The Day After Tomorrow

A few days ago I was bored, so I decided to watch the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" for the second time. The interest in the movie was two fold - firstly because of one of the actors who I have come to like [Jake Gyllenhaal] and secondly for the closing 15 minutes or so which got my curiosity going the first time I saw the movie.

Jake is cute, the kind of guy I could easily fall for. For those that don't know who he is, he is the co-star of the new movie "Brokeheart Mountain", the badly nicknamed "gay cowboy movie". But I am getting sidetracked again.

For those that haven't seen the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow" is about how the world is hit by a sudden ice age, causing the entire northern hemisphere to be covered by snow within a matter of days. What I found interesting with the whole movie was the repercussions that flowed on from a such a global natural disaster. The survivors from rich countries were forced to migrate south of the equator in what is southern Asia, Africa and Latin America.

In the movie, the tables were turned on the rich countries, and the US President had to waive the entire Latin American nations' debts before Mexico would allow the survivors of North America to cross the border. Seeing the survivors crossing over the river border, tearing down fences, and heading south with the only possessions being the clothes on their backs, reminded me of the news reports of Mexicans heading north in reality.

That particular scene in the movie got me thinking.

The Third World has been for quite a few decades, barely surviving due to the massive debts they have. Money they owe to the rich countries and institutions of the world. In some Third World countries, the interest payments are so high that they are barely able to cover them, let alone pay off any of the principle that they owe. The direct consequence of this is that money they could spend on infrastructure and improving the livelihood of their people, is being used to cover these loans. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer with no real chance of reversing the trend.

We, in the rich nations of the world, tend to forget about the poor countries and their plight until something major happens - whether its a natural event like the tsunami in southeast Asia in 2004, or a huge famine in Africa. When such events hits our TV screens, we orchestrate fundraising events and poor millions [and in some cases, billions] of dollars into the affected areas to help out. And then return to our normal lives feeling good, thinking "we have done our humanitarian bit". Within a matter of weeks, we have all but forgotten about it.

These are temporary solutions to an ongoing problem, and will remain temporary until the rich nations of the world take up the courage to try and solve the problem on a permanent basis.

In the past, various governments from the USA and EU have promised to cancel the debts owed by Third World nations. Few of these have eventuated, and one wonders why the respective governments even bother offering this solution and then not implementing it. Being a cynic sometimes, one could say its to boost their own popularity on the international and domestic scene, especially if there's an election coming up.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are the biggest lenders to the Third World nations. These two institutions are apparently going to cancel debts for various Third World nations commencing from July 1st 2006, while the rich nations will ensure that these two institutions are compensated so as to not be financially disadvantaged by this generosity. Hopefully, this will not be another empty promise.

What concerns me with this though, is that if the World Bank and the IMF do cancel the debts, what happens then? Are there going to be conditions set on these Third World nations, stating that the money they used to use on paying off the debts, be used on improving the infrastructure and wellbeing of their own people? And if so, who is going to monitor it to ensure it is implemented? Further, are they going to clear the debts and then turn around and offer further loans, thus helping put these poor nations into a vicious cycle of debt once again?

Maybe cancelling the debts themselves is not the right solution. An alternative is for the rich nations to use the interest payments to pay for developing these nations. For example, if a country pays US$100 million a year in loan payments, why don't the rich countries then invest $100 million into these countries to build hospitals, roads, schools etc. That way, even though the poor countries are still paying off their debts, the money is in reality being used to develop them.

The reason this would be a more beneficial way of helping, is that the rich nations can gaurantee the money is actually used for improving these poor countries. Clearing debts gives the poor countries a lot of spare cash which can be used to buy non-beneficial items like armaments. The last thing we need to see is a large number of debt free Third World nations with some pretty modern military hardware.

Anyway, that's my five cents on the subject. I am now going to sit back and watch "Jarhead" with the cute Jake Gyllenhaal. Apparently he has quite a few scenes in the movie without his top on. :-)

James