31st G8 Summit - Subsequent Analysis

Subsequent Analysis

Closer investigation of many of the promises made at Gleneagles reveals that some of the aid funds were rehashed versions of aid already pledged and the aid was often used to privatise public services to businesses based in the donor country. However even three years on many G8 countries were backsliding on their aid quantity commitments.

The debt deal was not ‘full’ cancellation of debts at all but only cancellation of the debts for 40 potential countries (classed as the poorest countries), and even then only after completing the ‘Highly Indebted Poor Country’ (HIPC) initiative – that means changing their economic policies at the behest of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank - meaning more of the same economic conditionalities which were highlighted as problems by the Make Poverty History campaign. For example Tanzania was forced to privatise water (to a British company – Bi-water) which led to a worse service and higher prices. In practice, only 19 developing countries signed up to the HIPC initiative. Even then, only the debt to the public international financial institutions was cancelled (so, for example, were not covered). Even then the debts will only apply to a cut off date of 2003. This came despite the fact that the Commission for Africa report noted that in many cases the debt has in practice been paid back many times over, and that the debt was often accrued by illegitimate governments propped up by rich countries. The partial debt cancellation has done some good – Zambia for example is now able to provide universal free healthcare and Tanzania has increased its education spending. However debt campaigners argue that there is still far to go to reach the needed 100 per cent.

Although the 2005 G8 communique promised that developing countries should be able to decide their own economic policies, there has been little evidence of this in practice. For example the EU went on to attempt to push so called 'Economic Partnership Agreements' on developing countries, which Trade Justice campaigners argue will not be good for developing countries, and are being forced upon them against their will.