Glenegles summit 2005 - Poverty

A highlighted document with extracts from the bbc and from other sources

Any questions feel free to ask :)  

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Joanne
  • Created on: 10-06-13 16:24
Preview of Glenegles summit 2005 - Poverty

First 752 words of the document:

"How successful was the 2005 Gleneagles summit in eradicating global poverty?"
Global poverty is categorised by the IMF as those who live on less than $1.25 a day. Reducing poverty was
the major goals of the G8 summit in 2005 due to political pressure from pressure groups especially those in
`make poverty history'. The conclusions from the summit can be seen as a positive step for debt reduction
as there were agreements made that would help the developing world.
One of the main outcomes is the debt relief package of £860 million in foreign aid to go to build
infrastructure and provide the essentials for the state including water supply and education. This foreign aid
was praised by charity campaigners and this has led to the poorest states gaining funds in which they can
start to develop, pay off debts and inwardly invest so that the future of the state is more stable for the
future.
Another outcome is cancelling of the debt of the world's poorest 18 countries, such as Tanzania, Uganda
and Congo. They were given debt relief meaning that up to 100% of all the state debts were cancelled
meaning that the state can use its GDP in inward investment, education and improving living conditions in
the state. This can reduce poverty as it can increase trade which in turn can increase employment increasing
the average wage and increasing the GDP of the state.
Free aid medication, including HIV antiretroviral drugs, was another result from the G8 summit. This can
decrease poverty as health care in developing countries is very basic and they can't afford to buy the drugs,
also if they can get hold of the medication, the medication can take every penny of an individual who is
already in poverty and as they are drugs needed for life, they can run out of funds leading to their conditions
to worsen. With free medication this can lead to an increase in equality between the north and south
decreasing the north and south divide. This reduces poverty as it will give families more spending power as
they do not have to buy drugs, this can increase the internal state trade meaning the living conditions will be
improved through inward investment.
The G8 committed to training 20,000 peacekeepers for Africa, this is to prevent civil conflict, corruption and
to help build infrastructures all meaning that a state goes in a positive direction and developing instead of
becoming disillusioned due to the belief that these sorts of relief could be viewed as neo colonialism, the
peace keepers also would help build infrastructure reduce crime and basically make the internal nature of
these states more stable and equal.
This has included a payment of US$3 billion to the Palestinian Authority to build infrastructure. This was an
important ruling as it can be seen as failed proposal. Despite the money promised palatine is still a very poor
state which is not helped by the perceived oppression from Israel so this money for infrastructure is
hindered by the conflict and the nomadic existence Palestinians are having to take when they are `moved on'
by Israel.
"The fight to end poverty is just starting," said Kofi Annan. This is a view that was expressed a lot within the
media in relation to the G8 summit, they are in the belief that good step forward was taken but alone these
proposals will not stop inequality and poverty in the developing world as there are factors such as
corruption, social problems and western dominance that can all cause a spiral in poverty in these developing
states so the cancelling of debt and increase of aid will not necessarily increase equality
Foreign aid being `stolen' by corrupt governments is rife in the world poorest states meaning that the aid
may never get to the poorest civilians and the cancellation of debt could be a green light to some states that
they should borrow more money leading to more debt and irresponsible economic policies. Another
problem is that governments and Ngos may be less likely to lend to the state that has had debt relief as they
might believe they will never get a return which could lead a state to not gain enough to self-support.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Government & Politics resources:

See all Government & Politics resources »See all resources »