Posted on 06/03/2005 12:39:10 PM PDT by MadIvan
President George W Bush has rebuffed Gordon Brown's plan to double aid to Africa, days before Tony Blair arrives in Washington to argue its merits.
In a humiliating slap down for one of the Chancellor's pet projects, Mr Bush voiced his administration's dislike of the idea in person for the first time.
"We've made our position pretty clear on that: that it doesn't fit into our budgetary process," he said after a meeting with South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki.
Downing Street yesterday played down Mr Bush's remarks, with officials pointing out that the Government was still in negotiations on the issue that will continue until the G8 summit in Gleneagles next month.
But an official at No 10 added: "You should not be too surprised if not all members of the G8 are signed up to everything we want to do. The Prime Minister has deliberately set the bar high on Africa because he believes that we need to make a really significant move forward to help the continent." Despite this, Mr Blair was very keen to get a "critical mass of support" for the idea.
Mr Blair arrives in Washington next Monday for talks with Mr Bush that will cover the African aid proposals. Mr Brown has invested huge personal political capital in the scheme. Both he and Mr Blair are touting the plan, which would double development aid to African countries by £27.5 billion a year.
America was not consulted on the scheme. But, to assume its share of the burden, it would be expected to raise a total of $12 billion (£6.6 billion) a year at a time of severe budgetary cutbacks.
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, was asked yesterday why Mr Bush had been so "dismissive" of the British idea. There are "many, many areas where we agree", he replied. But, he added, the president had made plain his own stance on the Africa plan.
The American position is likely to enrage aid campaigners such as Sir Bob Geldof, who has urged a million demonstrators to take to the streets of Edinburgh to demand more aid for the continent before the G8 summit. The pop singer this week warned the G8 leaders to come to Scotland only if they were ready to take real action to help Africa.
The Treasury has been trying to persuade its American counterpart of its plans for the scheme known as the international finance facility, funded through borrowing on the capital markets, for much of the past year.
Mr Brown has also lobbied for the cancellation of £22 billion in debt for the world's poorest countries but has run into American objections. Washington has backed the idea but wants to deduct the sum from future aid budgets. The British want to make the debt write-off a gift. Part of America's irritation with the debate on Africa is the way the rest of the world downplays or ignores its own increases in aid.
But the poor personal relationship between Mr Brown and America's treasury secretary, John Snow, is also to blame for the tension between the two counties. While the Bush administration feels affection for Mr Blair, most notably for his support in Iraq, there are no signs that it feels the same warmth for Mr Brown.
As for Mr. Snow's relationship with Gordon Brown...Mr. Snow is definitely not alone. Brown is paranoid and noted for having a truly diabolical temper. This has been well disguised by having Blair as point man. If Brown ever becomes Prime Minister, I expect Napoleonic behaviour out of him, before his inevitable booting out of office.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
Since when do European ministers feel entitled to spend US money?
He's trying to persuade not just the USA, but all the members of the G8 to spend more on Africa.
The motive for this is less noble than you might think. I recall feeling distinctly uncomfortable when I saw film of Brown amongst a group of African children - he was playing the part of the Great White Messiah.
I'm not interested in funding his delusions of grandeur.
Regards, Ivan
Didn't we just increase our aid to Africa? And now the Internationalists want more, without recognizing our current level of contributions.
We give more than most of the other countries combined, and they call us cheap.
Well, we could always withdraw our military bases in Europe, and use the money we save for other things. That kind of backdoor aid to fully developed countries is getting old.
Besides, we can use the troops from those bases to reinforce our Border Patrol... like the Minutemen did, but on a grander scale.
I would favour sending Bob Geldof and the Boomtown Rats on a permanent tour of Zimbabwe, myself.
Regards, Ivan
When haven't they felt entitled?
Bingo. You end poverty by creating wealth. Wealth has a cause, just as persistent poverty has a cause. Until you address those causes, until you eliminate the structural conditions that guarantee poverty, and create the conditions that permit the creation of wealth, you are just buying villas for tyrants.
It's about time that Bush showed some fiscal responsibility.
Regardless, giving people money has never been a good idea. The money never gets to those who need it and those nations will always scream that you are not giving enough.
There is no faster way to make someone lose respect for you than to give them money.
"The American position is likely to enrage aid campaigners such as Sir Bob Geldof"
And what, exactly, has America done in the past 45 years that hasn't "enraged" the likes of Sir Bob Gelding? I will not lose sleep over his enmity.
Aid to Africa should be $0.
Any amount more is too much.
The first Live Aid should have told us absolutely everything we needed to know about aid to Africa. The food sent to Ethiopia ended up feeding the army of Haile Mariam Mengistu, its Communist dictator, not the actual people who needed it.
Criticise colonialism all you like, but at least people like Mengistu were not running things in Africa during the colonial era.
Regards, Ivan
Giving money to Africa is foolish. The people who need it never get it. By the time the politicians and dictators get their split theres nothing left.
Giving money to Africa is foolish. The people who need it never get it. By the time the politicians and dictators get their split theres nothing left.
There was colonialism, and then there was colonialism.
British colonialism was of one sort, while Belgian and German colonialism in Africa was of a completely different sort. The one was, on the whole, a blessing that still bears fruit. The other was a nightmare that left millions dead in its wake. Millions were killed directly by Belgian and German colonial armies, and the countries they once occupied are nightmares to this day.
I think you know that, but I think Belgians and Germans forget that little part of their history.
Agreed. Belgium and Germany didn't colonialise so much as "loot and pillage".
Regards, Ivan
"The American position is likely to enrage aid campaigners such as Sir Bob Geldof, who has urged a million demonstrators to take to the streets of Edinburgh to demand more aid for the continent before the G8 summit."
Sir Bob, just take up a voluntary collection from your million closest friends instead of asking for my government to steal more from me at gunpoint.
"Since when do European ministers feel entitled to spend US money?"
Since The Marshall Plan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.