Fair trade will not work because it will still have to operate within the global capitalist system which is geared to making profits at any price. Capitalism in what ever form it takes cannot free everyone from poverty.

The only thing that can end poverty, war, and exploitation once and for all is the complete destruction of the global capitalist system and its replcement with a system of democratic control of all the means of porduction, distribution and exchange by everyone and a plan of production for need not profit, ie world socialism!

 http://www.socialistparty.org.uk

I agree with the above articles. For an extensive, freely downloadable, book length expose of the bankruptcy of British official aid policy have a look at:

 http://members.lycos.co.uk/CCErswell/

Extract

This thesis provides a detailed analysis of UK Aid policy over the period 1974-90. Its focus is primarily upon the extent to which official aid was concerned with poverty alleviation. This theme permitted a comparison to be made between the records of the Labour administration of 1974-79 and the Conservative administration of 1979-90. A quantitative comparison is made of the two aid programmes. The philosophical, moral and ideological aspects of the British aid programme are explored. Two themes in particular are studied in depth: aid and gender and aid and the environment.
The influence of lobby groups is considered, including those representing political, commercial, gender, environmental and "human development" interests. The implications of conditionality are also considered. Assessment is made of the proportion of ODA projects which can be said to be relevant to women using unpublished ODA documents. An analysis is also made of internal, unpublished ODA "flagship" projects documents, aimed at the poorest, women and the environment. The results of this investigation indicate that official aid during the period under scrutiny was characterised by a continuity dictated by the exigencies of the export lobby, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Foreign Office. The commercial and political influences were already evident under Labour. A quantitative increase in aid was negotiated in return for the introduction of the Aid for Trade Provision. This significantly increased the commercial influence on aid, resulting in a shift! away from the poorest countries and the sectors most critical to the poorest. It also prepared the ground for the greater emphasis on, and expansion of, commercial uses of aid under the Thatcher Government. Similarly, the political continuity between Labour and Conservative periods of office was typified by the support for the Somoza regime by the Labour Government and the axing of aid to the Sandinista regime by the Conservatives.

A sectoral analysis of British aid reveals a heavy bias towards cash crops and a lack of emphasis on sub-sectors critical to basic needs and human development. Very few projects can be said to be relevant to women in a conscious, pre-planned way. The very small number of poverty-focussed, gender-conscious or environmentally-sensitive projects are unlikely to ever account for more than a tiny fraction of the aid budget. It is argued that the conditionality attached to an increasing amount of aid is a mechanism for imposing a model of economic development in the interest of the donor, making it advisable for recipients to avoid using aid until such time as conditionality can be eliminated. Conditional aid should be abandoned by Northern agencies, but, given that this is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, it is necessary to support attempts to reform aid in order to eliminate as many strings as possible in the medium term.



:

Yes, it would be nice to live in a utopia, where there was no such thing as private property and production always fulfilled need instead of greed. However, Oxfam is dealing with the practicalities of every-day life, not revolutionary politics.

The Swaziland Solidarity Campaign backs Oxfam's campaign to redress the imbalances in world trade. The WTO has so far advanced an agenda which maintains neo-colonialist economic relations between the developed and underdeveloped world, where the latter exists solely for the profit of the former. Meanwhile, the IMF is pushing underdeveloped countries to adopted often damaging and irreversible free trade policies, while the developed world exists behind a wall of protectionism.

Swazi farmers are the world's most efficient sugar producers, yet they are prevented from free competition with European sugar beet producers and are disadvantaged by the Common Agricultural Policy, which heavily subsidises EU production. The inability of Swaziland to fully exploit its own natural advantage in agriculture is a contributor to famine and AIDS. Sugar could buy Swaziland the necessary drugs and food to halt the sharp decline in life expectancy, but the EU stands in the way.

Hunger and disease are immediate and serious problems and we cannot wait around for some revolution that may never happen. Eighteen million Africans are facing starvation right now. A third of Swaziland's population, 300,000 people - more than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear holocausts combined - could die in the next 10 years due to famine and AIDS. Consequently, life expectancy at birth will drop to less than 30 years by 2010, compared to 60 years in 1990. Therefore, Oxfam's policies of fair and free trade should be supported by everyone with a genuine interest in Africa's survival.