Whose jubilee?
COVER STORY: Powerful names in Christendom join music moguls to mount a seductive campaign to cancel poor-nation debt—a plan more likely to benefit oppressors of the poor than the truly impoverished by Mindy Belz
What common cause could unite Pink Floyd and Rick Warren?
Meet Live8, ONE, Make Poverty History, and the Long Walk To Justice, all part of the latest gizmo-laden, concert-driven, wristband-toting, venue-hopping extravaganza powered by aging rockers and their fans in search of—and perhaps sincerely committed to—a cause. more...
Of course I have thoughts on the article, and for lack of a better topic of discussion and simply for the fact that I'm bored, I'll share them with you.
Yet the United States gives the highest absolute amount in foreign aid of any country—in 2003, more than $16 billion, according to Hudson Institute senior fellow Carol Adelman. Hudson Institute research indicates private charity totaled over $35 billion for 2000, the last year such figures were tabulated—or three and one-half times U.S. government aid for that year. Those figures do not include giving by local U.S. churches.
This really shocked me. $35 billion in 2000 from private organization? That much money going to Africa in one year, and apparently making so little difference, is a very discouraging thought. Is simply pumping more money into this continent going to make any difference at all? Before you get all huffy and yell at me for not caring, let me just say I'm not suggesting putting an end to all monetary aid, I guess I'm just overwhelmed by the lack of progress that's been made in decades of efforts to alleviate the suffering of these people.
But offstage a band of leading economists and scholars says the G8 plan is not only misguided but harmful, particularly for church-based poverty-fighting efforts. "Debt forgiveness rewards the corruption and inefficiency of governments who have mishandled loaned funds," writes the editorial board of the Kairos Journal in a letter sent June 6 to Mr. Warren and Mr. Stott, along with others. "In forgiving the debt of poor nations, we're not forgiving the debts of those nation's poor; we're merely enabling bureaucratic perfidy and incompetence."
Here lies my greatest objection to the One campaign's thought process. With all of the relief going to the government and leaders of these countries, rather than their citizens, we have no guarantee that this money will help those who are in need at all. While it's easy enough to say at this point that the budgets of these countries will be transparent and monitored, who will be designated to enforce any infractions against the agreed upon budgets?
Furthermore, even if money is going to the poor and those who need it in the form of education and health care, isn't this just creating a pattern of governmental dependency rather than creating opportunities for these people to make their own situations better?
Beyond that, the poorest nations should look to Southeast Asia and India, where once-stricken economies are trading their way out of poverty.
Exactly.
Looking at recent success stories from other countries and learning how they got themselves out of trouble certainly seems like a better idea than returning down a path that has a known destination of failure.
Debt elimination would have a chilling effect on credit. "If it becomes clear that debt will be written off in the future, then it is no longer a loan but a gift," said Mr. Thornbury. He believes that will be a deterrent for both public and commercial lenders. "Why would you invest in something on which you would not have a return?" he asked.
While I do think Mr. Thornbury is overstating the effects debt relief would have on the global lending market, I also think it's important to realize no country is going to make an investment like debt relief and expect nothing in return. In having their debts dissolved, each country that partakes is sacrificing a piece of it's sovereignty. The United States is already a country that likes to force it's politics and will upon others, and donating billions to a few countries is going to give the US a greater sense of entitlement than ever.
"The problem is a problem that has to be solved not by governments but by people—people giving to people,"
This is where the story starts to contradict its self a tad bit. In the beginning, it was lauding the amount of money being poured into Africa from private charity groups. Now it's saying that the solution to the problem is not government intervention but private citizens. While I agree that bureaucratic influence alone is not enough to meet the needs of Africa, it is clear given the immense amount of money already going there via private donations, that some help from those in power is needed.
I'm not pretending to know the solution to these issues. I know it's easy to sit at my desk and pontificate and criticize those whose intentions are well meant, and I don't want to be one who stands in the way of progress just asking questions and not lifting a finger to help. But I also would like to stand behind a solution I truly believe in, and I'm asking a lot of these questions because I really don't know the answers.
1 comment:
Those figures do look impressive (and by extension depressive) when expressed as a lump sum. If you look at the same amount per capita, we rank near the bottom of rich nations (if measured solely in terms of governmental aid). I've yet to see data which compiles government and private contributions measured per capita versus other wealthy nations, to see how we stack up.
In terms of a realistic workable solution, this article had some good suggestions. Sachs may take a lot of criticism from certain circles, but his plan makes a lot of sense to me.
Post a Comment