This paper examines Issue 15 from William Moseley's Taking Sides: Clashing Views on African Issues (3rd ed.), which debates whether developed countries have an obligation to provide debt relief to the poorest African nations. The paper contrasts Dorothy Logie and Michel Rowson's argument that debt relief is a moral and human rights imperative — particularly regarding healthcare access — with Robert Snyder's skepticism about whether aid actually reaches those in need given widespread corruption. The paper ultimately sides with Logie and Rowson, arguing that properly monitored debt relief can be effective, and that allowing debt-driven poverty to undermine public health constitutes an indirect violation of human rights.
William Moseley's third edition of Taking Sides: Clashing Views on African Issues offers readers insight into conditions across Africa. The author primarily intended the book for students and individuals with limited prior knowledge of the continent. The book addresses a series of issues concerning Africa, each supported by essays presenting both pro and counter arguments.
Issue 15, titled "Should Developed Countries Provide Debt Relief to the Poorest, Indebted African Nations?," forms the focus of this analysis. The issue brings together two sharply opposing perspectives on whether wealthier nations have an obligation — moral, political, or otherwise — to intervene in the debt crises of the poorest African states.
Dorothy Logie and Michel Rowson argue that it is a moral duty for developed countries to support nations in need. Their essay, "Poverty and Health: Debt Relief Could Help Achieve Human Rights," advances the idea that health is a fundamental human right. On this basis, poor nations should not be disadvantaged simply because of their economic condition; they are entitled to support from more developed countries. The logic is straightforward: if health is a right, then systemic poverty that destroys healthcare access constitutes a violation of that right — one that wealthier nations have the power and therefore the responsibility to address.
Robert Snyder's article "Proclaiming Jubilee — for Whom?" argues against the view that developed countries should provide financial support to their poorer counterparts. In Snyder's view, it is unlikely that assistance provided by the world's most influential countries would actually reach those in need. Corruption is widespread in many poor countries, where the general population is largely powerless and many leaders are primarily focused on their own interests rather than the welfare of their citizens. For Snyder, this structural problem undermines the entire premise of debt relief as an effective policy tool.
In spite of the strong points Snyder uses to support his claims, it does not follow that debt relief can never reach its goals. If the process is monitored by mechanisms specifically designed to discourage corruption, the outcome could be substantially different from the failure scenarios Snyder envisions.
"Monitored relief can overcome Snyder's objections"
"Debt deepens poverty and worsens health outcomes"
Debt and poverty have a damaging effect on health, and by doing nothing to assist poor countries in Africa, developed countries indirectly violate human rights. In most poor countries, healthcare has been privatized rather than maintained as a public good, leaving those without financial resources unable to prioritize their own wellbeing. Poor people are effectively discriminated against on the basis of their social and economic status. This outcome is not inevitable — it is the product of policy choices, including the choice to withhold debt relief — and that makes it a human rights issue as much as an economic one.
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.