=Respect for human rights and the rule of law;
by Ian Glover-James
Diplomatic Correspondent
DOUGLAS HURD, the foreign secretary, has written to the European Commission urging it to cut aid to Third World governments that violate human rights and reject democracy. The letter, supported by John Major, is part of a strong British campaign to make a commitment to good government a condition of future Western aid.
Seizing the first opportunity a British prime minister has had to switch debate at the next Commonwealth conference away from South Africa, Major intends to raise the whole issue of good government in the Third World when Commonwealth leaders meet in Zimbabwe in October.
Lynda Chalker, the overseas development minister, hails the end of Western reticence about Third World tyrannies in an article in The Sunday Times today (section 2, page 2). "Poverty neither excuses nor justifies tyranny, torture or corruption," she says. "For 20 years smart opinion dubbed any criticism by Western countries of the political systems of developing countries as neo-colonialist. Like much of the conventional wisdom of the period, this was claptrap," she says.
"Errant regimes can no longer cloak their authoritarian tendencies in Marxist jargon or look to a superpower to bail them out."
The Hurd letter, which he wants tabled for debate by EC foreign ministers, calls for a tough new line covering the EC's 1.5 billion pound aid budget, based on three principles:
=Respect for human rights and the rule of law;
=Movement towards democratic and accountable government and the rooting out of corruption;
and
=Pursuit of sound social and economic policies.
Britain has already cut off all but emergency aid to Sudan, Somalia and Burma. Fresh aid has also been suspended to Sri Lanka, a Commonwealth member, because of its poor human rights record, and to Ethiopia.
Chalker's attack on the record of repressive Third World countries is one of the most forceful condemnations of them ever made by a British minister. Some Foreign Office officials fear the possible impact on Britain's relations with some of those under attack.
The Major government, however, is firmly committed to the new "aid with strings" policy and wants other donors to adopt the same policy. Some 40% of Britain's 1.6 billion pound foreign aid is given multilaterally--through the EC, United Nations and non-governmental agencies such as Oxfam.
Initial EC reaction to Britain's ideas has been positive. At a recent informal session of European development ministers in the Netherlands, the "good government" proposals were well received. Draft EC resolutions on aid are now being drawn up.
The effect of a joint European aid policy, embracing these principles and the large amounts of cash, would be dramatic. Several African leaders singled out for British criticism will attend the Commonwealth conference, but Britain has the backing of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the conference chairman, in spite of his own government's questionable record on human rights.
International institutions such as the World Bank have been more cautious about attaching conditions to aid, but Britain is strongly placed to pursue its campaign. Britain has won high marks for its effective "targeting" and value-for-money approach.
South Africa has been the bone of contention at Commonwealth meetings for more years than most of us care to remember. With the heartening progress made in South Africa over the past 18 months and the end of the cold war, the forthcoming Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Harare should open a new chapter.
While Eastern Europe has thrown aside the soiled remains of a failed and discredited idealogy, so the developing world is increasingly abandoning its experiments with socialism and central control. I hope the Harare meeting will focus on how we can work together on a new "good government" agenda rather than re-running the battles of the past.
For 20 years, smart opinion dubbed any criticism by Western countries of the political systems of developing countries as "neo-colonialist". Like much of the conventional wisdom of the period, this was claptrap.
Many people who understand the economic and moral case for development aid became profoundly disillusioned during the 1960s and 1970s. They were rightly repelled by the taxpayers' money being spent to reinforce brutish and self-serving regimes.
We have rediscovered confidence in the values which have long galvanized human potential in the West. But promotion of good government is not just a matter of making aid donors feel better, it is a prerequisite for effective use of aid. Ministers in donor countries owe it to their taxpayers to secure value for money. That is why we are focusing increasingly on countries that, by practising good government, make it possible for our aid to be used to greatest effect.
Our aid budget is growing steadily. But just as important as the grand total is the quality of spending. I take pride in two facts. First, the assessment of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that the British aid programme is among the best targeted and most effective in the world. Second, that Britain is playing a leading part in shaping the debate about good government.
Errant regimes can no longer cloak their authoritarian tendencies in Marxist jargon or look to a superpower to bail them out. Not that good government necessarily means replicating Westminster-style institutions. National traditions and circumstances differ radically. I believe "good government" can best be judged by reference to three guiding principles:
=Sound economic and social policies which allow free rein to market forces. Governments
should not take on tasks best left to others. Greater prosperity should enable poverty,
illiteracy and disease to be tackled and opportunities to be created for popular participation.
Arms spending should not exceed what is needed for legitimate self-defence.
=The second fundamental is the competence and accountability of government institutions.
Ineffective policies and corruption can only be weeded out if governments are accountable
through the ballot box and a free press. Bad government can result from inexperience as well
as evil intent. So apart from penalising authoritarian regimes we should share expertise in
areas such as training civil servants, the organisation of political parties and the mechanics
of running free elections.
=The third key aspect of good government must be respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Entrepreneurs will not start businesses, nor outsiders invest, if there is no redress against
arbitrary confiscation or corruption.
These principles are neither the sole invention of the West nor the only product of the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe. There has also been a growing realisation in many developing countries that the key to prosperity lies largely in their own hands. No amount of aid or central control can produce the investment in productive economic activity on which advancement depends.
In Africa, some countries such as Botswana have followed such policies since independence. They tend now to be among the most prosperous and stable countries in the continent. Not all developing countries have yet embraced good government with the same enthusiasm. Some have set their faces against change. In such circumstances our aid cannot be unaffected. We are looking for at least a trend towards better government.
In some cases it has reached the point where we have had to cut off all except humanitarian relief. It would be quite wrong to punish those existing on the very edge of survival for the failings of their governments. But, with the exception of such help, we have stopped all bilateral aid to, for example, Sudan, Somalia and Burma.
Some urge us to gallop down the road cutting more countries off without a penny. Kenya is a frequent target for such bluster. But cutting off aid is a counsel of last resort. Not only is Kenya's human rights record better than that of many other developing countries, but so is the openness of its society. It has met specific criticisms by releasing political detainees and re-establishing security of tenure for the judiciary.
The promotion of good government is as much about carrots as sticks. We shall spend some 20m pounds bilaterally this year specifically to foster good government. Over the next year we intend to commit a further 50m pounds. The type of projects we are supporting include developing local goverment(sic) structures in central Zambia, civil service reforms in Ghana, public administration training in India, providing judges in East Africa and police training in Namibia.
A growing proportion of our aid is given multilaterally. We are anxious that this, too, should reflect the type of good government criteria that we were pioneering. Douglas Hurd has written to the president of the European Commission to stress this point.
The emphasis on good government will mean aid being more effectively spent. But the
developed world must practise openness through strengthening the free-trade system. It is on
open access to Western markets, as well as good government at home, that long-term prospects of
developing countries will depend.
(texts of annotated 18 August 1991 The Sunday Times [of London] articles)
-GEE, ISN'T THIS JUST YAK, YAK, YAK FROM MORE TINY ISLANDS THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY?
MAYBE.
BUT PLEASE READ THAT POSSIBLY ONLY HONEST SUMMARY OF MY "INTERNATIONAL
DIPLOMATIC WORK...ON A DIRECT BASIS", WHICH BEGINS WITH WHAT YOU FIND IF YOU TAKE A BRIEF SIDESTEP HERE...TO SEE THE BIG PICTURE "IN CONTEXT".
AND YOU MIGHT CONSIDER THIS LONGSTANDING "POLICY OF SILENCE" RE THAT DISENTITLEMENT TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BECAUSE OF MY "INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC WORK...ON A DIRECT BASIS"...if not because of priests vows apparently, presumably because of "open book
IT WAS NEVER CHALLENGED OR OPPOSED OR EVEN CONTRADICTED ENOUGH BY, SAY, ANYONE ON THAT LIST OF WHO "THEY" ARE, THAT THE DISENTITLEMENT WAS LIFTED OR PROPERLY RESPONDED TO--AS WE OUTLINED IN 1978 TO THE CHRISTIAN, JEWISH, AND MOSLEM AUTHORITIES INVOLVED IT WOULD BE--THAT A LEGAL "PRECEDENT" FOR, DARE I SAY IT (WHEN IT IS "(MY) PRESENT SITUATION"?), WHAT AMOUNTS TO SLAVE LABOUR WAS ESTABLISHED WITH THAT "UMPIRE'S DECISION" IN 1982.
...REMEMBER: "ALL OF US" ARE IN THE 8TH YEAR OF A UNITED NATIONS DECADE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
THE SYSTEM INVENTED BY THE MOSLEM NATION IN PAST--AS I REMIND RONALD REAGAN IN 1983.
This site was opened on August 11, 1997 and updated on September 7, 2000.
TAKE THIS QUICK SIDESTEP BACK TO WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.
I MUST BE RIGHT ABOUT THESE BEING SMALL INCONSEQUENTIAL ISLANDS BECAUSE...CHECK THIS OUT.