The Policy Blender

I've been doing some editing at work today, and I keep saying "I don't like that word" and being asked "So what should we put ther instead?"

What should we do? Ben needs you to suggest an alternative that he can tear down, or the debate just stops.

Plus whateveritis hasn't worked in Argentina yet. We'll never solve the problems of the world overnight.

Well, they're working on the debt at the moment, and the human-rights thing seems to be a factor. The guns and landmines thing, well, um (muter mutter) so that's fine. I've always been in favour of alternatives to oil - I rant about biodiesel at every opportunity.

I'm not sure about 2 though. I mean, you're suggesting more aggressive diplomacy. This is like having fatter ballet dancers or making concert pianists wear boxing gloves, isn't it? I ask merely for information, rather than through conviction.

Sorry for the delay - something popped up at work that required me actually doing something. Crazy.

Are the Quo involved this time round? It would be a shame if they are not, not least because the divas will have to bring their own.

I would agree that there is evidence from some African countries to suggest that cancelling debt altogether, coupled with aid payments, does result in an increase on spending on e.g. health and education. However, the sad reality of the situation is that whilst we have these despotic thugs in charge of many of the African nations the impact of cancelled debts and aid payments is simply to make the despotic thugs richer.

I like the above suggestion (5) about linking future aid to human rights compliance. I don't see why this shouldn't be also linked to economic liberalisation. In fact, with the exception of Pinochet's Chile and present day China, the two go hand in hand.

Whilst I respect the point more aggressive diplomacy "is like having fatter ballet dancers or making concert pianists wear boxing gloves…" I would agree that more aggressive diplomacy is exactly what is needed. Indeed, the sickening pandering that takes place between modern countries consorts is precisely why the word 'Diplomat' has come to mean 'one who never upsets anyone'. We need to rattle some cages - let the blighters know that genocides such as that in Darfur last year (hundreds of thousands dead) are not on. Wake up the UN - take your self righteous fingers out of your bloated backsides and do something to justify your existence or you'll find the Americans will start doing it for you (see Tsunami aid and relief effort).

Whilst we're on the subject of the UN - it needs democratising. I know it sounds odd, because everybody automatically assume that an entity of such sophisticated bureaucracy as the UN must by definition be democratic. Nope - the above mentioned thugs get as much say as the elected busybodies in Europe and the rest of the free world. Last year Zimbabwe chaired the UN human rights commission at the same time as it ethnically cleansed most of its farmland, raised entire towns to encourage blacks to settle on the now vacant farms and induced a crop failure to qualify for famine relief (which went straight into Mugabe's back pocket)

Guns and landmines - yep, let's stop selling them to the people who use them for suppression of their own people (that's not 'defence' in anybody's book). There's nothing wrong with providing a fledgling democracy with a deterrent from attack from aggressive tyrannical neighbours, but there's everything wrong with enabling genocide - I'm looking at you as well as the yanks, Jean-Claude…

Cancelling debt - this is a great idea, but it must (unfortunately) be the last resort. I'll explain why: First, is the reason mentioned above - that the only people who would benefit (in the vast majority of cases, but by no means all) are the thugs who control the money. Second, because what is needed is economic reform and an instant freebie isn't likely to incentivise that. But most importantly, because of the countries credit rating. Countiries have credit ratings too, just like people, that's how they managed to borrow the money in the first place. If the debt is written off, the credit rating will go through the roof and no one will ever lend them money or invest in them again - not good if you're looking to build a successful new economy - all new businesses borrow capital, and in effect, a new business is an economy, and vice-versa. So, yes, cancel some debt, but do it wisely, specifically, and in a timely fashion otherwise the effect will be the economic equivalent of filling the building plot with quicksand.

I would agree that economic liberalisation doesn't provide a quick fix to a nation's fiscal woe, nor does it make an economy instantly competitive, but what it does allow is sustainable and organic economic growth, inward investment and access to a free market so that individuals, families and communities can get a fair price for goods and produce rather than being cocooned within an unsustainable protected market where growth is almost impossible. You must look outwards to grow inwards. The same is true for economies - if an economy is shot, there is little hope for it to grow if it insulates itself from other economies. What is needed for these fledgling economies is fair trade. That means that the world's richer countries must invest without exploiting - the developing world has an awful lot going for it in terms of recourses (natural and human) and potential, the west can invest without exploiting and that’s were the rules should be. But protectionism and universal debt forgiveness will scare off this investment, the situation is more complicated than that (sadly - as readers will know I'm a Black and White man myself).

If we can do the above, and ensure that the next set of bastards heading up these countries aren't quite so bastardly, and the next still less so and so on, then we stand a good chance of enabling the Africans to help themselves. At the moment the ones stopping them doing that are the bloated European protectionists, the genocide-denying UN and the patronising westerners that think that buying a wristband made in a sweatshop or helping the career of washed-up old crooners and simpering young pop-millionaires who think that the problem with Africa is that it doesn't bloody rain will solve the world's problem over night.

This is a serious issue and it's more than some bloke that looks like a tranny in a banker suit making a token gesture - worthy though the end is- the means are wrong. What is most sickening though is that the Government know all of the above, and have been fighting for ages and ages alongside the US for the EU and the UN to do something meaningful. Yet Blair trotted of to America to ask Bush for a token gesture. It's a wonder Bush puts up with him. For all his bleating about sustainable growth at home, and all the good he's doing abroad with TradeAid etc, why the fuck does he insist on jumping on this obviously short-sighed bandwagon?

Obviously there's a few things I disagree with there, but despite all that I just want to give you a big old hug!

I feel this is the closest we've ever been, (sob), getting all emotional.

:-)

I'd like to point out that Policy Blender in no way condones the use of performance enhancing hugs.