Third World Debt Relief

I know that Bono means well, and I am aware that what I am about to say is probably going to sound harsh, and a little cruel. By the time I am finished, it will probably still sound harsh and cruel, and maybe even a little selfish, and possibly a trifle paranoid. But I think America and the EU might possibly be jumping the gun here, just a little bit. When you stop to think about it, just who are the Third World nations in debt to. I know that it sounds all good and altruistic, relieving these nations of the crushing burden of debt, and therefore helping them to pull themselves out of poverty. But will that really be the result? Shouldn't there be some insistence on some hard changes in return? When you consider the history of the process, it is true that they have been put into this position by years of abuse by the "civilized" nations of the world, with all their machinations and manipulations. They have been used, in some cases raped for all practical purposes, and then, like some worn out whore that has been all used up, just left by the side of the road, abandoned, to fend for themselves. They have been pimped, used up. But in a good many cases the "leaders" of the Third World have been the worse offenders. To an extent they have been the pimps, the civilized nations have merely been the johns. In the worse cases, the Third World Thugs, as I like to call them, have been blood thirsty tyrants, who have raped their nations treasuries, to the tune of millons, and even billiuons, of dollars, and left their own people destitute, and we have allowed it, on one pretext or another, usually for our own national security interests. In by-gone days it was to form bulwarks against the encroachment of communism. Partly as a result of the poverty and destitution of illiterracy and hopelessness that has ensued due to this, we have fostered the encouragemnt of terrorist enclaves.

It is good, and well past time, that we have acted in this small manner to address this. But there are still potential downsides, even in this best intentioned undertaking. For one thing, it could cause an explosion of pent-up hostility, once the masses see it is now safer to vent. Their demands could well exceed any sense of reasonable accommodation. There could be sudden uprisings, and potential blood baths, directed at those perceived to be the offenders, yes, but in the meantime there could be a loss of much inncent life, and mass destruction of property.

Finally, in the event that big business, and multi-national corporations, have to as a result of this relief, take a loss of any prior investments, who is going to make up that loss? The American and European consumer would seem to be the obvious answer. I will readily admit I am unaware of what role, if any, they play in this process, or what they stand to lose if they do. But shouldn't this be an issue that should have to be addressed? Otherwise, the price of goods could rise in unexpected ways, and the increase could be considerable. It would obviously cause quite a bit of grumbling. Look at how just the recent increase in the price of oil has affected the American economy, for just an example.

It is unfair, of course. The American and European consumer had little, very lttle, if any, say in foreign investments vis-a-vis America and Europe into the Third World. Yet, it will be they, doubtless, who will be expected to bear the brunt of it. It shouldn't be that way. The politicians and the multi-national corporations should have to take it on the chin. After all, it was their little chess game. We were all just strung along, spectators in a sport we had no role in, and little if any say, and what say there was was maniplated by emotional appeals to patriotism, God, and our basest fears. So they should bear the burden.

But don't expect it to be settled quite that way. Not when the debt, like the buck, is all so easy to pass.