Live8

[OIC]

I thought this an erudite and unbiased comment from today's Scotsman newspaper. Written by Gethin Chamberlain.

Nice concert. But can it really save millions from dying?


BOB GELDOF does not have time for people who question whether Live 8 and the Edinburgh G8 protests will have any long-term effect on the plight of Africa's poor.

"I'm not interested in critics," he told the BBC, the broadcaster which invested so much time and money in backing Live 8. "Those critics are just being stupid."


But even Geldof has had his moments of doubt. Before he decided to go ahead with the Live 8 project, he worried that if it did not work, it could create a generation of cynics.

He must have been a happy man yesterday morning when he looked back at the television coverage and saw the headlines that his efforts had generated around the world.

After all, 200,000 people packed into London's Hyde Park to listen to Bono and Dido tell them poverty was a no-no, and 225,000 wandered round in circles in Edinburgh. It was not nearly as many as marched against the Iraq war, but then at least that was an easy target on which to focus, with a single (potentially) achievable goal.

But the cynics, too, will feel in some way vindicated. After all, a cynic is just another word for someone who questions the well-meaning actions that others take.

Had Saturday's protesters and concert-goers all sat down and refused to move until poverty was history, or at least until the G8 leaders had promised to make it so, they might have made more impact.

The world could have marvelled at what might have come to be known as The Tartan Revolution. But instead, the Edinburgh crowd settled for an attempt on the world record for the eightsome reel, then went home for their tea, satisfied that they had done their bit.

"Wearing badges is not enough," Billy Bragg used to sing, "in days like these", but judging by the events of the weekend, a lot of people appear to believe that wearing wristbands just might do the trick.

Did they know what they were protesting about? Well, yes, it appears they did. Those who had not simply turned up to massage the egos of a bunch of millionaire musicians assuaging their own consciences appeared to have a clear belief in the need for action with regard to Africa.

They were protesting about trade injustice, a crippling debt burden and they were protesting, at the most basic level, because they believed it to be wrong that millions should die in abject poverty.

But how would they achieve these goals? More aid, lots more aid, some said. Cancel the debts, said others. Abolish trade barriers. And who should do these things? The leaders of the G8, they chorused. As if they alone have a magic wand that can somehow right centuries of wrong.

"Something must be done, even if it doesn't work," Geldof said in one recent interview, and in that one moment he came closest to capturing the collective middle-class angst of those who turned out this weekend.

Nineteen years ago I dropped out of my first university course to work for Geldof on Sport Aid. Run the World, the T-shirts said, and I was swept along by the excitement of the event and the belief that we were finally doing something to change that world. We persuaded 20 million people to sign up to run, from London to Ouagadougou, and we raised $100 million. We felt good about ourselves, just as those who attended the events of this weekend will have done. But we did not solve the problems of Africa.

There is nothing wrong with being passionate about a subject, but passion alone is not guaranteed to come up with the right answers.

Geldof might not like criticism, but he should be prepared to accept that it is not always possible to solve a problem by shouting louder than everyone else.

If the G8 leaders accept that there is a genuine desire among their electorates for change and adopt the policies advocated by Messrs Geldof, Brown and Blair, and articulated in their Commission for Africa report, will it make the public happy? Possibly. Will it solve the problems that beset Africa? Probably not. African leaders have to play their part, or it will all be for nothing.

Cancelling the debts of 14 nations is a worthy gesture, but it will only be effective if linked to strict anti-corruption measures. Geldof says that Africa is not mired in corruption, but the evidence is against him. Doubling aid sounds good, but there is no evidence that it works. Hundreds of billions of pounds have been poured into Africa and it is poorer now than it has ever been. The money is mopped up by leaders who use it to place more distance between themselves and their own people. If they know they can rely on western cash to prop themselves up, why worry about making themselves accountable to the people?

But some people do not want to hear such arguments. When Ousmane Sembene - known as "the father of African cinema" - branded Make Poverty History and Live 8 as "fake", it went virtually unreported. "African heads of state who buy into that idea of aid are all liars," Sembene said. "The only way for us to come out of poverty is to work hard."

Self-interest is hard to overcome. What if the G8 leaders address the question of the trade barriers that prevent Africa competing in the world's markets? Will the French agree to put aside the interests of their farmers? Will Britain stop buying its bananas from its former Caribbean colonies and switch to African suppliers instead?

What about AIDS? And malaria? Tackle those two and you are well on the way to getting Africa back on its feet. The G8 can, and should, throw money at ensuring that anti-retroviral drugs are available to those infected with AIDS. Something as cheap and simple as a mosquito net will have a dramatic effect on the rate of malaria infection, and widespread condom use would have similar effect on AIDS transmission. But the powerful Catholic church in Africa will not tolerate that, preferring to preach abstinence, and attitudes are hard to change in rural communities where many believe that symptoms of the disease are the result of witchcraft. How would the marchers tackle that?

What, too, about the influx of doctors into the UK from African countries? Should they be prevented from moving here to better themselves and earn money that they can send back to help their families? And if the answer to that is yes, what will the marchers say when they find that their scheduled operation has had to be cancelled?

What Africa could do with right now is a massive programme of work on its infrastructure - on roads, electricity and water. Tackle those and everyone has a chance. What if you could really persuade the G8 to address those problems? Would all the demonstrators agree with the solution?

Take electricity. Most African villages have no power source. Providing one would need a massive programme of power- station construction. Nuclear? Many of Saturday's protesters would blanch at the prospect. Coal-fired? The climate change lobby would not be happy. Oil? The Chinese are already working overtime to get their hands on as much of the continent's supplies as they can.

What about investment in African business? Bill Gates was rewarded with a big cheer when he appeared on stage in Hyde Park but to the anti-globalisation demonstrators, Microsoft rivals McDonald's as public enemy number one. If he invests in Africa, is he helping, or exploiting, its people?

What about education? Aid can pay for a pencil and paper for a child to go to school (and without those ludicrously cheap basics, they have no chance), but it is the government of their country which must establish the network to deliver more pencils and paper when the first ones run out, or the child's education is over. And in many African countries, if that child beats all the odds and achieves a qualification, it helps to be a member of the ruling party if they want to use it to get a job. There are no easy answers and no magic wands.

In Africa, the events of this weekend did not inspire much enthusiasm. "I hope it's going to help us Africans," Jane Waisaka, a hairdresser in Nairobi, said, "but I really don't know how."

Those who marched and partied this weekend can tell themselves that they have made a difference, that the world has changed. But we said that after Live Aid, and Sport Aid too, and it did not do so then, though the will was there, because the wrong solutions were adopted, because doing the wrong thing was considered better than doing nothing at all.

Geldof may not like critics, and he is very good at shouting down those who voice their doubts. But sometimes it pays to listen, too.

[harry hackedoff]

Have not joined in this slagfest because
A)I couldn`t be arsed
and
B)I couldn`t be arsed.

Three fings right, yeah.
Fist fing, live aid was primarily about Ethiopia. The Ethiopian government were fighting a savage war against the Eritreans. They had spent over Ten Billion US$ on weapons(give us yer f*ckin money Bob) and were at one time the single biggest arms customer of the old Sov Union(published figures in Defence and RUSI mags at the time)
Second fing. Corruption in Africa is on a scale which is simply unimaginable in Western countries. There is no accountability whatsoever.Fleets of Mercedes drive the fat cats past the starving and destitute, while the likes of Clair Short simper on about Crown Aid.
Aid must be conditional and it must be administered by organisations which are not in the loop. U.N. has an abominable record here.
Third fing, give a man a fish and you feed him for one day. Teach him how to fish and he`ll sit on a boat all day getting pissed

[Wully]

I was reading the other day about one of the poorest countries in Africa - cannot remember the name of it. Anyway, apparently it was the ruler's 30th birthday and he threw a bash for his friends that cost a cool £1,000,000.00. He also has twelve wives and each wife has her own castle style mansion and a top of the range Mercedes Benz. Now tell me where he got the money from??? From the taxes of daft bastards like you and me, thats where. What's the sense in cancelling the debts of eighteen African countries???? If you think that is going to help the poor starving people of these countries then I question your thinking. Each of the rich countries in the world should adopt one of the poor countries in the world and sort them out. Teach them to be self sufficient and work for themselves. By the way that's not my idea; it was voiced by some pundit on television a few months ago.

[Doc]

I read today that the country in Africa that owes the most is South Africa!!!!

Tell you what instead of sending them money send them me, I may not be able to help the debt but Id love to visit

[harry hackedoff]

Now isn`t a good time to visit Serth Efrika matey, specialy for white boys like you. The Yarpies are leaving in droves because of all the crime.
We are friends with a couple and what`s happening there is unbelievable.

[sneaky beaky]

I think, that at this big G8 conference this week, they should agree to cancel all debt ( after all it is money gone!) to all African Nations That would relieve them of the debt problem. BUT - Don't give them any more aid.!! Make them stand on there own two feet.
And if there is a problem with someone like Zimbabwe, where it is so obvious. Send in the troops. There would be for more justification to go in there,
Sneaky than there was for Iraq.
For the other dictator led countries, how long would the leaders last without Western aid?

[Mike]

Its been over a month, my Man........Too bloody long... glad to see you enjoyed yourself and that you are back where you belong.....

Aye
Mike

[harry hackedoff]

just passin through

Like a ver ver bad vindaloo, hey T

Best youm starts passing through a bit more often then matey

We`s got a Jenny wot was only Miss G&L mate, that`s all
Take it easy bud, miss you like the clap

[GD]

Jenny, here is why I think Live8 shouldn't have happened.

For 12 months now we have been hearing of plans by the UK Chancellor to reduce or write off debt to African countries. The UK decided to make poverty in Africa top of the agenda in the G8 Summit.

So, the worlds most powerful leaders meet to discuss ways of reducing or eradicating poverty in Afirca, AIDS, and ousting dictators who steal aid money.

I fail to see WHY anyone needed to demonstrate against poverty in Africa when the agenda was so strong.

Wasted effort plus:

Mr Geldof (he ain't a 'sir' he's Irish so can't use the title no matter what) invited the masses to Edinburgh despite the police saying they were going to be stretched hopelessly thin. He invited people to travel up here by small boat over long distances. His demonstrations provided cover for Spanish, Italian and German anarchist groups to cause trouble.

His Live8 was uneccessary, irresponsible, damaging to the economy and most of all achieved absolutely bugger all.

Except more publicity for himself.

I arrest my case.

[Pilgrim Norway]

Fine get rid of the evil bastids, right off the debt and then spend money on schools, hospitals, agricultural methods, food distribution and put the cash into the actual hands of the poor.

Then, give some money to Africa too !

Right the wrongs in the UK - - THEN write orf the debts in Africa.....
On the other hand - someone has calculated with the repayment
of these debts into the national budget of the UK - so you will all lose
money - again - You lot in the UK that is - as well as a few other countries.

The deficit in the DWP would be enough to write off some of the debt.

'Aye

( just caught up with this thread )

[GD]

I don't think the debts in Africa affect our economy so much. It's not taxpayers money. It's the banks who invested venture capital money at high interest rates.

I don't think we should give money at all. I think the assistance should be in the form of showing them how to feed themselves and to provide wells. More or less what Oxfam have been advocating for the last 20 years.

[Pilgrim Norway]

I quote :-

The standard scenario is supposedly this: A developing country borrows money; it runs into repayment difficulties; capital markets dry up; the IMF ponies up a giant loan; the country is saved from the consequences of its profligacy; the private creditors get paid off in full; the IMF gets left holding the bag; and, thus, taxpayers in industrial countries, which are the IMF's main shareholders, end up footing the bill.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fan ... rogoff.htm

Just as a comment to your entry above -

The Taxpayer always pays.

[GD]

Thank you for pointing that out. Yes, undoubtedly some of these African countries will have IMF money loaned to them. The purpose of the G8 however was to persuade countries who had banking loans to these countries to do one of three things.

Suspend payments for an optimum period.

Reduce or discount interest amounts.

Wipe out the loans.

This money could be either taxpayers money or venture capital from banks and other finance houses. If for example you have a pension and you have unwisely chosen to put your fund in a high risk venture in Africa, you would have received good interest payments on your units up until now. All of a sudden that will stop and you will earn nothing more on the fund or at worst find that your fund is next to worthless.

As always there is more than one system in operation. I should have ackowledged that.

[Pilgrim Norway]

There is quite a lot of confusion regarding the "African Debt" and the
powers of the G8 - and the effect of any elimination. Most of the debt
is on a "Reputation for repayment" basis and this makes everything more complicated.

I have only been involved with G17 who 'kick upover' their 'advice' but have very little say in the end results - I would recommend any of Kenneth Rogoff's papers as good sources of information - there again -
he's from 'my time' and after....

[GD]

I agree there's a lot of confusion. It's not a subject which greatly interests me but it is very important to be aware of the issues as we may find ourselves in armed conflict with some of the more radical African nations before long - ie Zimbabwe.

While we're at it - do you have any opinion on why we are having to send aid to Niger for famine when for 30 years the UN has been monitoring the situation there and regard the country as the second poorest in the world?

With this knowledge and foresight how come no-one in the UN made provision for the famine which was obviously going to follow the drought?