Thoughts on Live 8
It is obvious that the "Live 8" concert has captured the imagination of many peope and will be considered a huge success.
Clearly many people want to see something done about the problems of Africa and this is welcome. Some of the ideas which have been promoted in the name of Live 8 and associated campaigns such as "Make Poverty history" do make sense and will help some of the most impoverished people in the world if they are implemented.
However, it is important that we don't assume that the problems of Africa can be solved just be saying we care about them, and not all the suggestions of all those who call themselves anti-poverty campaigners are helpful. If we don't want babies to starve in Africa, we need to use our brains as well as our emotions.
Certainly where governments of rich nations give aid to those in the third world, it would be better to give grants than loans, and conversion of government loans into grants, including those from inter-governmental agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank, for those Third World countries which are making genuine efforts to reform, would be a good idea. In that sense I support the debt relief proposals which are coming forward.
Similarly, poor countries have often been seriously disadvantaged by first world trade policies which do not qualify as either free trade or fair trade. Examples have included restrictions on the export of fertiliser, tariff barriers against third world goods, dumping subsidised products (particularly food) in third world markets. A surprising number of people do not appear to understand that dumping subsidised food in a poor country, other than during a genuine disaster, is devastating to the long-term interests of that country because it drives local farmers out of business.
What makes my blood boil, however, is when criticism of such policies is wrongly confused with attacks on free trade. Too many people who ought to know better have been suggesting that free trade and fair trade are in opposition when in fact genuine free and fair trade should be one of the main things we can use to improve the situation of the poorest countries in the world.
When rich countries impose high tariff barriers or import quotas against imports from Third World countries, it is not too much free trade which is damaging the economies of the poor countries but too little.
When the European Union disposes of surplus food produced under the Common Agricultural Policy in third world markets at prices below cost, and other rich countries pursue similar policies, it is not laissez-faire free-market liberalism which is sabotaging agricultural production in poor countries, but misguided intervention.
Throughout history, vested interest groups opposed to the beneficial effects of trade have come up with positive sounding names such as "Fair Trade" or "Protection" as a contrast to "Free Trade." But when they were implemented, from the Navigation Acts to the Corn Laws, from the Continental System to the revocation of the Treaty of Commerce, restrictions on trade have all too often resulted in poverty, starvation, and wars.
Many commentators have been afraid of stating the obvious for fear of appearing not to care about starving people in Africa and elsewhere. One who has not is Matthew Parris, who knows far more than most Brits about Africa, and whose columns in The Times on this subject have been worth reading. Another is Moeletsi Mbeki, the brother of the South African president.
Having said all that, it is a good thing that people are taking an interest in world poverty and want to do something about it. Let us hope that this time the policies applied include not just good intentions but also good sense.
Clearly many people want to see something done about the problems of Africa and this is welcome. Some of the ideas which have been promoted in the name of Live 8 and associated campaigns such as "Make Poverty history" do make sense and will help some of the most impoverished people in the world if they are implemented.
However, it is important that we don't assume that the problems of Africa can be solved just be saying we care about them, and not all the suggestions of all those who call themselves anti-poverty campaigners are helpful. If we don't want babies to starve in Africa, we need to use our brains as well as our emotions.
Certainly where governments of rich nations give aid to those in the third world, it would be better to give grants than loans, and conversion of government loans into grants, including those from inter-governmental agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank, for those Third World countries which are making genuine efforts to reform, would be a good idea. In that sense I support the debt relief proposals which are coming forward.
Similarly, poor countries have often been seriously disadvantaged by first world trade policies which do not qualify as either free trade or fair trade. Examples have included restrictions on the export of fertiliser, tariff barriers against third world goods, dumping subsidised products (particularly food) in third world markets. A surprising number of people do not appear to understand that dumping subsidised food in a poor country, other than during a genuine disaster, is devastating to the long-term interests of that country because it drives local farmers out of business.
What makes my blood boil, however, is when criticism of such policies is wrongly confused with attacks on free trade. Too many people who ought to know better have been suggesting that free trade and fair trade are in opposition when in fact genuine free and fair trade should be one of the main things we can use to improve the situation of the poorest countries in the world.
When rich countries impose high tariff barriers or import quotas against imports from Third World countries, it is not too much free trade which is damaging the economies of the poor countries but too little.
When the European Union disposes of surplus food produced under the Common Agricultural Policy in third world markets at prices below cost, and other rich countries pursue similar policies, it is not laissez-faire free-market liberalism which is sabotaging agricultural production in poor countries, but misguided intervention.
Throughout history, vested interest groups opposed to the beneficial effects of trade have come up with positive sounding names such as "Fair Trade" or "Protection" as a contrast to "Free Trade." But when they were implemented, from the Navigation Acts to the Corn Laws, from the Continental System to the revocation of the Treaty of Commerce, restrictions on trade have all too often resulted in poverty, starvation, and wars.
Many commentators have been afraid of stating the obvious for fear of appearing not to care about starving people in Africa and elsewhere. One who has not is Matthew Parris, who knows far more than most Brits about Africa, and whose columns in The Times on this subject have been worth reading. Another is Moeletsi Mbeki, the brother of the South African president.
Having said all that, it is a good thing that people are taking an interest in world poverty and want to do something about it. Let us hope that this time the policies applied include not just good intentions but also good sense.
Comments