What difference would 100% debt relief make to Africa?
It depends whether you're talking about 100% of all debt, or just the IMF and World Bank debt. If it was 100% of all the debt, we'd see a massive boost to African development. 100% of the World Bank and IMF debt, that would be a significant boost to African development. In both cases we would see billions of pounds which are currently used to pay off illegitimate debts, being used instead for health and education. The idea that we should put any obstacles in the way of achieving that is absolutely outrageous.
But, without ‘conditionalities’ isn’t it fair to say that in some countries, where corruption exists, that the money regained by debt relief will not be spent on education or health, but will rather be siphoned off within the system?
Of course the money which is being used paying off debt, could be used on other things, but these are sovereign countries, most of them are now democracies. The idea that we decide how their internal budgets should be used is insane. Think how people would feel if Senegal turned up in Britain and said 'you can't spend your money like this, you have to spend it like this'. It's a massive interference in sovereign government, to demand that money that should be in the national budgets anyway, they shouldn't be paying to us, should be spent in one way or another. You only have to reverse the equation and imagine what it would be like if they were telling us to spend our money in a certain way to see how profoundly unfair and undemocratic that is.
Sure, there are corrupt governments there, and they will do corrupt things as well. There are corrupt governments in the west, and they will do corrupt things as well. It strikes me that we're in no position to lecture other countries about corruption, until we sort out our own business. At the moment, there is something called the 'UN convention against corruption'. There are twentyfive signatories to that convention, not one of them is a member of the G8, whereas several African countries are party to the convention. In the United Kingdom it is perfectly legal to pay bribes to the governments of African countries, as long as your company is registered in Jersey. As a result, several of the companies listed in the FTSE 100 are registered in Jersey. We've shown absolutely no inclination to sort this out, and until we show some inclination, we're in no position to tell anyone else what to do.
You’ve mentioned the fact that the debt isn’t solely held by the IMF and World Bank. Who else is involved in African Debt?
A great deal of the debt owed by African nations is private debt, that is debt owed to private banks. Some of the private debt has been traded on, on what is called the secondary debt market, and achieves values which are to do with how much money people think they will get back from that debt, when and if, eventually it gets paid. There's a huge industry devoted to making sure that debts are paid, with a whole load of 'repo' men employed by the secondary debt market. The trouble with the G8 package, and with most packages so far, is that it doesn't deal with private debt. It only deals with, in this case, multilateral debt, and in previous cases bilateral debt.
Putting it bluntly, with these criticisms, do you think that Live 8 is a dangerous initiative?
Yes. What it does is to invite the G8 leaders to capture and co-opt our movements. It turns a very successful global justice campaign into a campaign for philanthropy. What African nations need is not Charity but Justice.
It's perfectly possible to have political protests that are popular and aren't co-opted and captured. Sure, I'm in favour of getting as many people out there as possible, but it becomes meaningless unless that protest delivers a clear message, which says that we want the exploitation to stop and the justice to begin.
The problem with the message given out by the current protest is that, the way it's heard at any rate, it is one of 'we'd like you, the G8, to be a little nicer to those African countries that you're already helping, to some extent'. That, to my mind, is the wrong message.
I would imagine that Live 8 organisers would suggest that the initiative is a beginning, and not a final act in the search for Global Justice. Also, that it’s surely better to campaign and protest for something that is realisable.
This isn't the beginning. This Global Justice movement has been going on for years. It's been far more advanced, and in fact Live 8, in many ways, is taking us back 100 years. They're saying that our campaigning should consist of flattering the powerful in order to get them to stay the sword, and to be a little bit kinder, and to offer a little more tea and sympathy. They're taking us back to the beginning of a protest, but not a protest that I want to be part of.
Is it possible to have a credible protest movement, which involves important politicians?
It depends upon which politicians you involve, but to suggest that you can have a coalition of the powerful and the powerless, entertaining the same interests is to show that you're living in cloud cuckoo land. The problem is power. The problem is that one group of people have enormous power over another group of people, and until that's sorted out, there's no hope of justice. So to suggest that the powerless and the powerful can get together and sing from the same hymn sheet is to render the whole campaign meaningless.
Does this place a dilemma for activists, protesters, and ordinary people who wish to effect change? Should they go to Edinburgh to protest, or will their participation lend support to a movement that you suggest is heavily flawed?
I don't think that people going to Edinburgh to protest will be seen as part of the Live 8 protest. They may be seen as part of the Make Poverty History campaign, but that's slightly different. Sure, the Make Poverty History campaign itself has been watered down and co-opted, and it's now putting out a fairly confused message, but it's not nearly as diluted as the Live 8 protest. I think it's very much worthwhile for people to go and protest in Edinburgh or Gleneagles, but go knowing that you're protesting against the G8, not protesting for it.