Last year, we ran a successful event where we “mapped” the course of the discussion using argument mapping techniques. Our version of last year’s map has an overview of what happened during the last session.
We’d welcome all comments to questions raised in this map in the comments box below.
Jubilee Scotland is an independent coalition of organisations and local groups across Scotland who campaign for cancellation of the unjust and unpayable debts which are ruining the world’s poorest countries.
JUBILEE SCOTLAND
41 GEORGE IV BRIDGE
EDINBURGH
SCOTLAND
EH1 1EL
T: 0131 225 4321
E: mail@jubileescotland.org.uk
I think the idea of an argument map is good. I’m especially interested in the arguments from the transparency angle. We should try and make it that all organisations make their processes are transparent as possible. And this should be a condition of relief – if full transparency is a requirement, then we can facilitate this process and provide an example to others.
There is something wrong with one of the points made in your map — “A system with grants or loans is a false dichotomy: we should change structures of the world so that countries can benefit from their own resources and grants/loans would not be needed.”
This is too revolutionary — how can we possible effect real change if we take this illusory position. We may think this is desireable, but is it really achievable? I certainly can’t imagine how it would be. We must work within the existing framework where there is exactly a culture of loans – but some are more ethical than others. I have a loan for my house – I dont think this is unethical.
Dear Hilary,
Thanks very much for reading the blog and your reply. I don’t suppose you are Hilary Benn, the International Development Minister for the UK are you?
Your comment on the map is really welcome. As Susie says, the map is intended to make the arguments around debt relief transparent, with the specific intention that campaigners around the world can understand each other better. The revolutionary point you picked out was made by someone at last year’s debt tribunal, and represents a view point which is fairly common among campaigners particularly based in the “Global South” (I have a problem with the unclarity of this term, so my claim here should be taken with a pinch of salt, but still I think many people would accept this characterisation). I think your response calls for the map to be extended to incorporate your disagreement, and we will see if someone wants to respond to your response. We will update the map asap.
Ideally, your comment will elicit a more careful working-out of the idea that there could be an interesting world which did not use loans or grants in international finance; I would suspect someone who subscribed to the no-grants-or-loans view might also have a problem with international trade, and it certainly seems like a world with no international trade would be quite dull. Perhaps there is a more subtle way of working out the position, though. I hope someone can offer it! This is what this excercise is all about!
Many thanks to you, and to Susie, for your comments
Ben at Ken Yersel