Global Marshall Plan - Alternative Concept

[afrographX]

Hi, I found this interesting initiative on the net. It's about an alternative concept of how to save this planethttp://www.globalmarshallplan.org/index_eng.html. Here is some content:



A New Global Marshall Plan
In order to change our situation effectively and efficiently, a new global Marshall Plan is needed.

Despite the fact that individual situations across the world differ greatly, there is a common understanding that there is a direct connection between national and global security, global construction and economic well-being. Furthermore we understand that we must strive for the shared goals of environmental protection and social peace and prosperity.

The efforts required to implement the new Global Marshall Plan will have to exceed all previous efforts of development cooperation. The plan must have the support of key political figures and institutions, if it has a chance of success.

The enlargement of the European Union from 15 to 25 countries, provides a useful insight into the enormity of the task. There can be no better goal than that of the new Global Marshall Plan. It will show that within the next twenty years through strong worldwide economic growth and global co-operation, poverty and hunger will disappear from this planet.

Similar to the principle of all existing EU enlargement processes (co-financing for adjustment of standards) or the logic of the very successful Montreal Protocol for the reduction of CFC emissions, the Global Marshall Plan is about creating frameworks for global markets which lead to a sustainable win-win solutions for everyone These frameworks depends significantly on a coherent “global governance” based on the principle of subsidiary with the involvement of private enterprise and non-governmental organisations.

Only if the majority of decision makers commit themselves, is there the chance of an effective implementation of the Global Marshall Plan.


here's another text:


A Global Marshall Plan for a Safe and Prosperous Worldwide Sustainable Development
Proposal for Establishment of a Counselling Body by the European Commission
»A European Proposal for a Global Marshall Plan«


In the face of the growing inequality between the Western world and developing countries and a decrease in global security - at the expense of civil liberties - the necessity of a Global Marshall Plan (GMP) is becoming ever more apparent. The current world order represents a denial of multi-lateralism, in which the role of civil society is becoming increasingly insignificant. This situation is inappropriate for a sustainable and safe development.

The existing world order is more focused on the security of single nations than on the well being of the entire world population. Those outside of this current framework of are unable to participate and are therefore deprived of the opportunities of that globalisation should be delivering. This situation affects all of us, as opportunities for development of the world economy are reduced when not everyone is participating.
A Global Marshall Plan will make globalisation more just and at the same time it will lay the foundations for an eco-social economic miracle on a worldwide scale. A Global Marshall Plan has a much higher potential for growth than a worldwide free trade system on its own.

Europe today, has the opportunity to offer this alternative concept. Through co-operation and integration this new model has a real chance of delivering freedom, security and a prosperous economy.

The concept of a Global Marshall Plan introduces a coherent, and effective system to combat poverty on a global level. This would be linked to the comprehensive protection of the environment. Taken together, these factors would lead the world community to a more sustainable development. Such a concept has to be designed as a program that enables the world's most disadvantaged people to receive the full benefit of their entrepreneurial spirit. This would be for their own good as well as the benefit of the entire world economy. In this process, ecological, cultural and social dimensions would be in considered as equal priorities.

Of course, this involves far-reaching reforms in both industrialised and developing countries. Most importantly there is a need for radical change within international organisations. Just as NGOs and civil society need to be convinced of the need for Global Marshall Plans - Private enterprise must also be on side.

Essential for the implementation of the plan is the provision of at least 50 billion Euros of investments per year, as an addition to the currently pursued models of development co-operation. To achieve this figure each member of the European Union would have to provide a share of up to 1,5% of its GNP. These extra resources would be supported by fairly negotiated trade contracts between countries, which correspond the adjustment of ecological and social standards, and further measures aimed at the liberalisation of markets. In turn this would attract foreign investment into the developing world. These are the effective steps of the Global Marshall Plan that will be help to combat poverty and the disparity of chances towards a world wide sustainable and dynamic development.


Here you got the major steps of the program:


1. The developed countries must
-consistently pursue the way of a multilateral world policy and to counteract the de-democratization of the security policy
-make a decisive step towards debt relief for the developing countries in exchange for adjustment of standards
-massively raise their spending for development cooperation and a Global Marshall Plan, so that at least another 50 billion Euro per year is made available for direct investment into co-financed projects
-ensure that there are target-oriented trade agreements with developing countries. Suitable solutions have to be found for the agricultural sector, which consider the aspect of sustainability in an appropriate way.
-assist developing countries to build up the capacities needed for international competitiveness
-increase their efficiency in the field of development co-operation through better co-ordination and concentration to best-practice-projects

2. Developing countries shall commit to
-implementing international standards of fiscal and capital standards, which are as transparent as possible
-strengthening reliability and stability of their national financial systems and fight corruption substantially.
-strengthening and implementing a coherent and effective strategy for national combat of poverty
-creating a national economic environment that facilitates private investments and which is based on growth
-introducing and keeping international environmental standards
-implementing effective measures for the enforcement of gender equality

...

http://www.globalmarshallplan.org/e855/e1127/e1162/index_eng.html


what do you think about it?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I think it's a reeking pile of left wing feel-good-ism. "Global Marshal Plan" my a55. How much of the annual 50 billion euros does the US get? How much does Japan get? It's not global. It's a "3rd world relief plan" - the planners of this fiasco don't even have the courage to name this what it is.

If & when the recipient nations were to adopt the stipulations outlined (fighting corruption, transparent finances,), I could consider such a plan. But as this handout program stands now - first we hand them the money, then they promise to be good. No way.

I should go to my bank an try that. "Oh yes Mr. Loan Officer - my credit sucks now, I'm a drug addict and I don't repay my debts...but if you give me this car loan I promise in the future to be good." Life doesn't work that way. Europe's taxpayers deserve a better deal.

[afrographX]

I think it's a reeking pile of left wing feel-good-ism. "Global Marshal Plan" my a55. How much of the annual 50 billion euros does the US get? How much does Japan get? It's not global. It's a "3rd world relief plan" - the planners of this fiasco don't even have the courage to name this what it is.

If & when the recipient nations were to adopt the stipulations outlined (fighting corruption, transparent finances,), I could consider such a plan. But as this handout program stands now - first we hand them the money, then they promise to be good. No way.

I should go to my bank an try that. "Oh yes Mr. Loan Officer - my credit sucks now, I'm a drug addict and I don't repay my debts...but if you give me this car loan I promise in the future to be good." Life doesn't work that way. Europe's taxpayers deserve a better deal.

you repeat yourself, you brought this right-wing conservative statement before.
concerning your question how the usa and the western world will profit from this: this program is called global marshall plan, because and now listen carefully, it adopts the marshall plan of the post-war time. So if the western world puts money into the third world it's not lost money. The money also helps to built up new markets for the western industries. And the money also helps to eliminate the main courses of most conflicts and this way makes the world saver.

concerning your other washedout argument that the third world countries would not be reliable. where does the text say that the western nations first pay and than the thrid-world countries decide if they want to 'be good'?

the financial aid will only be provided if third-world countries are doing progress concerning the adjustion of social, ecological and democratic standards. the initiative is also reffering to the example of the eu-expansion. there only nations who adapt to certain standards are supported.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

you repeat yourself, you brought this right-wing conservative statement before.
concerning your question how the usa and the western world will profit from this: this program is called global marshall plan, because and now listen carefully, it adopts the marshall plan of the post-war time. So if the western world puts money into the third world it's not lost money. The money also helps to built up new markets for the western industries. And the money also helps to eliminate the main courses of most conflicts and this way makes the world saver.

concerning your other washedout argument that the third world countries would not be reliable. where does the text say that the western nations first pay and than the thrid-world countries decide if they want to 'be good'?

the financial aid will only be provided if third-world countries are doing progress concerning the adjustion of social, ecological and democratic standards. the initiative is also reffering to the example of the eu-expansion. there only nations who adapt to certain standards are supported.

Hey you asked the same question. I give the same answer. And thanks for calling me right wing & conservative - I'll wear that as a badge of honor. :D

You misunderstand my emphasis regarding the name of the plan. The "Marshall" part is appropriate. It's the "Global" part is the misnomer. This is not a global plan. It targets the 3rd world only. Even the name is typical PC garbage.

In answer to you question "where does the text say that the western nations first pay and than the third-world countries decide if they want to 'be good'?" It says it here;

Developing countries shall commit to:

That means that we will give them the money, and then they will promise to reform. Not "shall have demonstrated that". This amounts to money for a promise to be good.

FYI the west has been pumping billions upon billions into the 3rd world for decades. Now they want their debt forgiven. And they want another 50b euros here. When does it end?

The answer is simple - money is not a cure. Reform is a cure. Fix the third world system then give them money - then they will have growth and prosperity. Doing it backwards is foolish.

This type of short sighted guilt driven quick fix is useless. Hand a bum (oh I’m sorry, a gender-neutral financially displaced person) $5000 and see what he does with it. He'll buy an assload of booze. Hand Saddam billions in oil-for-food money...he won't feed his people, he'll pay off officials and buy weapons.

All I would ask of the national leaders begging for these funds is; change your ways. Demonstrate that you can produce results with our money. Show that you can be trusted. I wouldn't be so quick to play fast and loose with other people's money.

[afrographX]

That means that we will give them the money, and then they will promise to reform. Not "shall have demonstrated that". This amounts to money for a promise to be good.

this is a wrong interpretation of the phrasing


Developing countries shall commit to:

In the text above it's said that:

These extra resources would be supported by fairly negotiated trade contracts between countries, which correspond the adjustment of ecological and social standards,

in a paper (which you can get on the website) it's specified, that:


Key for a consensus about such standards is to link co-financing by rich countries for poor countries with the adoption of core ecological, social and cultural standards by the developing countries. This requires a willingness on the part of rich countries to provide financial and other resources and a willingness by poorer countries to give up certain present competitive advantages and to implement structures of good governance. This concept, which can be referred to as a "Planetary Contract", is modelled upon the successgul linkage of co-financing and acceptance of standards connected with the enlargement processes of the European Union

The GMP's goal is not to improve the world by blindly spending money. It's main goal is to reform. The steps of the program illustrate that.


The answer is simple - money is not a cure. Reform is a cure. Fix the third world system then give them money - then they will have growth and prosperity. Doing it backwards is foolish.