| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jez" |
| Date: |
17 Jun 2005 01:44:44 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Africa's False Friends |
Africa's False Friends
Feature Article by Mark Curtis, June 2005
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9428
Mark Curtis condemns the neo-liberal assumptions of New Labour's
development agenda.
The New Labour government has had an amazingly good press on development
issues. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are regarded throughout the
mainstream media and liberal political culture as little short of
champions of global poverty eradication. Their policies on aid, Africa
and trade are routinely praised as demonstrating that, even though they
might be liars and criminals over Iraq, on global development they are
committed internationalists. It is an extraordinary view. Putting the
progressive rhetoric aside, ministers have also made plain their other
goals - which are more plausible and confirmed by their actual policies.
According to Blair, 'Real development can only come through partnership.
Not the rich dictating to the poor. Not the poor demanding from the rich.
But matching rights and responsibilities.' Thus the poor have no right to
make demands on the rich. Yet half the world's population lives in
poverty, on an average of $2 a day, while the richest few dozen
individuals command more wealth than hundreds of millions of people. In
this situation, are the poor really not entitled to be 'demanding from
the rich' rather than simply 'matching rights and responsibilities'?
Blair's view is echoed by Gordon Brown, who has outlined a 'global new
deal' based on the poorest and richest countries 'each meeting our
obligations'. The poorest countries' 'obligations' are 'to pursue
stability and create the conditions for new investment'. The richest
countries' obligations are 'to open our markets and to transfer
resources'. One might think that the world's poorest countries have no
obligations to the rich. But those with few schools, health services and
safe water are deemed by New Labour to have 'obligations' to us
concerning helping our companies to make more profits (creating 'the
conditions for new investment').
The basic fact is that Britain under Blair and Brown is one of the
world's leading champions of the neo-liberal economic model that is
essentially being imposed on much of the rest of the world, and which is
generally increasing poverty and inequality. Britain's basic priority -
which I have tried to document in my books Web of Deceit and Unpeople -
is to aid British companies in getting their hands on other countries'
resources and breaking into foreign markets. Former trade secretary
Patricia Hewitt has said that 'we want to open up protected markets in
developing countries'. A new World Trade Organisation (WTO) round of
negotiations 'is the best way of ensuring that our businesses can benefit
from, and contribute to, future economic growth anywhere in the world',
she stated in July 2001. 'Opening up markets and cutting duties around
the world' will 'create new opportunities for our service sectors',
Hewitt adds.
Consider also a crucial passage in the government's white paper on trade
of July last year: 'The UK government has a key role to play at the
international policy level to ensure that any distortions created by
other government interventions are minimised so that the UK can compete
in global markets, while deriving the maximum benefit from competition
from increased imports.'
Securing business access into foreign markets is the aim of economic
'liberalisation'. Policies like import tariffs and subsidies, raised by
governments to protect their markets from competition that can undermine
domestic industry or agriculture, are seen as essentially heretical for
developing countries. 'Trade liberalisation is the only sure route' to
economic growth and prosperity for developing countries, Tony Blair says
with religious conviction.
The government has also consistently acted as an ally to big business in
the ongoing WTO negotiations on services. Services are big business to
Britain, the fourth largest importer of services in the world and the
second largest exporter. Trade minister Baroness Symons once told members
of International Finance Services London - a big business pressure group
- that 'I hope you will view this government as your greatest ally in
moving that agenda forward', including through the WTO. WTO negotiations
'offer a huge opportunity to European and British businesses', she noted.
The importance of DFID
New Labour created a new instrument for promoting these interests - the
Department for International Development (DFID). An extremist economic
project is being pursued under a great moral pretext - that global
'liberalisation' will promote development and eradicate poverty. A
variety of initiatives have been established to reassure business of the
benefits of New Labour's policies, and emphasising that business is a
'partner' in development. Consider then former international development
secretary Clare Short's speech to business leaders at Lancaster House in
April 1999: 'The assumption that our moral duties and business interests
are in conflict is now demonstrably false... I am very keen that we
maximise the impact of our shared interest in business and development by
working together in partnership... We bring access to other governments
and influence in the multilateral system - such as the World Bank and
IMF... You are well aware of the constraints business faces in the
regulatory environment for investment in any country... Your ideas on
overcoming these constraints can be invaluable when we develop our
country strategies. We can use this understanding to inform our dialogue
with governments and the multilateral institutions on the reform agenda.'
DFID is here offering itself to business as an instrument to shape the
policies of multilateral institutions and developing country governments.
DFID policy is to help minimise the risks for private investors in
developing countries and 'to develop an investor friendly environment'
and 'a more favourable business environment'. Its Business Partnership
Unit looks at 'ways in which DFID can improve the enabling environment
for productive investment overseas and how we can contribute to the
operation of the overseas financial sector'. Its bilateral aid programmes
'provide governments of developing countries with the advice and
expertise to help attract private finance'. It also supports the World
Bank's Private-Public Infrastructure Advisory Facility, which provides
'advice' on regulatory frameworks to attract foreign investment.
Domestically and internationally, the government is actively campaigning
for the minimum regulation of business. Clare Short said that 'by far the
best approach is for enterprises themselves to ensure that they respect
the rights of workers, protect their health and safety and offer
satisfactory conditions of employment... Voluntary codes... are often
more effective than regulation.'
It might be thought astonishing that a Labour leader believes that
businesses should be left to themselves to ensure they respect the rights
of workers! But New Labour's consistent rejection of proposals for
legally binding regulation of corporations to protect people contrasts
starkly with its vociferous support for legally binding WTO rules that
benefit business. I can find no statement where the government has even
seriously criticised transnational corporations (TNCs) for the harmful
effects they can have on the world's poor.
The aid programme has been overtly used to push corporate globalisation.
Christian Aid found that in Ghana the British government was in effect
tying the release of British aid to Ghana's government privatising water
services. DFID was withholding £10 million in aid for the expansion of
water supply in the city of Kumasi until company bids for the leases of
Ghana's urban water supplies had been received.
Recent reports by War on Want and the World Development Movement reveal
that the government has provided tens of millions of pounds of 'aid' to
companies such as the Adam Smith Institute, Halcrow and KPMG to push
privatisation, notably of water. DFID's chief civil servant notes that
'we are... extending our support for privatisation in the poorest
countries from the power sector in India to the tea industry in Nepal'.
Government arguments
What of the government's - and media's - arguments that it is pursuing a
positive development agenda? First, this case can only be made by
ignoring the strategy of promoting corporate globalisation and the
empowerment of business outlined above. Yet three cases in particular are
still routinely made: on trade, aid and debt.
On trade, the government's slogan is that it is promoting 'free and fair
trade' - a conflation of two generally conflicting policies that, one
might think, would generally be ridiculed. Yet the government receives
widespread praise for championing the opening up of EU markets to
developing countries by removing trade barriers. Certainly, the EU's
blocking such market access at the same time as forcing open developing
country markets is gross hypocrisy. But the government sees market access
for developing countries as the quid pro quo for poor countries to do
likewise - a strategy it is vociferously pushing while offering only
longer 'transition periods' for developing countries to open up to full
'free trade'. According to former trade minister Richard Caborn, access
to EU markets 'is the message we need to hammer home if we are to get the
developing world to agree to another round of WTO talks', that is,
further liberalisation. It is a myth that mutual liberalisation creates a
level playing field from which all countries benefit equally; rather, it
is mainly TNCs who gain, poised as they are to take advantage of newly
opened markets.
Second, New Labour has increased the aid budget significantly, from a low
point at the end of Conservative rule. But, as noted above, aid is
routinely used to press developing country governments into promoting
neo-liberal economic policies. Gordon Brown's flagship aid initiative -
the International Finance Facility (IFF) - is billed by the government as
doubling overseas aid. An analysis by the World Development Movement
shows that the IFF will actually result in less aid over the long term;
moreover, such aid remains conditional on developing countries 'opening
up to trade and investment'. The government has abolished formal tied aid
- aid given on the specific condition that it is used to buy goods from
the donor - but the use of such 'globalised aid' has been increasing.
Under pressure from campaigners, the government has recently announced it
will no longer use aid for such purposes (having consistently denied
doing so). This remains to be seen, but there are informal as well as
formal means of so doing.
On debt relief, Britain is viewed as having a more positive record than
other G8 governments. It was largely public pressure - notably the
Jubilee 2000 campaign - that pushed the government into its more
progressive stance. Yet debt relief is also only provided on condition
that countries implement World Bank/IMF programmes that require policies
of economic liberalisation. The fact that debt relief is such a lever
over developing countries - a tool in the armoury of promoting corporate
globalisation - plausibly offers one explanation for why New Labour has
become keen on it.
In this context, the immediate task of campaigners is to ensure that
government rhetoric is exposed and that the public see accurately what
policies are being promoted in their name.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Africa's False Friends |
17 Jun 2005 02:22:20 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:Xns96789601469FDhellward@216.196.109.145:
Africa's False Friends
Feature Article by Mark Curtis, June 2005
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9428
Mark Curtis condemns the neo-liberal assumptions of New Labour's
development agenda.
The New Labour government has had an amazingly good press on
development issues. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are regarded
throughout the mainstream media and liberal political culture as
little short of champions of global poverty eradication. Their
policies on aid, Africa and trade are routinely praised as
demonstrating that, even though they might be liars and criminals over
Nothing like a little poisoning of the well.
Iraq, on global development they are committed internationalists. It
is an extraordinary view. Putting the progressive rhetoric aside,
ministers have also made plain their other goals - which are more
plausible and confirmed by their actual policies.
According to Blair, 'Real development can only come through
partnership. Not the rich dictating to the poor. Not the poor
demanding from the rich. But matching rights and responsibilities.'
Thus the poor have no right to make demands on the rich.
I knew Tony was a good guy.
Yet half the
world's population lives in poverty, on an average of $2 a day, while
the richest few dozen individuals command more wealth than hundreds of
millions of people. In this situation, are the poor really not
entitled to be 'demanding from the rich' rather than simply 'matching
rights and responsibilities'?
No, they bloody well are not entitled.
Blair's view is echoed by Gordon Brown, who has outlined a 'global new
deal' based on the poorest and richest countries 'each meeting our
obligations'. The poorest countries' 'obligations' are 'to pursue
stability and create the conditions for new investment'. The richest
countries' obligations are 'to open our markets and to transfer
resources'. One might think that the world's poorest countries have no
obligations to the rich. But those with few schools, health services
and safe water are deemed by New Labour to have 'obligations' to us
concerning helping our companies to make more profits (creating 'the
conditions for new investment').
Gasp! Somebody might make a profit! Burn them!
The basic fact is that Britain under Blair and Brown is one of the
world's leading champions of the neo-liberal economic model that is
essentially being imposed on much of the rest of the world, and which
is generally increasing poverty and inequality. Britain's basic
priority - which I have tried to document in my books Web of Deceit
and Unpeople - is to aid British companies in getting their hands on
other countries' resources and breaking into foreign markets.
Hey, if those countries want to sit on their resources, fine. But with
nothing to trade, they shouldn't be surprised when nobody wants to do
business with them.
<snip the rest of the Socialist garbage>
If Socialist policies work so well, why is Africa such a bloody mess
after a few decades of Socialist policies?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Misleart Chuff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Africa's False Friends |
17 Jun 2005 05:17:49 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1119018140.e99704ff78e81d10d3175463bf3688bc@teranews...
: Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
: news:Xns96789601469FDhellward@216.196.109.145:
:
: > Africa's False Friends
: >
: > Feature Article by Mark Curtis, June 2005
: > http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9428
: >
: > Mark Curtis condemns the neo-liberal assumptions of New Labour's
: > development agenda.
: >
: > The New Labour government has had an amazingly good press on
: > development issues. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are regarded
: > throughout the mainstream media and liberal political culture as
: > little short of champions of global poverty eradication. Their
: > policies on aid, Africa and trade are routinely praised as
: > demonstrating that, even though they might be liars and criminals
over
:
: Nothing like a little poisoning of the well.
WTF are you on about?
: > Iraq, on global development they are committed internationalists.
It
: > is an extraordinary view. Putting the progressive rhetoric aside,
: > ministers have also made plain their other goals - which are more
: > plausible and confirmed by their actual policies.
: >
: > According to Blair, 'Real development can only come through
: > partnership. Not the rich dictating to the poor. Not the poor
: > demanding from the rich. But matching rights and
responsibilities.'
: > Thus the poor have no right to make demands on the rich.
:
: I knew Tony was a good guy.
If you and he are "good" guys.....
: > Yet half the
: > world's population lives in poverty, on an average of $2 a day,
while
: > the richest few dozen individuals command more wealth than
hundreds of
: > millions of people. In this situation, are the poor really not
: > entitled to be 'demanding from the rich' rather than simply
'matching
: > rights and responsibilities'?
: >
:
: No, they bloody well are not entitled.
Sure they are....in your little mind, they're entitled to raped and
pillaged...and jailed or murdered if they complain.
: > Blair's view is echoed by Gordon Brown, who has outlined a 'global
new
: > deal' based on the poorest and richest countries 'each meeting our
: > obligations'. The poorest countries' 'obligations' are 'to pursue
: > stability and create the conditions for new investment'. The
richest
: > countries' obligations are 'to open our markets and to transfer
: > resources'. One might think that the world's poorest countries
have no
: > obligations to the rich. But those with few schools, health
services
: > and safe water are deemed by New Labour to have 'obligations' to
us
: > concerning helping our companies to make more profits (creating
'the
: > conditions for new investment').
: >
:
: Gasp! Somebody might make a profit! Burn them!
By taking it from those too weak to defend themselves. You're a
fucking loser, Freddieboy.
: > The basic fact is that Britain under Blair and Brown is one of the
: > world's leading champions of the neo-liberal economic model that
is
: > essentially being imposed on much of the rest of the world, and
which
: > is generally increasing poverty and inequality. Britain's basic
: > priority - which I have tried to document in my books Web of
Deceit
: > and Unpeople - is to aid British companies in getting their hands
on
: > other countries' resources and breaking into foreign markets.
:
: Hey, if those countries want to sit on their resources, fine. But
with
: nothing to trade, they shouldn't be surprised when nobody wants to
do
: business with them.
You dopey ***** - there is a huge difference between "doing business"
and rape.
: <snip the rest of the Socialist garbage>
What socialist garbage? I see no mention whatsoever of socialism,
before your grubby paws tapped it into your post.
: If Socialist policies work so well, why is Africa such a bloody mess
: after a few decades of Socialist policies?
Where in hell did you get the impression that socialist policies have
anything to do with Africa's problems? It was a mess long before
socialism got thought up. Why must you be such gimboid?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
