No debts, but then what?

Everyone knows about the huge debt-relieves recently promised by the G8-countries for the poorest developing countries. Won't they help a lot? Wont they benefit the poorest of the poor? No, and here's why:

According to the [2005 Index of Economic Freedom], of the 18 countries (Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia) that would immediately qualify for debt relief, 13 have "mostly unfree" economies (right next to plain "unfree") and only 5 have "mostly free" economies. Most of these countries have little protection of property rights, high corruption, and little domestic security. Some of these countries, such as Bolivia, are currently a political mess, and others, such as Niger, Rwanda, and Tanzania are virtual dictatorships. What are the odds that these countries will use the economic flexibility afforded by debt relief to help the people and not to line the pockets of the ruling elite? Sustained growth will be difficult for these countries to achieve as more foreign aid follows debt relief, leaving them without any incentives for economic reform - just as before. (#)

These debtrelieves will have nothing to say even though they could be a great opportunity for a country to get a fresh start in reforms and economic policy. What would help these countries, with or without debt-relief, is increased economic freedom.

The Germans shook of a huge war-penalty and a ruined economy in record time by putting the forces of the free market to work after World War 2, becoming the strongest economy in Europe within few years. Any aid given to them did neither do harm or any particular good. The same goes for everyone else, debts or no debts.