|
Post by Glendon on Aug 20, 2009 8:46:45 GMT -5
Hello there,
Now that we've started talking about blame, perhaps we could talk about cancellation as well.
Do consider the following:
1. If the First World is to blame for the crisis, are they obliged to cancel debt? If the Third World is to blame, are they obliged to repay debt in full? (you may want to refer to previous threads) 2. Should we cancel simply because of debt's heavy effects on the Third World? 3. What are some side effects of cancellation? 4. Is debt repayment feasible? 5. What conditions, if any, should we attach to debt cancellation? 6. If we do not cancel debt, what alternatives exist?
Looking forward to your views!
|
|
drew
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by drew on Aug 20, 2009 9:00:24 GMT -5
Hi all,
1. I think that the First World is to blame for the crisis, yet they should not cancel debt completely. Writing off the debt may cause a detrimental crutch mentality among the Third World. Yet, for some countries, the debt may be too much for them to pay off easily, thus at least some debt should be cancelled. 2. I think that this factor, along with the fact that the First World was taking advantage of the Third World when they loaned the Third World money. 3. The crutch mentality as mentioned on your website. Furthermore, I think that this will lead to loss of money for First World countries, and money which could have helped them to recover from this economic crisis may be written off instead. 4. Yes, it is feasible for certain countries. However, for war-torn areas such as Somalia, it would be next to impossible to do so. 5. I think we should attach the condition that Third World countries have to focus on their social infrastructure instead of money-making industries. 6. Well, we can always wait for the Third World countries to try and pay off their debt, but I think that is rather improbable.
Cheers, Drew.
|
|
|
Post by JayC on Aug 20, 2009 9:54:14 GMT -5
1. I feel that since it's the fault of both Third and First World countries, no country is to be blamed solely for the crisis, thus they should just stick to the original agreement to pay back the loans with interest. 2. No. The Third World cannot be spoon-fed money, and thus we cannot cancel loans. 3. Crutch Mentality. Furthermore, other countries may also develop this idea that they can borrow any amount of money they want and get away with it. 4. Yes. It should be what the Third World countries do. 5. There should not even be debt cancellation. 6. Repayment.
|
|
|
Post by cj on Aug 20, 2009 10:02:30 GMT -5
im not too sure about qn 5. i think that we may have good intentions in imposing certain conditions, but they may well end up like the SAPs (and to a lesser extent the PRSPs) mentioned on your site.....
who knows this may end up as yet another stumbling block to true third world progress. who knows it may yet impose more misguided conditions that turn out for the worse....
|
|
|
Post by avenger471 on Aug 20, 2009 10:05:54 GMT -5
how bout universal ideals like eradicating corruption, ensuring better governance etc.?
|
|
|
Post by highcastle on Aug 20, 2009 10:07:41 GMT -5
nice idea. these are precisely what prevents third world nations from benefiting from developmental aid. if some dictator embezzles all of the aid/debt relief its as good as not giving any, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by silverstone324 on Aug 20, 2009 10:09:54 GMT -5
note that these so-called universal ideals are what the imf/worldbank used as a euphemism for their SAPs. apparently export oriented markets and liberalisation were "universal ideals". what makes you think that perhaps these wont be different?
perhaps eliminating corruption may help, beyond that i dont see it as any different or less disastrous than previous attempts...
|
|
|
Post by joon on Aug 20, 2009 10:12:36 GMT -5
i disagree.
i think that the key difference is that eliminating corruption directly ensures that aid/debt relief doesn't go into the hands of corrupt cronies. say liberalisation and making markets export oriented, these measures dont directly help; worse they were never tested or rigorously proven.
|
|
|
Post by joon on Aug 20, 2009 10:16:11 GMT -5
well in response to question 2, all i have to say is this:
imagine you're one of the victims of third world debt. your kids are suffering from an easily curable disease like diarrhea (which incidentally kills thousands in africa) because there is no health care, you are forced to live the nomadic life of your ancestors because the nearest school is fifty miles away. your descendants are trapped in this endless cycle of poverty because debt prevents the government from doing something to help these people break out of this cycle.
tell these people that we're arguing about lofty philosopihcal principles about debt cancellation. see what they tell you.
their fates speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by blazingfire on Aug 20, 2009 10:19:34 GMT -5
i'd like to add a new point that wasn't earlier raised; neither is it covered in the six questions posted by the team.
note that there are several precedents for debt forgiveness. in 1991 the usa forgave 7 billion of egypt's debt in return for help during the gulf war. in the 1950s the usa forgave germany's postwar reparations debt so that it could rise up to counter the soviet threat in eastern europe.
do we see a crutch mentality? no. was it feasible? yes. did we avoid disastrous effects? probably.
if this is not blatant hypocrisy, and the first world trying to serve its own interests, tell me what it is.
|
|
|
Post by sourgrape on Aug 20, 2009 10:23:18 GMT -5
hrm, views have been rather extreme so far....
i personally feel that debt should be cancelled if and only if the country is unable to repay it. of course this isnt some random percentage decided by a econs phd sitting at some desk in newyork or brussels. it means that if debt isn't cancelled, there will be a grave humanitarian cost hopefully too much for the consciences of creditor nations, presuming they do have one. in other words, if the social welfare systems of a third world nation are cash-starved because and only because of debt, this is grounds for cancellation.
essentially this echoes jubilee 2000's stance, yet sadly no one adopted it.
|
|
|
Post by sweetplum on Aug 20, 2009 10:27:08 GMT -5
i agree with sourgrape.
what this means is that we avoid the crutch mentality, and a whole host of other side effects associated with debt cancellation. we forgive only in the most dire of straits, otherwise such grace will be abused. sure some richer nations may be able to repay their debt, even if not in full. we should support this and request for countries that can to do so.
yet we offer a just solution to genuine effects of debt in the third world. come on, they won't be able to pay up anyway. why not forgive the debt so that they can continue to progress, instead of being chained to a state of backwardness? this is not hypothetical - it is a real phenomenon faced by many HIPCs.
|
|
|
Post by skootie on Aug 20, 2009 10:32:12 GMT -5
seems like no one addressed q1, so i shall briefly touch on it.
i really dont think its an issue of blame here. too many global issues have gone unsolved because of some blame game, because nobody wants to step up to take action. they're content on passing the buck and claim that taking action is someone else's responsiblity.
say global warming. china dosen't want to sign kyoto because it says the usa didnt sign it. usa didnt want to sign it in the bush era becuase china didnt sign it. now look at the state of our climate. point proven.
so we cannot let this continue. lets look to constructive solutions instead of merely pointing fingers. after all, my teacher once said to me when i was in primary school "when you point at others, four fingers are pointing back at you!"
how apt ><
|
|
|
Post by ballerina27 on Aug 20, 2009 10:36:17 GMT -5
I don't concur.
If skootie has not realised, we are talking about responsibility here. This concept exists because one should clean up the mess he created - it is only just that this happens or innocent parties will have to take the blame.
Thus, the blame game isn't always bad. It helps us determine who is responsible, and helps us determine the party most deserving of mopping up its own mess.
Let the prepartrators of this crisis solve it themselves.
|
|
|
Post by bleatbleat on Aug 20, 2009 10:39:05 GMT -5
perhaps ballerina27 should realise that this is an URGENT issue. we cannot sit idly by and twiddle thumbs, discussing whos to blame over tea, while at the same time the crisis grows larger.
in dire times like this, we should put aside invididual differences, selfish grudges and vested interests to reach a common solution. if the solution is in the best interests of everyone, and can save the 7 million kids in africa that die because their governments cant afford basic health care, then we have succeeded - without resorting to pointless pointing of fingers.
|
|