Africa who are burdened with prodigious amounts of debt have no hope of replaying them so don't allocate funds and stuff to pay off unpaiable debts. THey simply continue to conduct their business and affairs without worrying about the debt. Even if every dollar of their country's income went to the debt for the next 100 years theyw ould not even be close. The debt is just there. It is basically immaterial to the workings of a nation.

[peaccenicked]

THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE OF WORLD DEVELOPMENT
A synopsis of Chapter 21.

Most world violence would disappear if the pressures to maintain a region as a supplier of basic commodities were replaced by a sincere philosophy, and sincere effort, to support sustainable development. Few governments would endure for long if they rejected an offer to industrialize just because the conditions required a democratic government that recognized its citizens' full rights. Leaders who are reluctant to surrender their dictatorial powers will, under these conditions, risk almost certain revolution. In any case, these dictators would have been overthrown long ago were they not being kept in power through the external support of imperial powers . Since the goal would be to win hearts and minds through democracy and development, continuing to support reactionary regimes would be self-defeating. Most insurrections are attempts to regain control of a people's own resources and destiny. In short, to gain economic freedom. If these desires for justice and rights were supported by the powerful, instead of denied, the world would quickly abandon war.

These insurrections could all be stopped dead in their tracks by honestly and effectively promoting democracy and capitalizing underdeveloped countries in trade for them giving up their weapons. This is what most are fighting for anyway. As production of armaments equaling several times the amount needed to produce industry for the world's impoverished would be eliminated, the cost would be nothing and there would be further substantial gains to the world in not having its social wealth destroyed by wars.

Currently, no matter how loud the praises of free trade, we know of no major imperial center of capital that is not extensively fudging on free trade rules. As these neo-mercantilist policies have been the cause of most wars, "spheres of influence," "power vacuums," "balances of power," "preponderance of power," "containment," and "realpolitiks," (all functioning under each imperial center of capital's "Grand Strategy" in the "Great Game" of who will control the world's wealth) must be substituted by a guarantee of each society's security. World trade should be structured to providing security through interdependence as opposed to the current insecurity through dependence. With all the world gaining rights and freedom, "spheres of influence" (which means little more than dominance over other societies) will disappear. Without dominant-and arbitrary-military power, there would then be no "power vacuums," "balance of power" or "containment" struggles. As opposed to the current guarantees of war and oppression, "realpolitiks," "realist" and "moralist" statecraft theory will mean peace, freedom, justice, and rights for all. "National security" would then be obtained through "world security." It would no longer be "international politics in the national interest but national politics in the international interest

In plain and unambiguous language, this should be the offer of the powerful industrialized nations to the world:

The cancellation of all unjust debts, the conversion of industrial capital once producing arms to production of industrial tools for the Third World, the United Nations to oversee the balanced and peaceful capitalization of the Third World; the borders of all countries to be guaranteed, the United Nations given the authority, soldiers, and the arms to back up that guarantee, and a worldwide embargo to automatically go into effect against any country that attacks or subverts another.
Once the external support of repressive regimes ceases, dictators will quickly fall. There will then be many countries that will qualify for industrialization and protection of their security. Any remaining governments that reject democracy would not stand for long when their citizens remain poor while their neighbors are becoming economically secure, especially if the world imposes sanctions; witness the political changes in relatively powerful South Africa with only a partial embargo. If the world's power brokers are sincere, their financial power can do enormous harm to any country that chooses to break those sanctions.

Once the rest of the world is disarmed, and all are therefore safe from attack, the weapons of mass destruction can be destroyed and adequate conventional weapons can be transferred to a world body to oversee peace. With destruction of the weapons of war and equal rights to capital, resources, and trade-as Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, and Kennedy envisioned-all societies could eventually produce for, and provide equal rights for, all their citizens.

People everywhere are basically good. If they are aware, the leaders will follow. After all, the citizens have the vote and no one could remain a leader if they opposed such an obviously peaceful and productive course. The purpose of the creation of enemies has been "strategies of tension" to prevent just such realizations by the common people. Thus the war-governments have been governments to protect the elite, not the people.

[RAM]

Actually I think its Mallawi sold off its grain reserves to get money from the World Bank. Although some people are being coroupt and in Zimbabwe Mogame is being a dickhead and banning commercial famrs so bread can't be produced its not all MY fault!

[RAM]

Anyway how would you solve problems of drought caused by low rainfall. You couden't build resevioes becuase in Egypt in Lake Noseer the evaportation rate is 25% they built the dam to provide irriagation and power but its casued bill hersia disease so you would lose water so supose resviores wouden't be the answer

[Goldfinger]

1st country called for help? USA! No-one can deny this!
Like James said, the US only gives less than one %. Norway gives a lot more, and we still have plenty of money left for ourselves (well, most of the money are saved for the future in case we run out of oil - in a couple of millions of years - and some is used by the politicians for vacations to Spain, but that's another thing). My point is that helping people in need is a nice thing to do, and will result in less poverty and famine. Then no-one can complain.

[Stormin Norman]

The United States has an estimated amount of recoverable reserve oil that is projected to last another fifty years. Millions of years, that is laughable. That is why we shouldn't recover the ANWAR oil. We should use the Middle Eastern supply as long as they will sell it. Russia sits on 1/3 of the earth's oil, virtually untapped. Engineers are currently generating solutions for drilling through frozen tundra. If we want to maintain self reliance, we need to look into recovering blocks of solid methane, which sits of the Gulf Coast. These hydrocarbons can then be used as a source of hydrogen, for fuel cell of liquid hydrogen technology. They are also looking into the production of hydrogen from algae. Once we obtain this sort of technology, we can isolate ourselves from the rest or the world, who have been largely ungrateful for the advances in technology that we have given them. Forget about sending them aid money or purchasing their oil. They need us, we don't need them.

[James]

That attitude got you very far with Saddam didn't it.

Don't be a moron.

[marxistdisciple]

The fact is the USA can afford to give much more aid than it does. That makes them directly responsible for thousands if not millions of deaths. The debt is not necessarily the problem; pakistan apparently spend 30% of their taxes paying back IMF loans (don't quote me on this) Debts are fine if they are used for investment, but a lot of third world debt is used to buy arms. Who sells them these arms then? Well that one is obvious.

Why isn't the USA interested in helping Africa out of poverty? (Even Tony Blair is fighting for that one) Well, it's not really in their interest is it? Everyone should know that pretty much everything comes down to what is in USAs interest. The US have virtually never performed a selfless political act.

We shall see at the G8 summit, whether the USA is in the least committed to freeing the developing world from poverty and unfair trade restrictions. (see www.maketradefair.org)

Simple difference; unfair trade in US = loss of money
Unfair trade in developing world = loss of life

[Moskitto]

Isn't their annother oil reserve in Canada that is absolutely massive (bigger than Arabia) yet it isn't drilled because it isn't worth it yet.

My dad reckons that the US sees it as a strategic reserve and if they really needed oil they would invade Canada to get it and he's lived in Canada for 20 years.

[Stormin Norman]

One of the reasons we went to war with Iraq is due to the fact that a U.S. diplomat supposedly gave him the go ahead. Sadom thought he had our o.k. based on a diplomat's word. We probably wanted to reduce the size of his army, so we fed him false information. Once the Arab world asked us for our intervention, we saw it as an excellent chance to test our weapons systems. Do he honestly think that we would let over sixty percent of the worlds working oil fields fall into the hands of such a megalomaniac? In the process of annihilating his army the U.S. redefined the meaning of war. Our casualty rates were unheard of, as well as our kill ratio for tanks. There top armored division has decimated in a number of hours and Iraqi defectors were surrendering by the thousands.
During the first arab oil embargo, oil companies were taking out full page adds advertising hydrogen technology. Apparently, the consuming public was not ready for such advanced technology. If this technology existed then our interests in the Middle East would be miniscule. A large reason for our alliance with Israel remains due to their control of large water resources. If they cut the spigot on our oil, we would have the Israelis block the flow of water. It is in our national interest to maintain close ties with Israel.
I am sure that we would go to war with the entire Arab world before we became aggressors to Canada. However, Canada owes the United States big time. If they developed an oil cartel that manipulated the market price and got greedy with their oil, then the U.S. would put them in their place.

[marxistdisciple]

So if the middle east hurts the the US economically, you are saying Israel would cut off the water supply killing thousands/millions of innocent civilians? Is there something good about that I should be aware of?

This is precisely why alternative technologies are vitally important, so we can stop letting oil needs dictate western foreign policy.

[Apache]

My dad reckons that the US sees it as a strategic reserve and if they really needed oil they would invade Canada to get it and he's lived in Canada for 20 years.
If we are going to invade countries to steal oil, why not just invade Saudi Arabia?
Anybody that says we have invasion plans of Canada is a simpleton.
My condolences to your father.

[Moskitto]

that's not the point, the point is that the US can just drain Saudi Arabia of oil at the moment, then when there's no oil left in Saudi Arabia the US starts using their own reserves (like Texas and Alaska) And the US doesn't ever have to give a fuck about what's going on in the middle east ever again.

However, if things became really desperate (oil supplies aren't that low yet) who knows, they might invade Canada.

[Apache]

Quote: from Moskitto on 2:34 pm on June 26, 2002
that's not the point, the point is that the US can just drain Saudi Arabia of oil at the moment, then when there's no oil left in Saudi Arabia the US starts using their own reserves (like Texas and Alaska) And the US doesn't ever have to give a fuck about what's going on in the middle east ever again.

However, if things became really desperate (oil supplies aren't that low yet) who knows, they might invade Canada.

Why not just BUY the OIL from Canada?
If we were of that mind, why didn't we just stay around in Iraq and pump that place dry and say it was for reparations for the cost of the war?
Who could have forced us to leave?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Apocalypse When on 11:06 am on June 25, 2002

1st country called for help? USA! No-one can deny this!
Like James said, the US only gives less than one %. Norway gives a lot more, and we still have plenty of money left for ourselves (well, most of the money are saved for the future in case we run out of oil - in a couple of millions of years - and some is used by the politicians for vacations to Spain, but that's another thing). My point is that helping people in need is a nice thing to do, and will result in less poverty and famine. Then no-one can complain.


So? the US gives the most pure dollars! We also relieve more debt than anyone, and we have more humanitarian aid workers abroad than anyone. Don't try to manipulate statistics. Even though our % is less, the bottom line is that countries in need benefit more from US cointributions than any other countries contributions.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from James on 3:56 pm on June 25, 2002
That attitude got you very far with Saddam didn't it.

Don't be a moron.


We acheived all of our objectives against saddam.

We defeated the worlds 4th largest army in 100 days, liberated kuwait, and liberated our oil. I don't understand your comment

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from marxistdisciple on 7:08 pm on June 25, 2002
The fact is the USA can afford to give much more aid than it does. That makes them directly responsible for thousands if not millions of deaths.


Just because we don't want to give out our own $$$ we are "directly responsible" for thousands (if not millions) of deaths? That is laughable.

Did you think maybe, just maybe, that for the most part it could be these countries' and governments' own fault that they are in the position they are in?

Just a crazy notion, I guess, but most communists and socialists don't understand the concept of "Responsibility". They are conditioned to expect someone to look after them and wipe their butt for them their whole life.

[WolfieSmith]

Debt Relief is only a sticking plaster.

Two groups benefit from the exploitation of third world workers and the raping of their enviroment: warlords and their western paymasters.

The ONLY solution for the third world is to overthrow the warlords, organise local militia to defend parlimentary democracy, suspend all trade with and all debt repayment to the "creditor" nations and establish a tri-continental (Asia, Africa and Latin America) trading block.

Military Confrontation with the west is virtually assured but the willingness of western workers to be conscripted, kill and be killed for the money-men is not!

[Capitalist Imperial]

The west will not need conscripts. The idea of even this "tri-lateral continental alliance" warring with the US is laughable. The US and NATO would mop the floor with them in about 1 months time.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 9:25 pm on June 24, 2002
See, no one likes capitalist nations, cheifly America,"meddling in their business". But when countries are in trouble, who is the 1st country that is called for help? The USA!!! No one can deny this.


This is a good point. Where is one to draw the line at with self-determination??

[Moskitto]

If some large and powerful global alliance decided to take on the US and was capable of winning in combat. I would laugh before leaving Europe and going to somewhere that isn't going to become like something I eat for breakfast.

[Power1]

marxistdisciple the USA doesn't have to give any money in aid so it has actually saved lifes by giving money to Africa rather than destroying lifes.

How much of the money we give actually goes to the poor people anyway. Most of it goes in the leaders bank account. I think debt should be cancelled but then they should be on their own by cutting of all aid. Money and technologial aid should go once debt is cancelled.

As for Africa/Latin America fighting the US, Uk and rest of europe. They would be defeated very quickly. Asia would be harder but they would be defeated as well.


(Edited by Power1 at 10:15 pm on June 28, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Moskitto on 9:32 pm on June 28, 2002
If some large and powerful global alliance decided to take on the US and was capable of winning in combat. I would laugh before leaving Europe and going to somewhere that isn't going to become like something I eat for breakfast.


Good luck with that dream

[marxistdisciple]

Well, really people need to get out of the needing oil trap. It forces economic policy too much, and gives countries with oil unfair political advantage. The US needs to stop wasting a precious natural resource. It might last for years, but it will still run out one day. That's why they need to make bigger environmental policiy moves and moves to better fuel sources.

But Bush is screwing those ideals over, pretty effectively.

[Moskitto]

No CI, you don't understand, It isn't a dream, It's a nightmare, I have toast for breakfast.

ARGH, Europe's turning into toast.

I'll just have to hide in this bunker down here where Osam er an ur, Arab guy, is hiding.

[Capitalist Imperial]

What I meant, was, that it would be hard for anyone to defeat the US and its western allies. Europe would be ok, as almost all of europe is allied with the USA

[marxistdisciple]

In responce to Power1, no, the US don't have to give aid...they only give aid to keep us liberals happy really.

It doesn't advantage the US, so why should they do it? when I say aid, I don't mean financial aid. I mean real, on the ground, teaching people to build, and help each other aid. The kind of aid that really helps countries. giving them money is pointless, I agree. It does just go to the coffers of rich warlords. Maybe they should develop an organisation along the line of the UN, except on a huge scale, sending people and food to countries, helping people develop infastructure, like roads and crops in Africa. These people would be under risk, but should be protected by an international force like the UN. I am not saying overthrow the governments (Although that sometimes could be helpful.) I am saying teach the people in the countries how to help themselves out of poverty, and how to get out of their mess. It may not be the USA's fault, if you want to attribute blame, but they have a duty as fellow human beings to do whatever they can. The vast wealth and resources the US has could do so much, they could provide free AIDS drugs to developing countries to quell the tide of millions of deaths, or at least let them live longer lives.

I am saying, when you have that much power, and you use it purely destructively, you are commiting a great sin against humanity...
Sure, the US does things for other countries, but only if it helps them. I want to see that change.
Sure, it costs a lot of money. But money is not important when it comes down to life and death. It's just money.

[Moskitto]

Almost all? I can't think of any countries in Europe that aren't allied with the US apart from Switzerland who don't really count because they always avoid international conflicts.

[Power1]

Moskitto although many countries are allied they are reluctunt allies to the US. All countries apart from UK are reluctant to invade Iraq.

Marxist i agree we should rely on oil less and move towards alternative means. The environment is an importent issue to me because if we don't improve it we will all die.

I don't see why we should help Africa in any way. They used to be able to feed themselves because off the competent white farmers who supplided enough food to the nation but now the racist leaders are clensing the "evil" white man. This means the farms don't produce anything and the people go hungry. The African leaders then go cap in hand to the UN and get a load of food and money. That is what is truly sick.

Take Mugagbe his country used to be able to feed his nation and all the nations surrounding it but now due to his policies 5 million people are facing starvation and he then has the cheek to blame it on the west and white oppresion. The man should be put on charge for genocide.

[WolfieSmith]

Capitalist Imperial wrote

<<Nato would mop the floor with them in about 1 months time>>

Let me clarify. I'm not talking about the third world commencing hostilities. That would be ridiculous. I am saying that western governments will declare war on them.

<<The west will not need conscripts>>

Are you saying that NATO would nuke third world countries for suspeding trade with them and defaulting
on debt-repayment? Please clarify your statement.