Cameron Duodu
LETTER FROM THE NORTH
The great noise being made by the rich nations over their decision to “forgive” some of the debts that the “poor countries” owe to them and the institutions with which they rule the world – the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank – tempts me to resort to a speech device used by the Akans of Ghana.
When the Akans want to tell you unpleasant truths but don’t want you to be able to complain about what they have said, they preface their statements with, “If it wasn’t for the fact that things like this are not to be said …” or, “If it wasn’t for the respect in which I hold you …”
And then they would say what they want to say, but in a most refined manner. You would get the message.
Now, if it wasn’t that it was not to be said, would you not question whether there is really any debt to be “forgiven” the poor nations?
Look at what happens when you and I try to borrow from our banks. They ask us to state what we earn, what we spend on everything that they can think of, and then they determine our “disposable income”.
Even when they are satisfied that we have the income to repay the loan we are applying for they ask credit-rating agencies to check on our backgrounds: did we default on a hire-purchase agreement two million years ago? Did some financial institution reject us when we asked it for a loan a couple of trillion years ago? What were its reasons?
Yet when it comes to countries, these stringent commercial conditions seem to go out the window. Indeed, most of the loans which the poor nations are repaying through the nose are suggested by the lenders themselves. Huh? Yes!
This is how it happens. Say, the defence chiefs of Country A are invited to an “exhibition” of the latest tanks, fighter jets, trainers, transports, naval patrolships and other weapons.
At these shows a great deal of hospitality is extended to the defence chiefs. They can even be given subtle hints that if they were to “procure” some of the “exhibits”on show, not only would “finance” be arranged by the seller(s), but pasrt of the cost price would also be marked down as a “commission” that would end up in a numbered Swiss bank account specially opened for the “facilitator(s)” of the deal.
Agents would be used to shield them from the, er shady – oops! – subterrannean aspects of the deal: “No, no, trust us; we’ve been in this business for donkey’s years. We know all the ropes. Nothing can ever be traced back to you!”
When the defence chiefs return home, they think of the imminent retirement that faces them. Would they be able to continue their lifestyle without official vehicles, official bungalows and official servants? Without official holidays, official allowances?
These depressing thoughts inspire them to write particularly persuasive encomiums on the military hardware they have seen: “I was taken up in the Q19 myself and allowed to take over the controls. Its aerobatic qualities are beyond description. The accuracy of its heat-seeking missiles … blah, blah.”
And the impression is left that unless these particular toys are acquired, Country F across the border can just walk in and take everyone’s wife away. Worse, dark hints are thrown in that the “military boys” might become “restive” unless they are given “the right tools for the job”.
The finance ministry protests, citing budgetary appropriations, inflationary pressures, political storms.
The ministry of foreign affairs also intervenes, drawing attention to the possibility of an “arms race” by neighbouring countries who would want to “catch up” in order to restore “the equilibrium” that had hitherto existed.
In the midst of the debate, an ” appreciation” of “national security” makes its way, secretly, to certain key members of the Cabinet, making free use of such expressions as “reliable sources reporting” from Countries C, D and E.
Eventually, the national security lobby wins. As they say in Nigeria, “Who wan die?”
Two or three years later, just as the “holiday period for repayments of the loan has expired” and the principal plus interest have become due, the government is overthrown. The defence chiefs are now the decision-makers. They quickly call in their friends, who make an assessment of the country’s defence needs in view of the new situation.
The “experts” imported for this purpose state categorically that there is a “likelihood that the agents of the overthrown regime will seek to counter- attack, using weapons they will receive from friendly politicians in neighbouring countries who have been “made nervous by the policies of the new regime”.
So, more arms are purchased and “refinancing” of the old loan thrown in as part of a new “package”.
Two hundred years later, the country is still repaying this “debt”.
It is not only arms that create these “debts”. Many assembly-plant operations, given the glorious name of “industries”, are sold to poor countries that want to manufacture their own consumer items. These plants usually last no more than two years before closing down because there is no foreign exchange to import raw materials to feed them or because there is no foreign exchange to buy spare parts to repair broken machinery or because there is no foreign exchange to pay the expatriate staff who constitute the bulk of the technicians.
Foreign exchange? But where was the crucial nature of this commodity stated clearly in the “feasibility studies”? You ask me!
There is certainly a lot to forgive in the financial/industrial world. But it’s not always forgiveness of the right people, by the right people.