Sir, - Fintan Clancy (May 11th) attributes the squandering of loans to the Third World solely to the behaviour of "rich elites". He neglects to mention the central role of the West in creating these elites.
In most countries, the lack of democracy (or "the civil society" as Mr Clancy insists on calling it - perhaps he finds the proper word too hot to handle) which facilitated corruption was largely unrelated to domestic facts, rather being the result of Western interference.
The role of the US government in the numerous South American coups of the 1960s and 1970s is well documented and indisputable; Argentina, Brazil and Chile accumulated most of their current debts while ruled by military juntas. The same is true of most debtor nations.
There was a direct but inverse link between political democracy and the availability of loans. The US obstructed all loans to Chile while the elected Allende government was in power, but made capital readily available to the Pinochet regime. In the last six months of the Somoza tyranny in Nicaragua, $65 million in loans was granted by the IMF. When the Inter-American Development Bank offered loans to the democratic government which replaced Somoza, the US threatened to withdraw all its contributions.
Mr Clancy argues that "civil society" is essential for eliminating poverty and protecting human rights. I agree entirely. But given the above facts (for such they are, not "ideology"), he might consider whether there is necessarily any link between Western capitalism and democracy. He might also consider the deeply authoritarian nature of the World Bank/IMF/WTO: the US has 17 per cent of the vote in the IMF, the G7 countries 45 per cent between them (15 per cent is needed for a veto). The US has 250 permanent delegates at the WTO; the poorest 35 countries have none. It is inconceivable than these institutions will ever adopt policies in the interest of countries which have no say.
Until recently, apologists for the world economic system argued the poverty was an unfortunate but necessary feature of capitalism. Since the emergence of an effective opposition movement, they have shifted position 180 degrees and now argue that unfettered capitalism is the only way to cure poverty.
A brief comparison between, say, Thatcher's Britain and social-democratic Sweden is enough to disprove this. It is precisely because democracy is essential for meaningful prosperity that anti-capitalist protests will continue to grow. - Yours, etc.,
Daniel Finn, Roebuck Castle, Clonskeagh, Dublin 14.