The Guardian (London) | Letters to the Editor on Development | February 17, 2004
We welcome the chancellor's commitment to dedicate the UK's presidency of the G8 in 2005 to development and to use it as an opportunity for Britain to lever a significant increase in aid resources from developed countries (A new deal for the world's poor, February 16). However, before Brown can garner the support of other countries, the UK must meet its existing obligation to set a date for achieving the UN target of giving 0.7% of the country's wealth in overseas aid.
Since 1970, when the target was agreed by the richer UN members, the pledge has been reaffirmed by successive UK governments, yet 0.7% has not been reached. If the UK were to set a clear timetable to meet 0.7% by 2008, then it would be in a much stronger position from which to garner backing for the international finance facility.
Anita Tiessen
Deputy director, Unicef UK
* Gordon Brown and James Wolfensohn extol the case for a new deal for the world's poor as if they are not part of the problem. They even use Ethiopia as their example. But the World Bank and IMF (where Gordon Brown is a director) are currently refusing to complete the debt relief promised and are blocking further loans to Ethiopia. So it is paying an extra $ 35m a year in debt service.
Dave Pearce
Gately, Cheshire
* At yesterday's meeting at the Treasury, NGOs were looking for a radical shift in policy, for something other than World Bank driven privatisation and brutal free-market liberalisation in poor countries.
Institutions like the World Bank must re-evaluate the thinking that ties aid to these policies, and scrap their dogmatic attachment to clearly inappropriate development models. If done, then the better world they talk about may become reality.
Steve Tibbett
Campaigns and policy director, War on Want
* Never mind "a new deal for the world's poor" - whatever happened to the previous promises? Some of us who lobbied the Cologne summit a few years ago were not convinced by promises then. We knew that governments can do little because they are controlled by the global money men, and have shown little appetite for a confrontation with private financiers. Donors give, they don't borrow in order to lend. What is on offer here is a slightly easier treadmill for the third world.
Kevin Donnelly
Manchester
* The global organisations charged with tackling the issues highlighted by Gordon Brown and Jim Wolfensohn are dominated by rich nations. At the World Bank for example, Mr Wolfensohn's own organisation, 11 out of 184 members hold more than 50% of the votes. There are no formal or informal mechanisms for the poorest communities to hold the decision-makers to account. The situation is mirrored at the IMF, and the same nations dominate the WTO.
Until the poorest countries are able to hold the decision-makers to account, these poverty reduction goals will remain only aspirations.
Simon Burall
Executive director, The One World Trust
* Forcing the poor to open their markets is the reason why corporations can displace local companies and drive wages to below subsistence level. Poor countries should be allowed to impose import quotas, tariffs and subsidies. These restrictive measures should be reduced as a country's GDP rises, and removed completely by rich countries.
James Bruges
Bristol
* What sort of debate on world poverty can we have between Gordon Brown and the president of the World Bank? Come on!
Karl Osborne
LondonThe Guardian (London):
