I applaud Mr Brown on his article and the efforts of the UK to focus on these issues in recent times - especially their focus on Africa. I agree absolutely with the concept of breaking the cycle of debt. As always the devil is in the details.

I watch with interest whether the IFF becomes a competing lender to the IFM and whether the UK manages to convince the US to come the party. Other countries have tried to use their 'special relationship' with the US to influence them - and failed. Furthermore, the Global Political (and economic) environment was different in the late 1940's than now.

International Politics is always the bugbear of good International Policy, but then no-one said it would be easy, and a goal worth having is a goal with striving for.

I agree that it's a sensible idea to forgive the debt of the third world. The west can't go on and on about the problems without taking some hard decisions if they want to help fix them.

Of course achievable conditions must be linked to this debt forgiveness. Some of these countries have governments that are the main cause of their problems. Cancelling the debt of these nations unconditionally would just be an invitation to further corruption and misery.

The problem with "Debt and Interest Relief" is you surrender the direction of the benefit to the competency of the incumbent third world's nation government. Unfortunately, as another poster pointed out, often these governments are the cause of the nations malaise, not the remedy for it.

Debt Relief or Aid - I guess I would sooner use the opportunity of directed and focused Aid over the misguided, bungled and corrupt application of whatever national benefit was available from debt relief.

The "heresy" of it all is - many of the third world countries would be better off had the colonial powers not surrendered to US influence and relinquished the benefit of their guiding hands from those who seem incapable of guiding themselves (patronisng - yes - but it beats starvation and civil war any day).