Political commitment must be a priority

[This paper is one of several to stimulate a debate for the Rome conference.It does not necessarily represent the views of any Jubilee 2000 campaign.]

Policy paper
September 22
For Jubilee 2000 conference in Rome

Written by
Georg Andrén, Diakonia Sweden
Annika Lysén, Christian Council of Sweden
Erik Lysén, Diakonia, Sweden

In the international debate on debt relief it has become obvious that the HIPC-initiative has serious weaknesses attached to it. The limited number of countries that have qualified for the initiative, the slow pace of the process and the lack of a developmental perspective in the definition of what is a sustainable debt level are some of the most serious weaknesses.

When first presented the HIPC-initiative was welcomed by many, but it has more and more been questioned by governments in the poorest countries as well as by NGOs and churches in both rich and poor countries. There is a severe critique that HIPC is not based on a participatory process that involve all stakeholders, in order to achieve a sustainable and politically as well as a socially acceptable solution.

This is something that needs to be taken very seriously, since the debt crisis is severely hampering the development process in the poorest countries.

Political commitment is crucial

However serious the problems with the HIPC-process we must not loose focus of the main problem - the lack of political will to overcome the debt crisis.

With a stronger political commitment the shortcomings of HIPC would most likely have been less significant.

As the Jubilee campaign is growing we must continue to critically follow the HIPC-process, but as a campaign we must concentrate on the political side of the problem.

Our belief is that the lack of commitment is the main stumbling block for HIPC.

Therefore we would argue that the Jubilee campaign must make it a priority to demand concrete commitments for debt reductions at the G8-meeting in Cologne.

The G8-leaders should give us clear answers about how much they each are willing to contribute in debt relief. They should also make clear stands on how they want the debt crisis for the poorest countries to be solved as quickly as possible.

If we don't get such answers, we might loose strength as an international movement. We are aiming at collecting signatures and make the biggest petition in the world and these signatures are going to be handed over to the G8-leaders in Cologne. These signatures might be ignored if we don't make sure that the G8-leaders make commitments both financially and morally.

Follow-up from Cologne

Whatever the results that will come out from Cologne it is very important that we have a strategy for follow-ups.

There has been a suggestion of a UN-sponsored meeting on debt at the end of 1999. We think a UN-conference on debt is something we should support. Such a conference can emphasize the importance of a speedy and much more transparent process. The international institutions in general, and the IMF in particular, are at the moment being questioned for their lack of capacity to deal with the international financial crisis and for their lack of transparency. The debate has focused on the crisis in East Asia and Russia, even though the crisis in Africa has been going on for much longer. It clearly shows the lack of interest in supporting Africa in its development process.

As Oxfam has pointed out it is obvious that when the crisis in Asia broke out the international community responded swiftly by mobilising $ 100 billion of loans, while the relatively small amount of $ 7.5 billion for HIPC, according to the World Bank and IMF, is very difficult to raise.

Again, if there exists a political will, adequate resources can be raised.

Who shall speak on behalf of whom?

The campaign is now growing throughout the world. One of our most important demand is that the debt reduction process should be conducted in a fair and transparent process.

Our understanding of this is that we want the civil society in the debtor countries to be involved and have a say in the reduction process.

Bearing this demand in mind we find it important not to take too many decisions in Rome on how the debt reduction process must look like. If we do so we can easily undermine our own demand. Even though we will represent campaigns from different countries in Rome it is both premature and practically difficult to agree on a one and only process.

Jubilee 2000 is a campaign, not a debt reduction initiative.

What we must agree on is how we shall put forward our demands and how we after the meeting in Cologne can follow up on whatever has been agreed upon.

The meeting in Rome does not allow lengthy discussions and we might easily get bogged down in technicalities on the process. We rather suggest that the Rome-meeting forms a commission that can look into the process in consultation with organisations representing the civil society in the concerned countries. This would ensure that the Jubilee 2000 movement is not speaking on behalf of people in the concerned countries - but that the people is speaking through the campaigns.

Such a commission or task force, should be comprised of representatives from different continents and have a clear focus of looking at ways of achieving a more open and transparent process.

The civil society in the South has brought forward clear demands on poverty reduction and social concerns and this needs to be recognised and strengthened. One thing that has become obvious though is the capacity problem civil society in many of the poorest countries is facing. Due to lack of resources many have difficulties in promoting an effective campaign in their own country. Therefore the Rome-meeting ought to recommend donors to support initiatives in the South, that work with economic justice issues.

There has been concerns about the aspect of conditions tied to a debt reduction. We think it is not up to the campaign to decide about conditions, but the campaign should rather support demands from the civil society in the poorest countries. Capacity is not only about financial resources but also about access of information and a capacity to get involved in budget processes.

Since the situation differs greatly from country to country there is no merit in setting detailed conditions for all countries. However what we can do is to see how the campaigns in the concerned countries are dealing with the issue, and support their initiatives.

[This paper is one of several to stimulate a debate for the Rome conference.It does not necessarily represent the views of any Jubilee 2000 campaign.]

• Policy debate
• Policy papers