Dear Sir,

If Richard Wood wants to persuade me to vote Tory at the next election, he will really have to try a little harder! His article in this month’s New Internationalist merely skimmed over the real problems of rich world - poor world relationships with a superficiality that should shame even the most glib of politicians, and his answers to the questions posed left me with the impression of a timid Ambassador of aid policies, cowed into passivity by those Ministerial colleagues who can wag more popular sticks in debates on Government priorities.

Of course aid is a moral as well as an economic responsibility; but the Minister never commented on the enormous indebtedness that Britain, as a major imperial power, still owes in the post-Colonial era; on the seamy side of Lonrho-type organizations which quite clearly wish to trade in developing countries on grossly one-sided terms and over which H.M.G. appears to have no effective control; or on the fact that an aid programme of £270,000,000 in 1973 does not, in terms of spending power, compare that favourably with one of £205,000,000 in 1966/67.

One could go on listing endlessly the needs of reform in the International Community on such subjects as commodity agreements, G.S.P., and tariffs, I.M.F. policy, shipping conferences, insurances and the like, in which developing countries should have an effective say. And yet within the E.E.C. British policies on such subjects are in real danger of becoming even less progressive (if this is possible!) than they were at, for example, the UNCTAD Conference last year. Surely, Mr. Wood’s primary tasks should be:

(a) to fight publicly for an official British aid programme of at least 0.7% of G.N.P. by a specific date (e.g. 1977), to be allocated on reasonable terms;

(b) to battle (with his colleagues and others) for the drawing up of an effective code of behaviour for British companies operating overseas which could be adequately implemented and controlled;

(c) to argue continually for Britain to play a constructive part in encouraging UNCTAD to work out adequate policies for international trade and development;

(d) to be more willing than at present to state publicly his views and those of his Party on all international aid and related issues.

If Government does not take an emancipated lead in fighting for international justice then, in my view, it is failing in one of its most urgent tasks. Petty nationalism and parish pump politics are simply irrelevant for the 1970’s.

Come on, Mr. Wood, and get on with a real job!

Malcolm Harper,
Chari bury, Oxon.

Dear Sir,

While agreeing with the substance if not the tone of your article on the transfer of technology (New Internationalist, July 1973) it is my experience that even though the people of a developing country taken as a whole might be harmed by the arrangements you suggest, the individuals within the country who are directly involved in making the arrangements may personally benefit greatly. Work currently being undertaken to specify and evaluate alternative transfer mechanisms would be of marginal importance unless this fact is understood.

J.A. Barnett,
Sussex Development Project Group.

Dear Sir,

The Indian government has just closed down one of the "Traffic in Technology" abuses reported in New Internationalist last month. Foreign patent holders who had already collected royalties on processes licenced under agreement to Indian businesses were preventing the continued use of the licenced processes after the expiry of the agreements, claiming the patent laws as justification. In practice this meant that Indian businesses had to enter further agreements and go on paying royalties until the patents expired.

Now the Indian government has insisted that know-how sold by a foreign company to an Indian company becomes the property of the buyer after he has finished paying for it under the original agreement. It hardly seems unreasonable!

Let us hope that this is merely the first step in dealing with the wide variety of abuses which prevent the poor world from gainfully applying Western technology in their fight for development.

J.M McLean,
University of Sussex.

Dear Sir,

Re John Madeley’s letter (June); Oh that those opposed to the southern African regimes could work through non-violent means as did Gandhi and Martin Luther King. But southern Africa is not colonial India or the U.S. Sharpville and Luanda stand testimony to the fruits of non-violent protest. Though freedom fighters may not be the ideal solution, in the face of intransigent white attitudes denying the right of peaceful protest, there is no other realistic stand that carries with it some chance of success.

A.K. Bradley,
Farnham, Surrey.

Dear Sir,

Your interview with the British Minister for Overseas Development provided a fascinating insight into Ministerial thinking on the Third World.

It appears that the Government is aware that the gap between rich and poor is widening, does not believe there is a danger of world famine, is satisfied that developing countries can bargain effectively with international companies like Roche, and is relatively pleased with Britain’s aid performance. Such complacency is quite breathtaking.

One wonders how many emaciated and sick people, or how many parched and dried up crops the Minister must see before he will bestir himself and launch a crusade to persuade the Government and people of Britain that there is a world crisis which demands radical action on the part of countries like Britain.

At a very minimum we expect the Government to implement the U..N. target of 0.7% for aid by 1975. Nothing less will do.

Ian Haig
Executive Secretary,
World Development Movement.

Dear Sir,

Like your correspondents from the University of Leeds in the June New Internationalist, I have found the quality of excellent articles in the first three issues badly impaired by their "anti-imperialist" tone. I believe that a large proportion of your readers and potential readers have, like myself, been educated in such a way that we are basically pro-British and that such people will eventually reject the New Internationalist if they feel it to be no more than propaganda. This is particularly true of people in responsible positions in Government, Medicine and Industry/Commerce whose support can be of more material benefit to the Third World than that of the young and idealistic protesters who may welcome an anti-imperialist tone.

Many of this former group will accept the charges levelled at British or EEC or Western policies and actions if you could support your articles with reference to impartial and authoritative reports - chapter and verse.

Jon Vogler,
Lay Secretary,
Leeds Council of Churches.

Editor’s Note:
The case for the E.E.C. has been argued in full in all the books, articles, pamphlets, and programmes which preceded the formation and enlargement of the European Community and which were available for anyone to follow. It is the function of the New Internationalist, on matters such as this, to present as forcibly as it can the Third World point of view which has been and still is neglected in discussion of these issues and to present the case from a perspective which sees world development as a priority.