Brown’s crusade
This place has been hideously left wing for a week while Blimpish and I have had our backs turned, so I thought I’d rustle up some hate-filled bile to even the score.
Today Gordon Brown announced his plan to save Africa from poverty, which he hopes, in vain, to tie up at the G8 summit in Scotland next month. Well done, Gordon. You’ve triangulated the master of triangulation, Tony Blair, by getting your own name in lights above this one. Political strategy aside, however, I really don’t get this plan. I’m not an economist by trade, and I’m certainly not a political theorist. I’m self-taught in both fields, and proud of it, but it does tend to mean I’m probably more rigid in my own ideas than if I were brought up with them. The well documented phenomenon of people moving to the right as they get older is probably partly to do with people being tribally left through upbringing until they realise that right is, erm, right.
So what’s the deal? Gordon’s plan is threefold:
i) Doubling aid to Africa.
ii) 100% debt relief.
iii) Ending trade subsidies.
I remain skeptical about his ability to pull it off, particularly the third point, which mainly relates to agricultural subsidies. Firstly, the EU has to agree on that, and the CAP isn’t scheduled for shutdown any time soon. With the French voting for protectionism in their recent referendum (or so twas spun), it probably isn’t politically feasible either. Finally, and correct me if I am wrong, there is no veto on agricultural policy in the EU, but there is a convention whereby if a decision is against a country’s ‘vital interests’ it will not be taken. France, of course, claim that CAP reform would be against their vital interests. I’d love to see trade subsidy reform, because I think it is the only economically sensible policy to bring Africa out of poverty. Ending the practice of dumping our overproduction on third world countries, and preventing them from competing freely in our own markets against local producers, would allow the third world to work their way out of absolute poverty in a generation. Plus, we end up with cheaper food. Win-win. Even if the EU won’t shut down the CAP, I assume, and again may be mistaken – this is pure prejudice – that Britain could not unilaterally pull out of EU mandated trade subsidy levels, in the same way that we are no longer able to reduce VAT below a minimum threshold. So point iii) is probably a non-starter.
This leaves us with points i) and ii), or the Geldof gambit, as it will be henceforth known. I have no problem in principle with increasing aid to Africa, as long as it actually goes to help Africans who need aid, not Africans who need a new BMW. I’m not sure that with the types of government that exist over there, that’s entirely likely, but I’m a cynic when it comes to pissing away spending taxpayer’s money. Africa needs many things, but a good proportion of them could be accomplished using a few battalions of US Marines. Of course, we’d have to fight the legions of Guardian reading lunatics who object to freeing people from poverty, oppressive dictatorships, starvation, and all those good things when there might be a bit of collateral damage, or when America is even tangentially involved. Ignoring the problem or, even better, implementing an expensive solution that is doomed to failure, but that makes the implementor feel good, all while giving him/her work for a few years, is a far more refined attitude to hold, it seems.
Then there’s debt relief. Again, on the face of it, it seems like a wonderful idea. All those oppressive dictatorships who racked up expensive debts buying arms to oppress their people with, private jets, missile defense systems, and the like, can spend all the interest payments on healthcare, education, and lesbian outreach workers instead. Just who are we trying to kid here? Plus, there’s the somewhat cold-hearted, but entirely correct, argument that cancelling people’s debts tends to make it more expensive for them to borrow in the future. That’s not a great idea when these countries are going to want to build mobile phone networks and other such bastions of Western civilisation in the near future. Don’t believe me? Try missing your mortgage payments for a year, and buying AK-47s with the money. Don’t worry, Gordon has a Marshall plan for you…
All very cynical, I know, so would some of you compassionate lefties care to explain why Make Poverty History isn’t just economic illiteracy and pie-in-the-sky wooly liberal optimism? That would be much appreciated.
Actually, I agree with much of this. If anything, we’re far too timid with our ‘liberal interventionism’. I’d have troops in Sudan, troops in Zimbabwe, and plenty of other places too. And would happily pay the taxes necessary to liberate whoever wanted it from their tinpot tyrants. I’m not especially hung up on neo-colonialism because I see authority and responsibilities going way above the heads of ‘sovereignty’ straight to the people who have to live under these regimes.
Where I part company is the last para. Much of this odious debt dates back to a time when we knew full well that we were lending to shits, embezzlers and tyrants, but went ahead and did it anyway. We can’t in all honesty expect the people who have lived under Mobutu or Saddam or a whole bunch of others to pay for their repression. It’s immoral. Now, one way round your conundrum is to link debt relief (and increases in aid) to a whole bunch of civil society and democratisation measures. Those countries that are above the bar get it cancelled. Those currently below have their repayments held in trust for their people until such time as they are free(r). Countries like Mozambique and Bostwana (and Iraq?) that are coming out of the other side don’t deserve to have their progress hampered by repayments to the rich. That money could be spent on schools and healthcare for their own people, people who owe us and our banks not a penny.
Indeed – couldn’t agree more. I’m in something of a provocative mood.
“Of course, we’d have to fight the legions of Guardian reading lunatics who object to freeing people from poverty, oppressive dictatorships, starvation, and all those good things when there might be a bit of collateral damage…”
Sorry Andrew, but can’t you come up with a new euphemism for killing civilians? At least stand by your argument by admitting explicitly that innocent people are going to have to die to implement your plan. It’s all very well I suppose – it won’t be our kids bringing home unexploded cluster bombs.
I’m also puzzled by an argument that says we should rescue people from their problems by killing some of them. Can I liberate a friend of mine who’s partner is beating her (and who knows, might get around to killing her eventually) by shooting him? What if the neighbours catch a stray round or two?
It occurs to me that governments of whatever flag see bombing civilians as acceptable because they lack the political will (and imagination) to chase more complicated (read: non-violent) alternatives.
I thought about using the ‘can’t make an omelette…’ euphemism, but I thought it would be going too far. Yes, innocent civilians would die. How is that different from innocent civilians dying now from our inaction?
Which is better? Killing the woman’s partner and saving her life, or letting him kill her?
It occurs to me that governments of whatever flag see bombing civilians as acceptable because they lack the political will (and imagination) to chase more complicated (read: non-violent) alternatives.
Yes? And those alternatives are?
“All those oppressive dictatorships who racked up expensive debts buying arms to oppress their people with, private jets, missile defense systems, and the like, can spend all the interest payments on healthcare, education, and lesbian outreach workers instead.”
A good deal, maybe even most, of those dictators are gone now, so it makes no sense to require the people left behind to pay back their debts. Also, the evidence suggests that the countries who have had debts cancelled under the HIPC program have indeed spent the proceeds on health and education, though they have been content to leave the lesbian outreach workers to your imagination.
Heh. Fair play to you Jim – that’s a great put-down.
implementing an expensive solution that is doomed to failure, but that makes the implementor feel good, all while giving him/her work for a few years
Such as invading Iraq?
The difference with Iraq is that it will probably be many, many times richer than most of Africa in 20 years time. Sure, it’s been badly done, but, to use a hideous Blairism, ‘history will judge us…’
Most of the debt relief stuff is about debt to governments, (or World Bank/IMF) not private banks or bond issues. So problems with future credit ratings isn’t really all that much of a problem. Those places that are completely up the shitter (Congo, Sudan, Burma) aren’t servicing their debts anyway. MPH.org is, also, unfortunately, economic illiteracy and pie in the sky stupidity. Jim has spent some time defending parts of it, things like the demand that there should be no privatisations or liberalisations of those economies (if the current ruling class decide they don’t want them).
Sadly, things like open and competetive markets for electricity, phones, net access, fertilisers, would do a great deal for these places. As would the dismantly of monopsonist buyers like commodity trade boards, as would economic pricing for things like water, as would allowing private companies to provide basic services (water being an obvious example).
But these are precisely the things which we are supposed not to insist are done.
Stupid.
What hope for justice without lesbian outreach workers across all of Africa?
Rather unsurprisingly, I’m in agreement with much of what Andrew says, but I must add a note of caution on ‘liberal interventionism’. I’m not with Justin – I don’t have any objection to the use of force, even as it will involve the deaths of old people, women, and children (Justin’s right that we should be honest), providing that we’re sure that the net effect is worth the damage.
Now, ‘liberal intervention’ is probably one of the most powerful tools at our disposal to generally make Africa better. The problems of Africa are political, cultural, and institutional above all – economic development will be much more powerful if they have good, honest government and the rule of law. Military force can (potentially) provide a period of stability to allow this to grow.
But there are so many ways this can go wrong, so many possible unintended consequences. Most of all, how can we be sure that the states we regenerate are not ultimately houses of cards, which will collapse after we withdraw?
Reigning historical judgements easily blind us to the essentially good intentions with which many (especially British) imperial adventures in Africa were started. We might disagree with their assumptions, but many imperialists were convinced they were doing God’s work, bringing civilisation and englightenment to the Dark Continent.
After the efforts of those earlier ‘liberal interventionist’, the mess of Africa today (not helped by rapid decolonisation in the midst of the Cold War either) stands as a caution to us all – maybe there’s only so much we can do to help Africa; maybe they have to get their own house in order, and ’til then we might be better to wring our white-braceleted hands and hold pop concerts to show that ‘we care’?
I forget who said this & I paraphrase:
Real help would consist of free trade, education, parliamentary democracy, judicial support for property ownership & a bullet in the back of the neck for corrupt officials.
Hmmm, seems to me that a lot of these countries were better off under British colonial rule. Oh dear, I think I’ve gone beyond the pale!
Wasn’t it Peter Bauer?
Regarding increased aid and debt relief, if these go to incompetent and corrupt African governments, they will indeed be wasted. But not all African countries are run by corrupt and/or oppressive governments. For example, who can doubt that Botswana, Uganda, and Mozambique are better run than Congo, Zimbabwe, and Sudan? Increased aid should go to those countries that have shown they will benefit most from it, and should be targetted on things that will create indigenous economic growth. Improving the transport infrastructure strikes me as a very good idea.
Regarding the CAP, it’s unlikely this will be properly reformed in the near future, for political reasons. (It will probably be reformed eventually, because in all European countries, the proportion of the population working in agriculture is decreasing). However, African countries can help themselves by reducing trade barriers within Africa, which will increase inter-African trade.
Blimpish — your erudition shames me & indeed you are correct. From the LSE website:
Debt relieve is not so much an good idea as a necessary one much as on the micro economic level bankruptcy laws make it possible to get rid of untenable debt. But what must follow is that other aspect of bankruptcy; namely getting rid of the deadwood. In macro economic terms that means governance reform at the political level including, privatization, independence of the judiciary and so on…
Naturally, that is not what Geldof and his other Haut Couture wearing collaborators have in mind.
Pingback: GalaTime - Where Time is Money!
Here’s my wooly headed justification for MPH. I’m going to concentrate on the third point on Big Gordon’s list, ending trade subsidies. I agree that this is the area in which we are likely to see the least movement. As Andrew says, it could well be “a non-starter”. As a wooly headed liberal
I find this incredibly frustrating. In a theoretical sense, it’s something we should all be able to agree on. From Justin on one side to Andrew on the other, I think we all know that many of the current trade subsidies are harmful and should be abolished. There is no free market justification for them and there is no liberal compassionate argument for them. And yet, they will most likely be with us for many more years. It’s another case of turkeys not voting for Christmas; the beneficiaries of the current system (or perhaps more acurately the representatives of the beneficiaries) also control the rules of the game. The pure free trade approach cannot be justified unless we are prepared to remove our own protectionist barriers.
IMO, it’s this fundamental imbalance which leads to a need for pressure groups such as MPH.
Pingback: The Monjo Blog
Garry: Agree totally. So why do MPH focus almost exclusively on aid and debt relief? Even Geldof acknowledges that the answers lie in reducing trade barriers and improving African governance.
Andrew: It’s a very good question. I really don’t know. I might just email them to see if i can find out the answer.
(I should probably add that I do still think we need to look at providing debt relief and aid. I accept that it’s more of a contentious issue though.)
Quick addition to my previous comment:
I’ve just been reading this on the MPH website. Trade is the first priority but there is really no mention of current developed nation protectionist policies.
Addition to the addition:
Doh! Wrong link. This is the page I meant.
If you track down the MPH manifesto (it’s on the site – a pdf), trade is the first priority. It says:
The rules of international trade are stacked in favour of the most powerful countries and their businesses. On the one hand these rules allow rich countries to pay their farmers and companies subsidies to export food – destroying the livelihoods of poor farmers. On the other, poverty eradication, human rights and environmental protection come a poor second to the goal of ‘eliminating trade barriers’. We need trade justice not free trade. This means the EU singlehandedly 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…
On aid, it does mention ‘better aid’, and specifically that such aid should be spent on health and education for the poorest. No mention of African governance that I can find (which is an error, IMHO). As I’ve previously said, I would support debt repayments and increases in aid being tied to democratic and governance reform in Africa. However, I certainly would support MPH’s campaign to have it unhooked from IMF/World Bank privatisation schemes and other neoliberal meddling. These are sovereignty issues that ought to be up to the people (properly enfranchised) to decide, not bureaucrats and economists in New York.
From their website: It’s an obvious solution – challenge and change the rules so they work for poor countries. Re-write them in favour of the poorest countries so they can develop, build their own industries, grow stronger, and one day compete as equals.
Rich countries used trade rules to protect themselves as they developed – which is how they got where they are now. We consider it fair to use trade rules to end world poverty as we know it.
All a recipe for disaster. The last thing that Africa needs is more protectionism.
For the record, I have no problem with more, better aid, and debt relief. The problem is that the publicity around MPH concentrates (almost) exclusively on those two issues. It is easy to see that progress will be made, without necessary reforms, or, worse, without accomplishing anything on trade. In 20 years time, we’ll be having the same conversation.
_All a recipe for disaster. The last thing that Africa needs is more protectionism._
We’re going to disagree on this, and it’s probably an argument for another time. Suffice to say, Tim W and Jim at OWIOW argue it regularly and I usually see Jim’s case as the better one empirically, though of course pure free traders have theory on their side (though little or no pure evidence).
_The problem is that the publicity around MPH concentrates (almost) exclusively on those two issues._
I’m not sure that’s their fault, though. Trade does get top billing on the website and is first up in the manifesto. Maybe it’s a media obsession thing. Overall though, I’m not too far away from your position on this: Western agricultural subsidies (and tariffs designed to stop value added processing in situ) ought to be the first and main target.
Just a quickie about ‘liberal intervention’ (oxymoronic phrase): it’s illegal, unless expressly approved by the Security Council. Read the UN Charter, which overrides all other obligations and rights in international law. Once you posit a right of strong countries to intervene in the affairs of weak ones (you can bet your top dollar that the weak aren’t going to intervene in the countries of the strong), for whatever motive — to prevent genocide or other ‘humanitarian disaster’, or for any other nominally high-minded reason — without a broad international consensus of acceptance as expressed by the Security Council, you open the door to every kind of aggression by the stronger against the weaker on the pretext of intervention to prevent or stop some imaginary disaster. The US and UK have already committed this international crime by attacking Iraq contrary to the wishes of the Security Council, and NATO did it earlier by attacking Serbia, also without UN authority. The least we can do to try to limit the damage done by those two potentially disastrous precedents is to refrain from inventing a doctrine that would license every aggressive international thug to do it again. And again. And again.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/brian/
If you track down the MPH manifesto (it’s on the site – a pdf), trade is the first priority.
I’ll look up the manifesto (I have the pdf aversion virus which seems so common these days).
Western agricultural subsidies (and tariffs designed to stop value added processing in situ) ought to be the first and main target.
It’s the one area where pretty much everyone agrees (except those who actually take the decisions). MPH might be well advised to focus every possible effort towards this as their main goal.
Jarndyce: Yes, I’ve seen the arguments. I favour the theory, but I’m an idealist like that. I think we all agree that the main focus should be on dropping trade barriers from our side. What African countries choose to do with that is their own (sovereign) problem.
Brian: Talking about supranational authorities and international law is like waving a red rag to a bull with me. Just because something is illegal, it does not follow that it is morally wrong. I tend to favour the moral action over pragmatic considerations like the law. Whether Iraq was morally right or not is, of course, another argument.
Garry: Couldn’t agree more, and I share your dislike of pdf’s – the one way to guarantee that I will put off reading a document is to put it in that evil format.
J & A: on the free trade question, the most I’ve ever seen is some evidence that suggests there can be gains to pursuing a strategic trade policy (i.e., infant industries protection).
Given that this is at best a grey area, we might simplify the question by resolving it on other grounds. We all agree that institutionalised corruption is the biggest detriment to development – well, giving the government the power to restrict foreign imports gives it a great tool for corruption. For that reason, we can (a) be sceptical that protection will be used wisely, rather than to finance corruption; and (b) say that free trade will likely be the best policy recommendation in general, even if only as a rule-of-thumb.
Fair point, B. Though it has worked in the past (Korea), and there is evidence extreme openness has been damaging (Ghana). As I said, it’s complex and certainly debatable. US and EU subsidies aren’t, though.
Brian: I understand your position, but I don’t agree with it. I would take my (and our collective) responsibility as applying to people not states, and hence while the (reformed) UN and legalistic system may in general and at most times be the best way to run things, my (liberal) system always allows for exceptions.
Andrew,
You wrote:
>>Talking about supranational authorities and international law is like waving a red rag to a bull with me. Just because something is illegal, it does not follow that it is morally wrong. I tend to favour the moral action over pragmatic considerations like the law. Whether Iraq was morally right or not is, of course, another argument.Brian
http://www.barder.com/brian/
For some reason most of my preceding comment has been cut. I wrote:
But I can’t accept the sharp distinction you make between (1) the legality and (2) the morality of the attack on and occupation of Iraq, virtually dismissing the former as irrelevant to the latter. The UN Charter, binding in international law on all UN member states and explicitly overriding all their other legal rights and obligations, incorporates the rules governing the use of force in the conduct of countries’ international relations, and assigns to the UN Security Council the function of deciding when there exists a broad international consensus that it is appropriate for force to be used (only when it is clear that other, peaceful means of dealing with the problem have failed, as required by the Charter). We are talking here about decisions that may involve the killing of many thousands of innocent people. It seems to me manifestly immoral, as well as illegal, for any government to act in a way that undermines those basic rules and subverts the authority of the sole international body to whom these life-and-death decisions are entrusted. It is manifestly immoral to act in a way that provides what will one day be quoted as a precedent and justification in the future for a strong aggressive state to attack a weaker state, without the prior approval of the Security Council, on the pretext of intervening to prevent or stop ‘a humanitarian disaster’. It is immoral to kill people when there has been no international acceptance of the assertion that such killing will do less harm than any alternative course of action available. Murder and aggression are immoral as well as illegal: the concepts can’t meaningfully be disentangled.
I recognise that you were not asserting that the attack on Iraq was moral. But an essential ingredient of its immorality was that it was illegal under international law, and that its illegality opened the door to more unnecessary and unwarranted violence in international affairs in the future. That, at any rate, is my two-penn’orth (two cents’-worth, for readers beyond the seas).
Brian
I don’t see illegality and immorality as being related in anything but the most tenuous of senses though in international law. While domestic law attempts in some sense to relate to a shared moral code, international law is pretty far removed from that. It’s a pragmatic set of rules to make the world function without undue chaos, rather than a moral judgement on the rights and wrongs of particular actions.
I also think that if you save more people than you kill under one set of actions, where avoiding action would involve a greater loss of life, is one of the easier moral judgements to make. I recognise that many people disagree with that. I think that doesn’t recognise that human life has a value, whether we like that or not, and it is finite. Trivially, if the value were higher, we’d do a hell of a lot more to save it, which relates nicely back to Africa.
Again, whether our actions in Iraq will end up saving more people than would have died under Saddam (and we must include future generations here) in the long run, only time will tell. Which brings us neatly back to Blair’s infuriating ‘History will judge me…’ comment.
I don’t think it’s safe or ethically defensible to leave it to individual governments to use a simple ‘how many human lives saved/lost’ calculus in deciding whether to attack another country and kill an indeterminate number of its citizens: (a) because there’s no way of knowing either how many lives will be lost if no such attack takes place or how many people you are going to end up killing if it does — no prizes for thinking of a current example; and (b) because by giving an appearance of legitimacy to the unilateral use of violence in international affairs without any form of international sanction or authority, and by lowering the legal, diplomatic and political cost of one country attacking another and killing its people without genuine justification, you make it much likelier that the precedent you have set will be exploited in future for reasons of nationalistic aggrandisement, and even more innocent lives will be destroyed as a result. This is surely a sound basis for the assertion that behaving in this way is not only illegal, but also morally wrong precisely because it’s illegal and subversive of the rule of law.
There’s a moral duty to uphold international rules that seek to govern the use of violence in the world, and it’s immoral as well as illegal to act in a way that undermines them. You really can’t separate the two.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/brian/
http://ephems.blogspot.com
Brian: Call me an optimist, but I don’t really think it would be possible any more for a country to go to war purely for national aggrandisement, without any kind of sanction following on. I think that’s a consequence of liberal democracy, rather than international law. So I guess we can politely agree to disagree on this one.