Jubilee 2000 Roundtable Meeting

In an unprecedented roundtable meeting, the international Jubilee 2000 movement told the World Bank, IMF and the G7 that they still had a long way to go to match the demands of the Jubilee 2000 campaign. The meeting was held on 18 March in central London and included Jubilee 2000 representatives from all the continents as well as officials from the British, French, US, Canadian, German and Japanese Finance Ministries. Axel von Trotsenburg, Manager of the HIPC debt initiative at the World Bank also attended the meeting – highlighting the growing respect for Jubilee 2000 by the key creditors.

The meeting was held in the context of a spate of initiatives by the G7 creditors. In January, the German leader, Gerhard Schröder reversed the German administration's opposition to further debt relief by calling for radical debt reduction and agreeing to 100% debt cancellation in `exceptional circumstances'. His call has been followed by initiatives by the British, French and US Governments. Gordon Brown called for debt relief of $50 billion which was trumped in true poker-style by Clinton's call for $70 billion debt relief.

Jubilee 2000 Proposals

Jubilee 2000 welcomed these signs of movement but held the meeting to demonstrate the extent of the divide between the current proposals and the demands of the Jubilee 2000 campaign. The meeting started with presentations of the Declarations drawn up by the African, Latin American and International movement at Accra, Tegucigalpa and Rome. These emphasised the unjust origins of the debt crisis and strongly opposed the type of economic conditionality that has accompanied the debt in the poorest countries.

Ann Pettifor, Director of Jubilee 2000 Coalition in the UK stressed: “It is not sustainability ratios that motivate people. It is the fundamental injustice of international economic relations that drives this campaign.”

Instead of the conditionality associated with Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs), there was a strong call from the international movement for a new independent process with conditions set by civil society. A process was needed both to ensure debt relief benefited those who needed it and to bring regulation into financial relations in the future. Two specific proposals were put forward on how this might work. Ann Pettifor proposed a `concordat' that would be based on a binding agreement drawn up between creditors and debtors and involving civil society. Kunibert Raffer proposed an International Insolvency Law based on Chapter 9 of the US Code for Bankruptcy as applied to States. He said it would both safeguard the livelihood of the poor and impose financial discipline on creditors for the future.

Joe Hanlon, advisor to the UK Jubilee 2000 Coalition, outlined possible costings of Jubilee 2000's proposals – based on linking debt relief to poverty reduction. Using targets set by the richest countries at Copenhagen to cut poverty in half by 2015, Hanlon argued that the international community was already committed to providing debt relief of $75 billion plus $12 billion aid every year. By contrast, the cost of the HIPC initiative is currently $7 billion. Hanlon argued that the current debt relief proposals are only cancelling debt that would never be repaid. Creditors needed to go much further to release resources into the sectors that needed it most.

G7, World Bank and IMF responses

The G7 officials responded in the afternoon by outlining their different proposals. Pierre Olivier Bouée from the French Finance Ministry coined the phrase of the afternoon by saying he felt that he would have to join the `beauty contest.' Michael Richardson of the UK Treasury welcomed the meeting and promised to discuss the “interesting and challenging ideas” raised by Jubilee 2000. He also accepted that Jubilee 2000 would not be satisfied with the current British position. He said “ I welcome the reaction of Jubilee 2000 that the British proposals do not go far enough. We value the pressure and increased public awareness on this issue that will no doubt continue to go on. And we are optimistic that together we can produce a fresh start for the new millennium.”

Axel von Trotsenburg, from the World Bank in a positive speech said: “Creditors are not shying away from debt relief” and said that many of the issues raised at the meetings had been raised in HIPC review meetings. In particular he welcomed the emphasis on transparency and promised that the World Bank would be grappling with this. However he argued that radical debt cancellation would have the effect of closing institutions such as the World Bank and increase the cost of loans for middle-income countries.

Michael Hadjimichael, Assistant Director of IMF in Europe in a defensive speech said the debate needed to be held on facts, not misconceptions. Most surprisingly, he criticised his G7 shareholders for proposing a shorter period of eligibility for debt relief. “Throwing good money after bad will do no good to anyone.”

In the debate that followed, delegates from Jubilee 2000 campaigns emphasised the creditor's responsibility for bad lending and the failure of Structural Adjustment policies. Filomeno Vieira Lopes from the Angola Campaign said: “The demands of the campaign may be radical, but so is the economic and social position of the poorest throughout Africa.”

Following the meeting, Ann Pettifor said: “The fact that 6 of the G7 governments as well as the World Bank and IMF came to this meeting and listened for several hours to our demands is an astonishing success. A few years ago we were dismissed by the powerful creditors. As a result of this campaign they have been forced to put proposals on the table. However they have a long way to go to deliver relief for those who need it most. Until resources currently diverted to debt service payments are instead being invested in hospitals, schools and clean water, they know that Jubilee 2000 will continue to ratchet up the pressure for action.”