“The future of the Iraqi people should not be mortgaged to the enormous burden of debt incurred to enrich Saddam Hussein's regime,” said a White House Statement. Africa should be no different.
June 9, 2005 (Press Release) --
After the invasion, the US decreed that Iraq’s debt of more than $120 billion should be cancelled. “The future of the Iraqi people should not be mortgaged to the enormous burden of debt incurred to enrich Saddam Hussein's regime,” said a White House Statement. Substitute Africa for Iraq in that statement and any reasonable person would agree with the conclusion. The question is; “Do the right people really care?”
That same White House statement also said: “This debt endangers Iraq's long-term prospects for political health and economic prosperity. The issue of Iraq's debt must be resolved in a manner that is fair and does not unjustly burden a struggling nation at its moment of hope and promise.”
Sure enough, if we again substitute Africa for Iraq in that statement any reasonable person would agree. Other sources quote Pentagon advisor Richard Perle, neocon architect of the Iraqi invasion and the overall war against terror, echoing these sentiments and going even further. Perle’s statement called for cancellation of Iraq’s debt as a way of teaching banks about the “moral hazard of ... lending to a vicious dictatorship”.
We should wonder what the people of The Congo think about that.
In 1963, in order to frustrate the independence of an emerging African country with vast natural resources, the CIA overthrew and subsequently killed Patrice Lumumba. In his place, they imposed a man by the name of Mobutu Sese Seko. Remember him? They did not stop there. As Mobutu was an “ally in the war against communism” – sounds familiar – they plied him with loans and assistance, much of which ended up in western banks.
Mobutu stayed in power, propped up by the CIA and the US government until he was no longer needed – communism ended and in any case western business interests could deal directly with local gangs to get the minerals they were after. Today, that country is still struggling to recover from the murder of its infant democracy and the imposition of odious debt.
Why are they not canceling Congo’s debt? Why is Bush not calling for this?
When Bush called for Iraqi debt cancellation he sent out a special envoy, James Baker III, former Defense Secretary in his father’s Administration. It turned out that Baker was also working for an investment fund called the Carlyle Group and that he was simultaneously tasked to collect $27 billion of war reparations owed by Iraq to Kuwait. Of course to complete this tale of corruption one should point out Baker had a personal investment of over $180 million in the Carlyle Group, and that Bush Sr. is also a member of that Group.
It was rumored that the Carlyle consortium would make millions in fees, retainers, and commission as a result of Baker’s work. One international lawyer described the consortium's scheme as “influence peddling of the crassest kind”.
The cancellation of odious debt is not new. It dates back to the turn of the 20th century when the US cancelled Cuba’s debt after winning the Spanish American War. The US declared the debts odious since they were imposed by a colonial power.
I wonder what the people of Indonesia and the Philippines make of this, the latter also having been taken from Spain during the Spanish American War.
For years, the US propped up Fernando Marcos because he was an anti-Communist ally. In Indonesia, they engineered a coup that brought Suharto to power in 1965 – killing an estimated 500,000 to 800,000 people in the process. Although not suffering to quite the extent of their African counterparts, Indonesia and the Philippines have staggered under debt incurred by these US sponsored dictators, and which by the White House’s own standards are most certainly odious.
Much of Africa’s debt was incurred in a similar manner, dating back to the 1970s and 1980s when the west positively encouraged any dictator, as long as they were anti-Communist.
What is worse, the debt is now several times the original principal. Yet, when they talk of debt relief, they refer to the original principal, not “new loans”. Strange, given that all these “new loans” are merely the accumulation of interest on that original principal.
When President Bush talks about debt reduction, he repeatedly states that US budgetary constraints limit his course of action. This did not seem to be a factor when the US government, supposedly acting as prosecutor, asked a federal judge to reduce the fine on tobacco companies from $130 billion to $10 billion. This prompted the judge to remark; “There may be some additional influences being brought to bear on the government's decision”.
Then there is the report by a Swedish think tank which points out that the US spends almost half of the 1 trillion dollars the world spends annually on defense – that is $500 billion.
It appears that US budgetary restraints are not a problem for the right interest groups and the right people.
Then there is there is the question of aid. The following is an extract from an article written by Paul Mumo Kisau, a Kenyan, who at the time of writing in August 2003, was a PhD candidate at Aberdeen University.
Having worked in one of the International AID organizations, I had an opportunity to see for a good number of months what goes on in such organisations. Even though the work that this organization does is very important in the lives of some Africans, the majority of Africans that it claims to serve do not benefit from the resources that are raised in their name. This did puzzle me for sometime until I read in one of the magazines written to encourage Western donors which stated that of every US$1 that comes to Africa as AID, US$3 are raised overseas. This happens in several ways and the obvious one that this paper articulated was the fact that, AID gives Western people job opportunities and most, if not all the equipment, are brought in from the Western countries, thus providing a market for their products. After the items are used, the workers sell them to themselves or the nationals at a good cost. Therefore, it is a circle which in the long run continues to deplete Africa and enrich the West. This may seem to be a fairy tale to some readers, but those who have had some first hand experience with either the African government aided projects or the NGOs (non-governmental organisations) may be able to both nod the head in agreement and shake them in dismay.
Mr. Kisau’s observations are supported by other sources. Guy De Launey, a BBC correspondent in Phnom Penh noted:
They say that almost half the amount of aid goes on ‘technical assistance’, and that the 700 or so international consultants working in the country earn more than Cambodia's 160,000 civil servants put together.
It is estimated that for every dollar in US aid, 86 cents is tied to the purchase of American goods and services. George Bush’s Aids drugs plan excludes cheaper, generic drugs, so giving lucrative contracts to US pharmaceutical companies but treating fewer patients.
A report by ActionAid further exposes the sham that is aid, noting that the bulk of the money currently allocated was simply recycled to rich countries, in many cases accounting for over 61% of aid flows. However, in the case of France and the US, almost 90% of so-called aid was redirected in this way. The report concluded:
“Failure to target aid at the poorest countries, runaway spending on overpriced technical assistance from international consultants, tying aid to purchases from donor countries' own firms, cumbersome and ill-coordinated planning, implementation, monitoring and reporting requirements, excessive administrative costs, late and partial disbursements, double counting of debt relief, and aid spending on immigration services all deflate the value of aid.”
These are the facts of debt, and aid. At the beginning of this article I asked the question: “Do the right people really care”. Now we have our answer. People are not dying because of lack of resources or a lack of political will. They are dying because of greed and a lack of interest.
Jonathan Ledwidge is the author of the book A Mannequin for President - www.amannequinforpresident.com
That same White House statement also said: “This debt endangers Iraq's long-term prospects for political health and economic prosperity. The issue of Iraq's debt must be resolved in a manner that is fair and does not unjustly burden a struggling nation at its moment of hope and promise.”
Sure enough, if we again substitute Africa for Iraq in that statement any reasonable person would agree. Other sources quote Pentagon advisor Richard Perle, neocon architect of the Iraqi invasion and the overall war against terror, echoing these sentiments and going even further. Perle’s statement called for cancellation of Iraq’s debt as a way of teaching banks about the “moral hazard of ... lending to a vicious dictatorship”.
We should wonder what the people of The Congo think about that.
In 1963, in order to frustrate the independence of an emerging African country with vast natural resources, the CIA overthrew and subsequently killed Patrice Lumumba. In his place, they imposed a man by the name of Mobutu Sese Seko. Remember him? They did not stop there. As Mobutu was an “ally in the war against communism” – sounds familiar – they plied him with loans and assistance, much of which ended up in western banks.
Mobutu stayed in power, propped up by the CIA and the US government until he was no longer needed – communism ended and in any case western business interests could deal directly with local gangs to get the minerals they were after. Today, that country is still struggling to recover from the murder of its infant democracy and the imposition of odious debt.
Why are they not canceling Congo’s debt? Why is Bush not calling for this?
When Bush called for Iraqi debt cancellation he sent out a special envoy, James Baker III, former Defense Secretary in his father’s Administration. It turned out that Baker was also working for an investment fund called the Carlyle Group and that he was simultaneously tasked to collect $27 billion of war reparations owed by Iraq to Kuwait. Of course to complete this tale of corruption one should point out Baker had a personal investment of over $180 million in the Carlyle Group, and that Bush Sr. is also a member of that Group.
It was rumored that the Carlyle consortium would make millions in fees, retainers, and commission as a result of Baker’s work. One international lawyer described the consortium's scheme as “influence peddling of the crassest kind”.
The cancellation of odious debt is not new. It dates back to the turn of the 20th century when the US cancelled Cuba’s debt after winning the Spanish American War. The US declared the debts odious since they were imposed by a colonial power.
I wonder what the people of Indonesia and the Philippines make of this, the latter also having been taken from Spain during the Spanish American War.
For years, the US propped up Fernando Marcos because he was an anti-Communist ally. In Indonesia, they engineered a coup that brought Suharto to power in 1965 – killing an estimated 500,000 to 800,000 people in the process. Although not suffering to quite the extent of their African counterparts, Indonesia and the Philippines have staggered under debt incurred by these US sponsored dictators, and which by the White House’s own standards are most certainly odious.
Much of Africa’s debt was incurred in a similar manner, dating back to the 1970s and 1980s when the west positively encouraged any dictator, as long as they were anti-Communist.
What is worse, the debt is now several times the original principal. Yet, when they talk of debt relief, they refer to the original principal, not “new loans”. Strange, given that all these “new loans” are merely the accumulation of interest on that original principal.
When President Bush talks about debt reduction, he repeatedly states that US budgetary constraints limit his course of action. This did not seem to be a factor when the US government, supposedly acting as prosecutor, asked a federal judge to reduce the fine on tobacco companies from $130 billion to $10 billion. This prompted the judge to remark; “There may be some additional influences being brought to bear on the government's decision”.
Then there is the report by a Swedish think tank which points out that the US spends almost half of the 1 trillion dollars the world spends annually on defense – that is $500 billion.
It appears that US budgetary restraints are not a problem for the right interest groups and the right people.
Then there is there is the question of aid. The following is an extract from an article written by Paul Mumo Kisau, a Kenyan, who at the time of writing in August 2003, was a PhD candidate at Aberdeen University.
Having worked in one of the International AID organizations, I had an opportunity to see for a good number of months what goes on in such organisations. Even though the work that this organization does is very important in the lives of some Africans, the majority of Africans that it claims to serve do not benefit from the resources that are raised in their name. This did puzzle me for sometime until I read in one of the magazines written to encourage Western donors which stated that of every US$1 that comes to Africa as AID, US$3 are raised overseas. This happens in several ways and the obvious one that this paper articulated was the fact that, AID gives Western people job opportunities and most, if not all the equipment, are brought in from the Western countries, thus providing a market for their products. After the items are used, the workers sell them to themselves or the nationals at a good cost. Therefore, it is a circle which in the long run continues to deplete Africa and enrich the West. This may seem to be a fairy tale to some readers, but those who have had some first hand experience with either the African government aided projects or the NGOs (non-governmental organisations) may be able to both nod the head in agreement and shake them in dismay.
Mr. Kisau’s observations are supported by other sources. Guy De Launey, a BBC correspondent in Phnom Penh noted:
They say that almost half the amount of aid goes on ‘technical assistance’, and that the 700 or so international consultants working in the country earn more than Cambodia's 160,000 civil servants put together.
It is estimated that for every dollar in US aid, 86 cents is tied to the purchase of American goods and services. George Bush’s Aids drugs plan excludes cheaper, generic drugs, so giving lucrative contracts to US pharmaceutical companies but treating fewer patients.
A report by ActionAid further exposes the sham that is aid, noting that the bulk of the money currently allocated was simply recycled to rich countries, in many cases accounting for over 61% of aid flows. However, in the case of France and the US, almost 90% of so-called aid was redirected in this way. The report concluded:
“Failure to target aid at the poorest countries, runaway spending on overpriced technical assistance from international consultants, tying aid to purchases from donor countries' own firms, cumbersome and ill-coordinated planning, implementation, monitoring and reporting requirements, excessive administrative costs, late and partial disbursements, double counting of debt relief, and aid spending on immigration services all deflate the value of aid.”
These are the facts of debt, and aid. At the beginning of this article I asked the question: “Do the right people really care”. Now we have our answer. People are not dying because of lack of resources or a lack of political will. They are dying because of greed and a lack of interest.
Jonathan Ledwidge is the author of the book A Mannequin for President - www.amannequinforpresident.com
Email
Print
Download
SPAM
LEAVE A COMMENT
