Hello all
I read this thread with interest, being a sub-Saharan African myself. I tend towards the view of TruelightUK, but thought I'd add a bit of local colour, so to speak, to the discussion.
The problem at hand is that of debt; and might be characterised briefly for our purposes as follows:
(1) Africa (as representative of the Third World) has amassed large debts
(2) Africa cannot aford to service the interest on this debt, let alone afford repayments
(3) Africa has called for the cancellation of this debt
(4) Thus far, little in the way of practical relief has been forthcoming from the First World West, from whence the monies have ostensibly come.
(5) Many citizens of such Western countries, for one reason or another, think it unconscionable that the debt be written off.
For reasons of ease, I address the topic by replying to posting #6, being the second posting on this thread by Maranatha2002, whom I take to be representative of the persons described under (5) above.
>I am for arming the populations of all these oppressed >countries so they can free themselves from their >oppressive anti-capitalistic governments.
Says who that all or indeed even most of these countries have anti-capitalistic regimes? In point of fact, most of these states decidedly operate in the context of the free market economy. The problem is that in order to do so effectively, CAPITAL is required. That is exactly what is lacking in Africa; and to get it, we can't be paying off debts all the time. Arming the peasantry, if you will, is a terrible idea. In the first place, they often already ARE armed. We have to send our security forces to help other countries disarm their populations. In any event, capitalists don't invest in strife-torn states, so promoting civil war is not going to help much. That's what the US (and regrettably my country too) did for years in Angola; and look at the result. In any event, if you're happy to spend millions on sending arms to such states, why not just swap those munitions for monies and write off the debt? It'll probably cost you the same, since much of the debt incurred by such countries (as has already been pointed out elsewhere in this thread) has been in respect of armaments.
It might pay to head off potential objections and mention that many of these states are not democratic; but it is erroneous to equate a non-democratic state with a non-capitalistic state.
>The early armed Americans when faced with the same type >of tyranny freed themselves.
I take it you're referring to the early white settlers and not the Native Americans? In any event, they (the white settlers) did not face the sort of tyranny that Africa often faces today. In fact, The American War of Independence had purely political and economic causes and largely resulted from the greed of the then American settlers, who wanted a bigger slice of the economic pie (remember the Boston Tea Party?) That's not to say that the British weren't equally greedy; but let's not pretend that the causal factors of the American War of Independence were in any significant way analagous to the situation in Africa today. American settlers, for one thing, were neither starving nor dying in droves under British dominion.
>But the world has been taught that there is no reason to >fight and die for, and without that attitude, these poor >countries I fill, will never be free.
It might well pay to spare us poor Africans the sanctimony of such thoughts. Enough of us have died already in pointless wars. Unlike in a country such as the US, where military service is ordinarily voluntary, the norm for most of the last century in my country was conscription. That is what we grew up "looking forward to" - fighting and possibly dying in bush wars and urban hotspots. I'm glad I missed that. There's no heroism in being dead.
Incidentally, did you know that the US has been since its independence in 1776 the country singly the most involved in armed conflicts, including starting or provoking the most? It strikes me that the US is far too fast to resort to force of arms. I would have thought that the lesson of Vietnam would by now have percolated through American society - you can't force democracy on people by the point of the bayonet; it constitutes an oxymoron ("forced democracy"). Let's not be too hasty in advocating armed conflict shall we?
>About the only people in the world that I believe would >fight for their freedom, are the Chinese. If they had a >armed population, they would not be under the system they >are in.
Well, that's a big leap to make. I don't see why the Chinese are so special in this regard. I also fail to see why the Chinese people would want to do this. CHina is slowly opening up without the need for the people on the ground to take up arms. In fact, Tiananmen Square was exactly about NOT taking up arms against the government.
>Throwing American tax payer money at this problem will >never solve it. It will only eventually bankrupt US.
It's not like you're being asked to throw money at Africa. The problem arose because of the millions of dollars thrown at Africa by way of arms and the like for fighting proxy wars during the Cold War. In short, the dollars are already gone. What is beoing asked is that repayments be cancelled, partly because of my point (2) above. The point is that you're not geting your original tax dollars back, because Africa is too busy paying off the interest to even think about the principal amount. In other words, you're PROFITING from the monies lent and stand to do so in perpetuity. That is, in any moral man's language, nothing less than low. If cancelling these repayments bankrupts the US, I'll eat my hat. Remember too that it's not like the US is carrying the full "burden". Europe and Australia are carrying a share as well. It's called "spreading risk"; and that is done so that in the case of default, no one lender suffers too much.
>We cannot afford to make the world a socialistic welfare >system that will only burden the American tax payer into >bankruptcy.
Agreed; but that's not what would happen. It's not like you need the extra cash inflow anyway.
>We are the example(of what a capitalistic economic system >will do) for all countries to succeed, but you have to be >willing to fight and die for your country.
Nonsense. Japan and Germany predicated their remarkable post-war economic recoveries on the principle of non-involvement in military affairs as far as was possible. In any event, any ecomonic system that requires its young men to sacrifice themselves for it is hardly laudable.
>Follow the path of America and you will succeed.
I think that the track record of the USA in this regard is not to be raised as the satndard for other countries. Think Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Nicaragua, etc etc ad nauseam.
>The reason America has economically become what it is, is >because, our Fore Fathers were willing to fight and die >to be free, and un-restricted capitalism, which, it seems >the rest of the world hates.
Hardly. In the first place, unrestricted capitalism is not an accurate description of the US's socio-economic system. There is a socialist element present as well (oh no!) Heard of social security? As to what the esteemed forefathers died for, their example is not exactly unparallelled. Spartacus did the same thing centuries before.
>As far as canceling dept. I have dept I wish I could >cancel, but you know what, if I decided I couldnt pay my >dept for any reason.
Look, it's not like Africans suddenly decided they don't feel like paying off the debt. They can't AFFORD it. They're also not taking unilateral action and simply stopping payments. Instead, Afrcia is going hat in hand and making concessions to the West in order to achieve financial freedom. The foremost pre-condition set by the West is democracy; and that is fast becoming a reality in many states that have only dreamed of it for decades.
>They would take both my vehicles, my home, my land, my >boat, and anything else they could find of value to >repossess. And if this were to happen, what country do I >turn to for relief with my dept.
You've got two vehicles AND a boat? Lucky you. Don't you realise that this just shows how little many Westerners understand about the situation in Africa? There IS NO "two vehicles, home, land, boat and other stuff of value" to take. Africans are literally dirt poor - they often don't even own the land they're busy dying on. Neither, often, do their governments. Often, multi-natioanl corporations own it. The point is this - that Africa doesn't have any collateral worth giving. The West plundered the movables long ago; and in order to retrieve the natural resources of our continent that we might use to pay our own way, we require capital - that we don't have and you won't let us get.
>So those who borrow should have to put up collateral just >like everybody else. If you cant pay, you lose your >land, or oil, or what ever the value of the resources of >your land. The American tax payer should be paid back >every cent. Peace, but not yet.
As I indicated above, Africa has no collateral to give. So should we be forced to starve? Or should we be forced to provide payemnt on a contingency basis? "Here - have this loan - but as soon as you're on your feet, start paying us back. With interest. Compounded."
The American tax-payer does not know what it is to suffer. Neither would she learn if African debt were to be cancelled. Africa is not asking for a hand-out. We're asking for that hand up. In order to get started on the road to recovery, we need access to money for education, health and infrastructure. Loan and interest repayments are the hand holding Africa's head under the water. The US is probably at least three fingers on that hand.
If Christianity requires us to be charitable - which it does - and if the Scripture enjoins us to give a man our cloak when he simply wants to borrow it - which it does - then are Western Christians not under a Biblical as well as a clear moral duty to cancel the debt owed by Third World countries that had their wealth plundered by colonial powers like the US, Spain, Portugal, France, the UK, Belgium, Germany, the Nethelands and Italy?
