Why Live 8 Is All Mouth And No Trousers

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Ok, people have said that Live 8 isn't about getting money but raising awareness and getting the debt cancelled and "changing the perception of Africa", all lofty, nebulous, almost meaningless goals.

The fact remains though that most of these countries still suffer endemic corruption on the national and local level. So money put into these countries comes out as surely as water into a holed bucket.

People seem to think that Geldof and his multi-millionaire are achieving things and presumably many of you naive One-World types are sexually excited by the idea of throwing money into an economic blackhole.

There is also the idea that it has already made a difference. Wrong. Why is it wrong, you ask? Aren't people now aware of the problem, aren't billions being given to Africa. Won't this make everything better with one wave of a magic wand?! No.

Because solutions to Africa have to come from Africa. What Geldof is doing, other than raising his profile - is just effectively tossing more money at the problem. It didn't work in the last twenty years, why the fuck is it going to start working now? You can't really expect anything in the poorest countries in Africa to change until they've undergone political and economic reform.

Not only that but debt relief has been tried in the past. It failed and ultimately all it does is mean that people regard the countries involved as a bad risk.

Furthermore, empirical evidence - as well as economic theory (one of the few instances of the two being in alignment) shows that aid is often fundamentally damaging to long term development and that areas without aid develop faster and better than those with aid.

But obviously the things that Live 8 is really designed to do is help middle class people feel better about themselves when they give £5 to make African dictators that little bit richer - and at the end of the day, isn't that what matters most?

[hr]

IMAGE:www.btinternet.com/~brother.war/white10-2.gif

[Rilla]

the fact is that if the money goes and buys food for one family, or medicine for one person - surely this is a good thing.
Look at the UN Millenium project and see that aid does actually help (even though this as you say is not what live8 is about)

go to www.rte.ie/news and watch prime time - this weeks program (the second half) shows how aid can and does work.

[hr]

"O unworn world enrapture me, enrapture me in a web
Of fabulous grass and eternal voices by a beech"

edit:
and of course aid works! there's plenty of foreign people here studying at st andrews on scholarships - what's a scholarship if not overseas aid? it means that a person is going back to their country more educated, ready to benefit their country.
and this goes for all countries, not just those in africa!

The idea Bob Geldof wants to get across is that aid in itself is not enough - alot of countries give tied aid, which means that they must privatise public services in order to get aid - this is happening in bolivia now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story ... 86,00.html

edit: same story in tanzania
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolit ... 82,00.html

[the racing tortoise]

Quoting Prophet Tenebrae from 14:58, 1st Jul 2005
Not only that but debt relief has been tried in the past. It failed and ultimately all it does is mean that people regard the countries involved as a bad risk.

Furthermore, empirical evidence - as well as economic theory (one of the few instances of the two being in alignment) shows that aid is often fundamentally damaging to long term development and that areas without aid develop faster and better than those with aid.

yes aid can be damaging if it is badly managed and blind, however dept relief is not even aid in that it is not actually giving any money. it is us stopping the visious cycle of compound interest on loans that have already been paid 2 or more times over.


[hr]

It could be worse, your hair could be on fire.

if your hair is on fire it still could be worse, your other hair could be on fire.

[Bitterandtwisted]

I agree that African governments are as corrupt as.

I was surprised to hear on Newsnight that Uganda's debt was cancelled in 1997 and has since become unsustainable again. Fully half their budget comes from aid and most of this goes on the millitary.

Ethiopia's problems are also caused more by the government than by the drought. Wars with Somalia, Eretraia and home-grown rebels is where their resources get squandered.

However, Prophet's nay-saying is hardly constructive. What real solution, if there is one, can we suggest?

Regime change is attractive but somewhat problematic. I can imagine all too clearly what a coup an invasion of Africa by Europe or America would be for the propaganda machines of despots like Robert Mugabe. Hatred of the West in Africa would likely be comparable to the Islamic fundies.

A better idea may be to give the money to groups independant of the governments - perhaps ones accountable to Western governments and international charities like Oxfam who could use the money. Of course, after these organisations have started to make headway, the tyrants might chuck them out and take over, bringing us back to square one.

One thing we realy must do is reform (preferably scrap) CAP. Bloody French farmers.

Or we could let them stew in poverty for a few more centuries.

[hr]

Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[flarewearer]

African corruption costs around 50% more per annum than the TOTAL african debt...



[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/stormy.png

[David Bean]

All of this is true, though some of you are forgetting the huge negative effects of Western tariffs and subsidies, which dump cheap produce on third world markets and allow us to protect our owm markets, in such a way as to prevent the third world from trading its way out of poverty, which would certainly be a viable medium-term prospect if we didn't actively prevent them from doing so. But of course, none of this gets a word from the 'Make Poverty History' wonks, because they're all too busy trying to persuade everyone of the virtues of their absurd notion of 'fair trade', which involves encouraging poor countries that what they really want to do is to put tariffs around their own markets, because obviously that's going to encourage the West to open its markets to them, erm, yes...

Their problem is, they see the rich/poor countries debate as a zero-sum game: they just won't believe that actually, the best way for poor countries to get out of poverty is to sell us stuff, or more importantly, for us to let them. As far as they're concerned, we can't get anything out of it, because that's just bad and wrong. There's no analysis or evidence of thought, just dogma, that's all. But then, we are talking about the political left, here.

Their second problem, which stems from this, is the belief that aid should be measured in costs, not benefits. They seem to think that spending 5% of our GDP on aid instead of 2.5% makes us twice as morally good, irrespective of the outcomes - of what's actually done with the money, where it goes, whether it's spent on mud huts for peasants, or palaces for dictators - what matters is that we spend it. The better way, of course, would be to measure outcomes - just how well off is everyone, and are they becoming better or worse off? They don't want to do this, though, because if they did they'd soon realise the embarassing fact that people in most poor countries are becomming better off each year, and, crucially, that the speed at which this wealth increases (and we're talking about real wealth in the hands of the people here, not money salted away by dictators) varies directly with how politically and economically free the countries are. And once that cat is out of the bag, well, that's just one more blow to their monolithic, leftist ideology.

I'm not anti-aid, by any means - I think rich countries have a moral duty to sort out their poorer counterparts. But that doesn't mean we should be writing blank cheques and then washing our hands: we have a responsibility to make sure that people's lives are improving as quickly and effectively as possible, and that involves a combination of working with countries to reduce corruption, giving aid and opening our markets. And it's got bugger all to do with Bob Geldoff's self-important posturing.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Actually bitter - follow the logic and you'll see nay saying IS constructive.

The countries lift themselves out of poverty with assistance purely in the form of trade sanctions and assistance in governmental matters.

Uganda should be a case in point. You can't just expect to remove the symptoms and for the problem to be gone. It doesn't work that way, it never has and it never will and for Bob Geldof to try and act like he's some fucking saviour of the 3rd world doesn't help matters. He's only making things worse.

And as to your naive comments Rilla - sure, feed a family for a day, a week, even a year with you aid! It's still WORTHLESS. Do you know what paying to put money in that families mouths is doing? It's putting local food producers out of business, so that when the aid goes away - everyone is fucked. Well, if your aim is to make the poor dependent on the good will of the G8 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.btinternet.com/~brother.war/white10-2.gif

[flarewearer]

Says the organiser of the march;

"A few hours in Edinburgh can help save lives elsewhere."

Say I;

"Bollocks"

The best way to save the planet is to stay at home, turn off all the lights, dont waste electricity or emit carbon and dont kill anyone or wear the bargain clothes you got that were made in the sweatshop.

Really, I've got a hankering to go round the march and photograph all the "morally concious" protesters wasting the worlds' resources and wearing the fashionable and affordable clothes brought to them by globalisation and slave labour.

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/stormy.png

[novium]

who said anything about regime change (by invasion)

I was reading The Economist the other day and it was talking about how all the food and medicine and money given to this one country was being hoarded by the corrupt government and given out to their cronies and supporters. Anyone who might be interested in getting rid of them starved.

Quoting Bitterandtwisted from 15:56, 1st Jul 2005
I agree that African governments are as corrupt as.

I was surprised to hear on Newsnight that Uganda's debt was cancelled in 1997 and has since become unsustainable again. Fully half their budget comes from aid and most of this goes on the millitary.

Ethiopia's problems are also caused more by the government than by the drought. Wars with Somalia, Eretraia and home-grown rebels is where their resources get squandered.

However, Prophet's nay-saying is hardly constructive. What real solution, if there is one, can we suggest?

Regime change is attractive but somewhat problematic. I can imagine all too clearly what a coup an invasion of Africa by Europe or America would be for the propaganda machines of despots like Robert Mugabe. Hatred of the West in Africa would likely be comparable to the Islamic fundies.

A better idea may be to give the money to groups independant of the governments - perhaps ones accountable to Western governments and international charities like Oxfam who could use the money. Of course, after these organisations have started to make headway, the tyrants might chuck them out and take over, bringing us back to square one.

One thing we realy must do is reform (preferably scrap) CAP. Bloody French farmers.

Or we could let them stew in poverty for a few more centuries.

[hr]

Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[hr]

boo!

[Ian McFarlane]

Bean is right.

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

Quoting Ian McFarlane from 01:15, 3rd Jul 2005
Bean is right.

Yer.

[hr]

Will Watson. Medical Student. Cake Lover.

[David Bean]

Quoting novium from 04:17, 2nd Jul 2005
I was reading The Economist the other day and it was talking about how all the food and medicine and money given to this one country was being hoarded by the corrupt government and given out to their cronies and supporters. Anyone who might be interested in getting rid of them starved.

Zimbabwe?

[Guest]

Read Ian Taylor's article in International Affairs on this (I think it the last issue or one before). Its in the library/online. He's in the IR School here at St Andrews. Its called something like "Why Gordon Brown is Wrong about Africa" and is being quoted a lot in newspapers recently.

[Guest]

You see to me this is typical of you lot.
None of you will get of your backsides to do anything because you're all glued to this chatroom where your percieved self importance is so much higher.
Instead of being deconstructive and inherently conservative (and therefore aligning yourself with the typical St. Andrews student attitude) you may try to realise that although nothing is perfect, it still raises awareness and money, the former being far more important than the latter in the context of the G8.
Oh and besides that- I'll bet that it's more than any of you naysayers have ever done (pretentious philosophising being disregarded due to the wankerism inherent).
And finally, before any of you, in that O-so-typical sinner way write to tell I spelt something wrong or used the same word twice (off the top of my head, a variant of 'inherent' is in here twice) that's not the point and you'll look even more pompous for doing it.
So then: who wants to fry a Macdonald's C.E.O?

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

You can call us cynics and pessimists if you like. In reality, I prefer perfectionists. Dribbling financial aid into the third world is actually doing to be DAMAGING in the long term. It's better to do something than do nothing? Not when that something is actually going to turn out worse than doing nothing. There are far better ways of helping, as David has pointed out and stage one is to inform the crazed do-gooders that sometimes, just sometimes, rock stars aren't worth listening to.

[hr]

Will Watson. Medical Student. Cake Lover.

[themushroomgod]

Origionally posted by someone else:

A bunch o' self important jibba - jabba


The main point that has to be made here is that we, in the rich, well off west, have a moral duty to help those worse off than we, even if that means sacrificing a few of our creature - comforts, and the west's uber - powerful besrtiding of the world like colosus.

YES, we should relieved debt, as how is Africa to sort out it's problems with full effectiveness while still crippled by paying back the greedy, selfish capitalists at the world bank?

YES, we should give more aid. While most problems in Africa need dealt with in the long term, we MUST also provide short term solutions. It's become a cliche in recent weeks, but every three second, a child dies needlessly. With enough aid going to charities such as Oxfam, this could be stopped in 6 months. Naysayers and right wingers may say "Oh, but the amount of aid required to do this so quickly would be billions - amounts that would wreck western economies, but THAT'S NOT THE POINT, MOTHERFUCKERS! Sure, our economies may take a down turn. Some people may loose their jobs. The West may not be as hugely powerfull as is was before, but PEOPLE ARE DYING NEEDLESSLY. Personally, I'd say some child's life is more important than a job or a country's power anyday.


YES, fair trade is a must. It's the only long term solution. Again, some farmers in the West might loose out. Then again, some farmers in Africa might then be able to afford the 50p for their wives/children's/relatives medical costs to fight malaria/river blindness/typhoid etc. Ask yourselves, naysayers, which is more important?

Of course, some people in the West (I'll name no names, president Dickwad) won't want fair trade. They are, after all right wingers, and probably refer to Africans as "wogs" behind closed doors. I hold these people personally responsible of the deaths of all those in Africa who will die from preventable disease in the future. All those who argue against fair trade, debt relief and more and better aid. All those involved in the decision making processes against Africa in the rich governments of the world.

To conclude, it would seem that the best solution is to elect more and more liberal and left wing governments in the West. Ones who believ they serve all humanity rather than the interests of simply their constituants.

Working men of the World, unite!

[hr]

Ooh! A Monkey!

[rae]

For the benefit of all of you who weren't there: the message coming out of yesterday's march was NOT about money or aid. There were no buckets for change, there was no one asking you to direct debit £16 a month to save a child. The message of the march, as was said over and over and over, was to ask the G8 leaders to look at Africa and what they're going to do about it because in the 21st century it is inacceptable for people to be dying of starvation in a world that is capable of feeding itself.

BandAid was different in that it was an attempt to keep people from dying of starvation during a famine - and it DID work. And I challenge any of you to honestly tell me that giving £5 to SAVE SOMEONE'S LIFE in that case was not a good use of your money because now they're dependant on you. That is ridiculous.



[hr]

In America they think 100 years is old and in Britain they think 100 miles is far.

[steerpike]

- to whoever it was who was making the point about Uganda's budget and how half of it is being spent on the military. 1/2 of Uganadas money going on the military is no revelation - they're suffering a long and bloody civil war with the LRA in the northern areas of the country at the moment. i think you took that fact out of context - it's like an uninformed foreigner looking at the British budget at the height of the IRA attacks and wondering why so much money was going towards security. it really is no surprise. Spending half of the budget on the military during peacetime would be another matter entirely.


[hr]

Nothing is easier than to condemn the evildoer, nothing is harder than to understand him.

F.Dostoevsky

[Humphrey]

At the very least, it look away all of Saskia's publicity on the week she got evicted from the Big Brother house; that has to be a good thing. (I'm unemployed by the way, can you tell?)

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[David Bean]

Your posts (I assume you made both) read as piss-takes, but I'm afraid I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt this time, but rather to treat them as sincere.

Quoting themushroomgod from 13:07, 3rd Jul 2005
The main point that has to be made here is that we, in the rich, well off west, have a moral duty to help those worse off than we, even if that means sacrificing a few of our creature - comforts, and the west's uber - powerful besrtiding of the world like colosus.

Absolutely. And in my post - which was all of four paragraphs long, in case as a child you had some unfortunate accident with Balzac, and that's why you didn't read it - I made that very point. But you said it yourself: we have a moral duty to HELP PEOPLE, not to pour money down the drain in some ascetic attempt to make ourselves feel good, as you seem to think we should.

YES, we should relieved debt, as how is Africa to sort out it's problems with full effectiveness while still crippled by paying back the greedy, selfish capitalists at the world bank?

Debt relief is a tricky subject, by no means as simple as you present. In some cases, it's a good idea, and may be seen to be morally required, such as when a fledgeling democracy has inherited the debts of the corrupt dictatorships that prededed it. However, this does not mean that it is also right to relieve the debts of those corrupt dictatorships that remain. In these cases, debt relief does more harm than good, as it creates a moral hazard whereby other regimes will feel no compunction in getting their countries even deeper into debt (and doubtless spending the money on themselves or, even worse, on the military), because they will just expect further debt relief in the future. So what we really need is a tailored approach to debt relief, which ties it to democratisation and reform. In his "World Poverty and Human Rights", Thomas Pogge presents an interesting model for how this might work in practice.

YES, we should give more aid. While most problems in Africa need dealt with in the long term, we MUST also provide short term solutions. It's become a cliche in recent weeks, but every three second, a child dies needlessly. With enough aid going to charities such as Oxfam, this could be stopped in 6 months.

How do you know?

Naysayers and right wingers may say "Oh, but the amount of aid required to do this so quickly would be billions - amounts that would wreck western economies, but THAT'S NOT THE POINT, MOTHERFUCKERS! Sure, our economies may take a down turn. Some people may loose their jobs. The West may not be as hugely powerfull as is was before, but PEOPLE ARE DYING NEEDLESSLY. Personally, I'd say some child's life is more important than a job or a country's power anyday.

Oh, now you're just being silly. I'm in this debate to try to convince people of what is likely to work, so that they might potentially act upon it and do some good. You're apparently just here to make noise for the sake of it. That is, of course, unless you can give me some account of how you intend to persuade anyone that they should throw their economies into catastrophe in a Light Brigade-esque attempt to solve the problems of Africa using faulty methodology.

YES, fair trade is a must. It's the only long term solution. Again, some farmers in the West might loose out. Then again, some farmers in Africa might then be able to afford the 50p for their wives/children's/relatives medical costs to fight malaria/river blindness/typhoid etc. Ask yourselves, naysayers, which is more important?

I agree with that, but the correct expression for what you're describing is "free trade", not "fair trade".

Of course, some people in the West (I'll name no names, president Dickwad) won't want fair trade. They are, after all right wingers, and probably refer to Africans as "wogs" behind closed doors. I hold these people personally responsible of the deaths of all those in Africa who will die from preventable disease in the future. All those who argue against fair trade, debt relief and more and better aid. All those involved in the decision making processes against Africa in the rich governments of the world.

It's true that the US does erect trade barriers - again, what you're really advocating here is free trade, not fair trade - an even worse set of offenders are we Europeans, through the despicable Common Agricultural Policy, the architects and chief guardians of which are, guess who? The most hypocritical country in the world - step forward, France. Thank God Tony Blair, in the wisest move he's made since entering office, has set Britain's long-term objective as the destruction of this vile organ of oppression.

To conclude, it would seem that the best solution is to elect more and more liberal and left wing governments in the West. Ones who believ they serve all humanity rather than the interests of simply their constituants.

More liberal governments, yes. More left-wing governments, no. And I don't know why you use the expression 'it would seem': you can't make an irrational conclusion flow from a flawed argument just by saying that it does, you know. Ain't gonna clothe your emperor that way.

Working men of the World, unite!

Ooh! A Monkey!

That's what I said.