[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 88 (Tuesday, June 28, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1390-E1391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MEETING BLAIR'S G-8 AFRICA GOALS--PROGRESS, BUT FAR FROM FINISHED

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 28, 2005

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker I rise to discuss the ongoing progress 
towards meetings the objectives of Prime Minister Blair's G-8 
objectives. The announcement of a tentative debt relief agreement for 
certain developing countries, mostly in Africa, is an extremely 
promising development for Africa that is long overdue. The recent 
agreement on 100 percent debt relief will initially benefit 14 nations 
in Africa, and is largely based on the Heavy Indebted Poor Country 
(HIPC) Program, which already offers some debt relief to the world's 
poorest nations.
  Several countries not included in the initial package are still 
technically eligible. An additional 9 African countries could qualify 
for full debt cancellation in the next 12 to 18 months, and a further 9 
countries in Africa may potentially benefit from the agreement sometime 
in the future, if they continue to progress in meeting HIPC objectives, 
such as tackling corruption. But these additional countries are by no 
means guaranteed debt relief.
  The current $40 billion debt relief package must be commended. It is 
by far the most significant and comprehensive debt relief package ever 
given to Africa. However, a recent article entitled ``Plan That Falls 
Far Short of Global Needs'' in the publication CaribNews suggests that 
the plan must be closely scrutinized. One glaring issue is that the 
current package at most cancels only one-sixth of Africa's $295 billion 
debt and leaves out several countries such as Nigeria and Kenya.
  Nigeria, despite having a per capita GDP in line with HIPC eligible 
countries, and a staggering $36 billion debt, is not currently included 
in the deal, though G-8 representatives say that some type of Nigeria 
specific arrangement is in the works. As a leader in West Africa, if 
not the entire continent, its fate is closely linked to that of the 
region. As such, the inclusion of Nigeria in a debt relief package is 
crucial.
  In addition to debt relief, the issue of increased assistance must be 
addressed. This was reiterated in a recent Op-Ed release by Bernice 
Powell Jackson, Executive Minister of the Justice and Witness 
Ministries of the United Church of Christ, which calls on the U.S. to 
do more to help Africa. President Bush has so far rejected Blair's call 
to double aid to Africa, as well as establish the UN sanctioned 
benchmark which calls on developed countries to devote 0.7 percent of 
their gross national income to overseas development assistance by 2015. 
Of the G8 countries, France, Germany, Italy and Britain, have all 
pledged to hit the 0.7 percent target in the allotted period. The 
European Union also a collective body has also agreed to the benchmark.

  In 2004, the United States, the largest economy in the world, was 
second to last among industrialized nations in the amount of 
development assistance it gave as a percentage of Gross National 
Income--it was dead last in 2003. In sheer volume the U.S. gives the 
largest total amount of foreign development aid, but as a proportion of 
national income only 0.16 percent goes to aid, far short of the 0.7 
percent UN target.
  While we claim to be the leader of the free world, small countries 
such as Norway and Denmark dwarf us in the percentage of their national 
income dedicated to development. Indeed, these countries have long 
exceeded the 0.7 percent aid target that the U.S. has yet to adopt. In 
addition, a recent report released by the Brookings Institute argues 
that the extent of U.S. assistance in recent years is not as large as 
the Administration has asserted.
  Lastly, the issue of trade liberalization must be tackled if Africa 
is to experience real and sustainable development. Africa has a 
population of 860 million, accounting for 13.6 percent of the world's 
population, yet it only accounts for only two percent of global trade 
volume--down from 6 percent in the 1980's.
  This is compounded by industrialized countries' usage of unfair 
trading mechanisms, such as subsidies, which have prevented African 
farmers and firms from competing on an equal footing with other 
nations. While industrialized nations battle with each other over 
increasing the $50 billion they give in annual development assistance, 
they continue to spend over $300 billion on domestic agricultural 
subsidies.
  For its part, the U.S. gives billions of dollars annually in 
subsidies to a very small group of largescale agricultural producers--
while compelling poor countries to further open up their markets. The 
World Bank has estimated that an end to Western agricultural subsidies 
would allow developing countries to earn hundreds of billions--on their 
own. Concessions on trade may prove to be the hardest sell in Blair's 
G-8 agenda, but his agenda is one the world cannot afford to ignore.

 Helping the Least of These: Cancel Africa's Debt and Share the Wealth

                      (By Bernice Powell Jackson)

       If you were only to read most of the newspaper headlines, 
     you'd think that the U.S. government is being quite generous 
     to the world's poorest continent, Africa, but it just ain't 
     so. In fact, we're being awfully stingy and while President 
     Bush is trying to put a happy face on his meetings with 
     British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Blair must be pretty 
     disappointed at how little he is coming away with for Africa.
       The truth is that 34 of the world's 48 poorest nations are 
     in Africa, which is also facing a rampant AIDS epidemic, 
     where thousands die every day. Moreover, a number of African 
     nations are still recovering from civil wars and/or enormous 
     national debts, many of which were incurred by unscrupulous 
     dictators and illegitimate governments who never used the 
     funds for the hospitals and schools for which they were 
     intended. The truth is that Africa is a continent whose 
     natural resources of gold, diamonds, oil, chromium and other 
     much-needed minerals have been ravaged by much of the rest of 
     the world. Moreover, tens of millions of its most precious 
     resource--human beings--died or were stolen in the African 
     slave trade a century ago. I remember being on a World 
     Council of Churches panel in 1998 in Zimbabwe, where an 
     African leader reminded us that when you count the 
     billions of dollars lost to Africa through these ways, 
     ``we don't owe Europe and America anything. You still owe 
     us,'' he said.
       The truth is that for many of the poorest nations, paying 
     back these huge national debts is not only burdensome, it is 
     impossible. For most, they will never be able to pay off the 
     principle, while the interest costs continue to mount. But 
     many of these nations are forced to make these interest 
     payments, which means that they cannot put funds into health 
     care and education, which are critical to their national 
     survival.
       Even the new World Bank President, Paul Wolfowitz; has said 
     that a case can be made for more funds going to development 
     in Africa. President Bush, however, doesn't seem to agree 
     with his protege, Mr. Wolfowitz. In his meetings with Prime 
     Minister Blair, President Bush has expressed an openness to 
     canceling debts, but he has refused to increase substantially 
     U.S. foreign aid to Africa. Instead, he has agreed to use 
     $674 million already allocated by Congress for emergency 
     famine relief to a few African countries.
       The extra $25 billion a year for Africa sought by Mr. 
     Blair, are not budgeted President Bush replied. Nevermind 
     that almost the entire $220 billion allocated for the wars in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan have been unbudgeted by this same 
     administration.
       Many Americans believe that we spend about 25 percent of 
     our Federal budget on foreign aid to poor nations when we 
     actually spend about 1 percent. Many Americans believe the 
     headlines when our government agrees to fund programs like 
     the $15 million announced for AIDS in Africa. The reality is 
     that little of that money has been sent. Similarly, three 
     years ago the U.S. signed onto the United Nation's Millennium 
     Project. In it, the world's riches nations agreed to 
     increase their aid to .7 percent by 2015 to the poorest 
     nations. Two weeks ago the European Union agreed to double 
     their aid by 2015. But, it seems the President Bush has 
     told Mr. Blair that we won't be doing the same. It's the 
     old story of the check is in the mail.
       In a recent editorial, the New York Times pointed out that 
     .7 percent of the American economy would equal about $80 
     billion. That's roughly equivalent to the amount the

[[Page E1391]]

     Senate approved for additional military spending in Iraq and 
     a little more than half of the corporate tax cut last year.
       Three hundred million Africans live on less than $1 a day 
     on a continent trapped in $300 billion in foreign debt. If 
     we're serious about fighting the war on terrorism and serious 
     about living out the moral values we're so quick to talk 
     about, then we must not only cancel the debt of Africa's 
     poorest nations, but we must also substantially increase our 
     foreign aid to Africa.
       You can write or call President Bush and tell him so. You 
     can write or call your Senator. You can ask others to join 
     you--it's up to us, all of us.
                                  ____


               Plan That Falls Far Short of Global Needs

       Now that the euphoria of the G-8 debt deal to help poor 
     Africa, Caribbean and Latin American states has died down the 
     reality of the situation is hitting home.
       And it is painfully obvious that what was initially sold as 
     a dream scheme isn't what it was cracked up to be.
       Promoted as a plan designed to ease the financial pain of 
     high debt inflicted on some of the world's poorest countries 
     by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in 
     particular the $40 billion debt write off scheme approved by 
     many of the world's richest nations--the U.S., Britain, 
     France, Japan, Germany, Italy, Russia and Canada--falls very 
     short of what is really needed.
       It's true that the deal is an important first step but it's 
     far from the generous package, which countries and 
     commentators would have us believe.
       Some figures underscore the need for the industrialized 
     world to give more money to the designated beneficiaries and 
     also to expand the list of highly indebted nations, which are 
     crying out for help.
       It's important that we bear in mind that when the figures, 
     which are being tossed around in a vain attempt to highlight 
     the generosity of the developed states, are looked at 
     carefully, the actual amount and how it is parceled out is a 
     drop in the bucket of requirements.
       In today's money, according to Gary Duncan, Economics 
     Editor of the Times of London, the value of the recent write-
     off is ``only about $17 million for the 18 countries to enjoy 
     immediately.''
       Actually, as Duncan pointed out in well-reasoned analysis, 
     the amount that Tanzania, Guyana, Honduras and the other 15 
     beneficiaries would save in debt payment, which can then be 
     ploughed back into education, health, roads and 
     infrastructural development, is chicken feed. The relatively 
     small amount of $1.5 billion in annual savings ``is a 
     fraction of the $50 billion a year needed to double annual 
     aid flows,'' which Britain's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and 
     his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, insist is 
     needed to help Africa and other countries turn the corner by 
     reducing poverty.
       It is estimated that Britain's commitment under the deal 
     calls for its taxpayers to provide $100 million a year for up 
     to a decade, a sum that the United Kingdom can meet without 
     breaking a sweat. The annual charge to the U.S. treasury is 
     close to $175 million a year. That's not enough to pay for 
     the public information system of the U.S. Justice Department. 
     For Germany the bill would amount to about $50 million a year 
     for the first three years. The sums get even smaller when we 
     look at France's annual commitment of about $30 million.
       It's obvious, then that we are not talking about large sums 
     of money. Instead, the funds that don't even begin to scratch 
     the surface of need in Africa, the Caribbean and Latin 
     America. It's also clear that advocates of debt relief for 
     the world's poor were right when they called for a broader 
     debt relief and aid package.
       For instance, Romilly Greenhill of Action Aid, raised 
     question marks about the scheme when he called the plan very 
     good short term news for the 18 countries that will benefit 
     but complained that overall ``it will do little to 
     immediately help millions in at least 40 countries that also 
     need 100 per cent debt relief. What is disappointing is the 
     lack of any substantial concrete commitment on aid.''
       You can say that again.
       What has hit home is that at a time when the United Nations 
     Millennium Goals are coming up for review, the United States, 
     the wealthiest of the wealthy, is unwisely opposing the 
     International Finance Facility which the British Chancellor 
     is seeking to establish to offer a greater helping hand to 
     the poor by using bonds to raise billions of dollars. 
     Washington's opposition is undermining efforts to boost aid 
     and in the end is likely to cause greater suffering.
       To make matters worst, Germany has made it clear that it 
     doesn't intend to out up any new money to pay for the debt 
     write-off. Instead it will use existing aid funds to finance 
     its share of the deal, something that makes the whole thing 
     laughable. In essence, then, we shouldn't be expecting any 
     significant changes unless and until there is a substantial 
     change in attitude towards the poor.

                          ____________________