Hutton on imperialist aid

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Here is Hutton's human face of imperialism. He does not understand
theoretically that the uneven distribution of the means of production
under capitalism will perpetuate unequal exchange, but as many marxists
do not understand that either, it would be quibbling to object on these
grounds. He does imply massive and regular transfers of capital from the
developed world to the less developed rather than the other way round
which is what happens on a daily basis now. 

His programme is in spirit not greatly different to that which Bono is
trying to persuade the Republican conservative right not to oppose in the
USA. But Hutton, playing on underlying European hatred of America,
probably has a better chance of getting his ideas accepted in Europe, as
it is in the material interest of European imperialism to undermine US
imperialism, now they do not need to unite against the threat of
"communism".

Chris Burford


p366-367

The World We're In by Will Hutton


There needs also to be a recasting of the relationship of the
industrialised West with the less developed world. The EU needs to
rethink its attitude towards agriculture; instead of protecting domestic
production of commodity foods, it should move into higher value-added
production and open up its markets to producers in the less developed
world. 

Together with a generous approach towards supporting increased third
world health expenditure, and reframing the international financial and
trade system, the living standards and prospects of the world's poorer
populations would be transformed. 

At a stroke they would have a market for their principal export product
and a capacity to insulate themselves from the vagaries of capital
flight. 

On top of this, they could start to attack the disease and low life
expectancy that cripple economic development. According to the World
Health Organisation, 643 million people in very poor less developed
countries have a life expectancy of 51, compared to 78 in richer
countries; for every 1000 live births, 159 of their children die,
compared with 6 in the richer countries. Another 1.8 billion live in
countries where the figures are nearly as bad. 

If the richer countries were to allocate just 0.1 per cent of their
collective GDP in grants to offer between £20 and £25 per head for basic
health spending in the less developed world, 8 million lives would be
saved, says the WHO. 

That and the general overall improvement of life expectancy would raise
the less developed world?s income by $360 billion annually. 

It would be the biggest bang for our collective buck yet conceived -
relieving suffering and raising growth in the same act.

George W Bush?s US lifts only a grudging finger. 

 From a conservative perspective the WHO initiative -like ambitious plans
floated by the British government to set up a massive international aid
programme along Marshall Plan lines - suffers from two colossal defects.

Both plans are predicated on public action to produce a global public
good; and both involve the redistribution of income from the rich to the
poor, even as a Republican Congress fights for a scale of kickbacks to
corporate America that dwarfs what is proposed for the third world and
increases US defence expenditure by 12 per cent -a stunning $48 billion.

There is no central role for the private sector; and to act in this way
is to recognise that market solutions have no answer. 

Worse, it implies the US making common cause with its allies in a
supranational initiative. So the US stays aloof. 

The only possible alternative actor is the EU.