Following our tenth entry: MP Andrew Gwynne, who successfully introduced the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act and worked long and hard to get justice for those who received contaminated blood through the NHS, we turn to Botswana, after reading an obituary by Emily Langer in the Independent. Her subject was Ketumile Masire – a statesman who described himself as ‘a farmer who has been drawn into politics’.
A summary with added links and photographs
Masire herded cattle before enrolling in a primary school at 13 and receiving a scholarship to attend a high school in South Africa that trained many leaders of the first government of independent Botswana. When his parents died he supported his siblings, becoming a headmaster. He later earned a Master Farmers Certificate, and having saved enough money to buy a tractor and became a successful farmer.
He served on tribal and regional councils and was a founder and secretary-general of the Botswana Democratic Party, now the country’s leading political party. He once travelled 3,000 miles of the Kalahari Desert to attend two dozen meetings over two weeks.
After serving as minister of finance and development planning and Vice President, Ketumile Masire became President of Botswana (1980-1998): roads and schools were built, healthcare improved, access to clean water expanded, farming techniques advanced and life spans extended.
The discovery of diamond reserves had transformed the country’s prospects and Masire continued to use the revenues for the public good after the death of his predecessor Seretse Khama.
He became ‘a model leader in a model nation on a continent where poverty, corruption and violence had crushed the hopes of many for stability and prosperity’.
After leading Botswana through a drought that persisted for much of the 1980s, he shared the Africa Prize for Leadership awarded by the Hunger Project in recognition of the food distribution efforts that helped the country avoid starvation during the crisis.
Though South Africa was Botswana’s major economic partner, Botswana opposed apartheid. “He had to walk a fine line in a really rough neighbourhood,” said Chester Crocker, a former US assistant secretary of state for African affairs. “He had to get along with everybody, without sacrificing his principles.”
After leaving office, in addition to tending the cattle on his ranch, Masire advised other African leaders and chaired an international panel that investigated the Rwandan genocide of 1994. He made important contributions to peace efforts in Congo and, more recently, Mozambique. He established a foundation which seeks to improve agriculture, governance and children’s health in the region.
He once said: “We have a saying in Botswana: A man is never strong until he says what he believes and gives other men the chance to do the same. I am proud to say without a doubt – we are a strong democracy.”
A more chequered account of his life is given in Wikipedia..
Jehangir Pocha, CEO and Editor-in-chief of NewsX TV, New Delhi, writes:
In 2005, Harvard’s Michael Kremer and Seema Jayachandran of Northwestern University came up with a simple and neat solution to one of the world’s greatest economic problems – crushing national debt. Jayachandran and Kremer call it odious debt. Yes, unnecessarily literate, even archaic. But that’s how academics show their muscle.
Relevant seven years later: Ask any Greek. Or Italian. Or American . . .
Kremer and Jayachandran, who are also Fellows at the Center for Global Development in Washington, have rightly identified excessive debt as one of the central reasons nations are forced to cut social services and public spending. Ask any Greek. Or Italian. Or American.
The larger problem, as Jayachandran and Kremer point out, is that often a nation’s debt is run up under circumstances that are morally cumbersome, if not reprehensible. In such cases, they ask, isn’t it only fair to cancel such debt?
Is Iraq really liberated if its people are still chained to the debts of their oppressor?
Consider Iraq. Should Iraqi citizens who suffered and toiled under Saddam now have to suffer and toil to pay off the debts the dictator accumulated to buy his (Western) weapons and build his palaces? Is Iraq really liberated if its people are still chained to the debts of their oppressor?
Take South Africa. The apartheid regime took $23 billion in loans from Western banks, most of which was spent on the white population, save that which was spent on policing and terrorising the blacks. How is it acceptable or fair at any level to now ask black South Africans to repay this debt?
This is now the situation that faces much of the Arab world, as well as several Latin American, Asian and African countries.
Jayachandran and Kremer say it is time the world formulated a legal response to such “odious debts” brought on by war, dictators and such exceptional circumstances.
The argument is not new, but until now one had found a way to avoid the moral hazard inherent in such a move. After all, no matter how morally compelling the argument for cancelling odious debt, there is always the danger that some governments will mis-use it.
Bankers in London, New York, Zurich, and Paris line up to lend oppressive regimes money – at extortionate rates
This is where Kremer’s and Jayachandran’s genius shows up. Their proposal is as simple as it is great. They propose that whenever the international community identifies any particular regime or ruler as a pariah or illegitimate, it should also declare that any and all future contracts with that regime/ruler would be non-transferable to the state.
For example, if President Assad dictatorship in Syria was declared a pariah government, any money lent to Assad’s regime would automatically lapse if the regime was toppled. Assad’s debt would not pass on to the Syrian state that would succeed his tyranny.
This is essential to control sleazy bankers. When nations become pariahs, their aid and trade dry up. So bankers with addresses in London, New York, Zurich, and Paris line up to lend them money – at extortionist rates of course. The bankers become the pariah regime’s lifeline, often extending its lifespan – and the misery it speads – by decades.
Bankers don’t care much for human rights. But they do care for profit.
So whereas they once felt smug in the knowledge that their loans to dictators would have to be returned by their people, Jayachandran’s and Kremer’s proposal would make them think twice about funding dictators.
Without this funding, dictators and rogue regimes across the world would be squeezed and probably (or least hopefully) have their end hastened. Even support to dictators not yet declared rogues simply because they serve Western purposes, like Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, will find it hard to raise money because bankers will never be sure when the tables will turn and an ally become the enemy, like Saddam in the 1990s.
The work of Professor Jayachandran and Kremer could substantially change the world if their idea is adopted widely. Not only would it make Western bankers wary of bankrolling tyrants, it would allow newly liberated countries and people the freedom to start their new lives with a clean slate.
Read the paper here.
Read Jehangir Pocha’s blog here.