AS with so many of the grand decisions that affect the lives of millions in this world, it was made by a handful of men in suits behind closed doors.
But will the announcement of the G7 finance ministers, Gordon Brown among them, that they are to wipe out pounds-30bn of debt really do anything to alleviate the poverty and suffering of the world's poorest citizens?
The facts are plain and unequivocal: every day 30,000 children die because of extreme poverty while many countries still spend more on debt relief than on the basic needs of their people.
However, there are many in the developed world who claim that cancelling debt will do little, if anything, to change the everyday lives of those who live in perpetual misery.
Yet when debt is cancelled, the results can be palpable.
In the west African country of Benin, 54-per cent of the money saved through debt relief has been spent on health, including rural primary health care and HIV programmes. On the opposite side of the continent in Tanzania debt relief allowed the government to abolish primary school fees, which led to an increase of 66-per cent in school attendance, and Mozambique was able to launch an immunisation programme free to all children after being granted debt relief.
Therefore, it would seem, it is money well spent.
Nevertheless, these improvements in the lives of millions do not even constitute a drop in the ocean.
Despite the promises of western governments, little more than 10-per cent of the total debt owed by the poorest countries has been cancelled.
Seven years ago, when the G8 met in Birmingham, 70,000 campaigners surrounded the summit and demanded an end to Third World debt.
It made a difference, albeit a small one.
Acting unilaterally, the UK government cancelled all of the debt owed to it by many of the poorest countries in the world and even put up money which would allow multilateral creditors to cancel more of the debts owed to them.
After seven years, however, the problem is as acute as ever for many of the poorest nations. If the G8 finance ministers need a reminder of just how desperate the problem is, they need look no further than Zambia, a country crippled by HIV/Aids which is literally dying before our eyes.
Once one of sub-Sahara's wealthiest countries, standards of living are now lower than they were in 1975 and the nation lays claim to the most depressing statistic of them all:
with a life expectancy of just 33, Zambians die earlier than any other people on Earth.
Half the population will die of HIV/Aids, half of all trained teachers die every year of the virus, and the education budget is half of the amount of the annual debt bill.
But still there are many who believe that debt relief in itself is not enough, indeed will never be enough. They argue that Africa must first tackle its problems with bad governance and financial probity before being released from debt.
It is not in dispute that for every pounds-1000 of African debt and debt interest, Africa's elites have exported pounds-1450 of capital into overseas banks and investments. Are campaigns such as Make Poverty History more a product of the liberal western middle classes trying to feel good about themselves by calling for radical, but ultimately impractical and ineffective, solutions?
If they are, they are no worse than other efforts such as the Highly Indebted Poor Countries initiative, designed to help the poorest countries service their debts, which was heavily criticised by Africans who said, because of unrealistic growth estimates, countries committed scarce resources to debt servicing instead of meeting the needs of their people.
Wiping out debt with no strings attached could prove as fruitless as trying to find different ways of making the poorest pay back the richest.
Debts for democracy may be the only way to ensure Africans not only survive, but do so in peace.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article