Minister Fantino indicated today that Canada stands ready to help Jamaica regain its economic stability. For example, Minister Fantino announced support to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to provide technical assistance to the Caribbean, including Jamaica. The support will also assist the Middle East and North Africa. The support will build on Canada's international efforts to foster private-sector-led investment and economic growth by helping developing countries strengthen the capacity of their national and regional public institutions to manage public finances better and promote financial sector stability.
Hmm. That sounds nice, doesn't? Very conservative tone: "Private sector led investment." Afterall, isn't that the free market thing to do? Encourage private sector investment? Thing is that if Jamaica is such a great place to invest, why does the "private sector" need encouragement from the IMF and the Canadian government? You don't see very much government encouragement to invest in Brazil, India or China. There's a reason for that.
This is another example of the Harper government's bait and switch. They talk conservative and then act very Liberal. The sort of business people interested in shacking up with the IMF and foreign development agencies come in two varieties 1) Crony capitalists and 2) Guilty ridden moneybags. Neither of these groups are interested in actually making an investment. Not in the wholesome free market sense of that word.
The crony capitalists are using foreign aid agencies and the IMF to set-up make-work projects in the Third World. These projects will provide some marginal benefit to the locals, some employment and perhaps a well or a road, but most of the money invested will find its way into the pockets of the crony capitalist and whoever he's had to bribe to set-up shop. An actual investor expects to make his money off a reasonable rate of return. The crony capitalist's rate of return is siphoning some of the apparently invested capital back into his bank account. Capital which is partially provided by the taxpayers of the First World.
The means are as old as man. The make-work project is built to shoddy standards, the contractors are expected to kick back part of their payments to the crony capitalist. This has been going on in Africa since the Colonial Era. But First World governments feel compelled to do something, so they do something badly. Doing nothing would likely be the best for all involved.
While the crony-capitalist is despicable, the guilt ridden moneybags is somewhat more problematic. Despite having amassed a great fortune through mostly legitimate means, he feels that some how the market is a kind of scam that he has been very successful at playing. He eases his conscience by "investing" in Third World projects. While these projects are likely to be more carefully developed and managed that those of the crony capitalist, their long-term value is relatively small. Beneath the rhetoric of investment and development the reality is that these are old fashioned charity programs.
Nothing wrong with charity. But nations are not brought from poverty to wealth through charity. There must be real economic development based on real economic value. The workers of the Third World countries must produce goods and services that their countrymen and foreigners want. Nothing else will end global poverty, nothing else has ended poverty as a mass phenomenon in any nation. The last two centuries are replete with examples of poor nations becoming rich, free and strong. We need only have the will to heed their examples.
But will we?
The case of Jamaica is a somewhat tricky case. The country was for centuries a British colony, so there is a good institutional foundation there. They speak English, indeed a dialect of English that is widely admired. Their artistic and cultural output since independence has been impressive for so small a country. Their diaspora is modestly successful. The weakness of the Jamaican family, too many single mothers, places their emigres at a distinct disadvantage. Compared to other English speaking Caribbean groups they fare poorly because of this.
Compounded to family dysfunction is the tragedy of geography. Jamaica is an ideal way point for drug traffickers. So much illicit money flowing through so small a nation would be problematic even for Switzerland, for a young nation like Jamaica it has proven catastrophic. The country's politics have not helped. When not corrupt they are often socialist. Michael Manley, Jamaica's revered former PM, was a staunch democratic socialist who created a generous welfare state that the country could not afford. He also had a knack for discouraging foreign investment. Did we mention he was pals with Pierre Trudeau?
While Manley partially reversed some of his policies during his second term in the late 1980s, much of the damage had already been done. Once elaborate social programs, subsidies and grants are established they acquire a network of lobbyists and supporters. It becomes almost politically impossible to remove such programs once established. Jamaica has consistently underperformed its neighbours.
So will Julian Fantino, who failed to enforce Canadian law on Canadian soil, have the guts to tell the Jamaican government how to run Jamaica? Will Mr Law and Order have the courage to call for an end to the Drug Wars? No we won't. To tell another country, no matter how badly run, to mend its ways is dismissed as imperialism. Calling for drug legalization is seen as being soft on drug dealers.
Instead we continue with this farce. Money ploughed into foreign aid, except we now use the pretext of "investment," to carry on the same old game.
Not to mention that it's 'racist' to not spend our millions on other countries to make up for Canadian colonialism. Wait, what?
Posted by: Mikeg81 | Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at 07:45 AM
I take it you've forgotten Robert Borden's brutal conquest of the Congo in 1917. It's why the Congolese hate us so.
Posted by: Richard Anderson | Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at 08:42 AM