Live 8

[T4 Primera]

http://www.live8live.com/

While noble in it's intent (link above), I'm not convinced that the focus on doubling aid and debt forgiveness is as important as that of fair trading laws.

I'm also not sure that they are targeting the right people by focusing on the G8. There is considerable wealth in resources in Africa but little of it reaches the people who live there. I think the pressure might more effectively be exerted on the likes of Shell and ExxonMobil (see link below).

Link: A noose, not a bracelet

I wonder how much pressure these G8 governments could exert on the multinational corporations that take their huge profits from the starving mouths of the children in Africa. I'm more inclined to believe that it is these corporations that exert influence and pressure on the governments - not the other way around.

Most people with a sense of justice agree that the profits from the resources of a nation should benefit the people of that nation. However, whenever a country nationalises it's energy resources they tend to be victimised by governments of the G8 for as many reasons as they can think of, apart from the obvious one - that the large multi-national corporations which bleed them dry are not creaming it anymore.

[fredjacksonsan]

Interesting article. Oil companies profit taking at the expense of another nation's population is heinous. I found it especially bad that Exxon had given just 12% of profits for the first year only and then pumped for who knows how long. That's just greed, pure and simple.

As far as helping the people of Africa and other nations, I have a theory that before all the "necessary" civilization and technology arrived, these people were happily going about their lives in a manner they had pursued for centuries, if not longer. Take for example the jungle peoples of the Brazilian rain forest. They were existing peacefully in an idyllic situation. "Civilization" was brought to them: Tshirts, buildings, roads, pollution, money, drugs, alcohol. Yes it's arguable that they have better health care now. However if you look around at history, every native people that has had "civilization" (aka "progress") brought to them has suffered for a long time before they became used to the system. The Native American population is still suffering as they try to adapt to the white man's "civilization", when they themselves had one of the most civil cultures prior to the Europeans' arrival. Same with the Aborigines of Australia; a profound culture destroyed by civilization.

OK, /rant. I wanted to point out that in bringing civilization, as industrialized nations see it, to Africa and other nations has caused the very same problems that exist today and this discussion encompasses. The reason that the problem is so widespread is that many countries are being "brought into the 21st century" simultaneously. Any country that is being brought from a "primitive" state (no insult to anyone intended) to a more technologically advanced one will suffer greatly as the new technology is utilized by the few, who through greed and barbaric tactics will grow rich at the expense of others.

Should countries give aid? Of course, it's not humane to let atrocities go on. But to take their oil and leave them nothing, then send money as aid is a bit hypocritical.

/rant again.

[TexasF355F1]

I don't know what to think about this. Personally I don't like U2, especially Bono. I mean I would really like to know how much all of these performers are getting paid. It's not our fault that Africa is not run at all. I also don't know how much to believe all of those figures. Just b/c it says that doesn't mean it's 100% factual proof. Why always look at America. We're not the number 1 ranked country in the world anymore and we havent been for a long time.

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

As far as helping the people of Africa and other nations, I have a theory that before all the "necessary" civilization and technology arrived, these people were happily going about their lives in a manner they had pursued for centuries, if not longer. Take for example the jungle peoples of the Brazilian rain forest. They were existing peacefully in an idyllic situation. "Civilization" was brought to them: Tshirts, buildings, roads, pollution, money, drugs, alcohol. Yes it's arguable that they have better health care now. However if you look around at history, every native people that has had "civilization" (aka "progress") brought to them has suffered for a long time before they became used to the system. The Native American population is still suffering as they try to adapt to the white man's "civilization", when they themselves had one of the most civil cultures prior to the Europeans' arrival. Same with the Aborigines of Australia; a profound culture destroyed by civilization.

here here. just wanted to let you know that was one of the most thoughtful things ive ever read on this forum. i couldnt agree more.

[Mustangman25]

Originally Posted by TexasF355F1

I don't know what to think about this. Personally I don't like U2, especially Bono. I mean I would really like to know how much all of these performers are getting paid. It's not our fault that Africa is not run at all. I also don't know how much to believe all of those figures. Just b/c it says that doesn't mean it's 100% factual proof. Why always look at America. We're not the number 1 ranked country in the world anymore and we havent been for a long time.

I read a reply to that argument a while back, but probably couldn't find it...it read something to the effect of: If Bono, Oprah and Bill Gates combined their entire net worths, and donated it, it would barley make a dent in the problem...it's that large. Sure, it's not our fault that Africa is in the condition that it is, but that doesn't mean that we can't help. Regardless of where America is ranked, many people look to America as a traditional source of aid and help, and a very powerful source at that...that's why America is pressured to give aid, something that I really have no problem with.

[TexasF355F1]

Originally Posted by Mustangman25

I read a reply to that argument a while back, but probably couldn't find it...it read something to the effect of: If Bono, Oprah and Bill Gates combined their entire net worths, and donated it, it would barley make a dent in the problem...it's that large. Sure, it's not our fault that Africa is in the condition that it is, but that doesn't mean that we can't help. Regardless of where America is ranked, many people look to America as a traditional source of aid and help, and a very powerful source at that...that's why America is pressured to give aid, something that I really have no problem with.

I don't disagree with you at all. But I don't think the U.S. should be the only country to look at for help. We should look globally. I think a solidly run government in Africa would help a lot, but there are a lot of obstacles to overcome with that. It is a sad situation in Africa, but it will definatly take decades, maybe centuries to fix to make it a decent country in terms of financially sound and decent homestead.

[Mustangman25]

You're absolutely right. The whole purpose of Live 8 is to prehaps pressure those at the G8 summit to give more aid. It will be interesting to see how much aid comes out of the meeting...

[T4 Primera]

I thought this part of the article I posted earlier was very telling...

Sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest place on earth, is also its most profitable investment destination. It offers, according to the World Bank's 2003 Global Development Finance report, "the highest returns on foreign direct investment of any region in the world". Africa is poor because its investors and its creditors are so unspeakably rich.

I know many consider that the African nations have so far not shown the ability to govern peacefully and equitably. I think that part of that problem could be linked to the practice of foreign investment contracting local groups to protect their assets there - the upshot of which is corrupt governments that are little more than corporate militia.

As far as bringing old cultures kicking and screaming into the technological consumer world, I have witnessed the effects of this in Fiji.

30 years ago, rural Fijians lived in perfect harmony with their environment - it fed and sheltered them and they didn't pollute it. Whenever there was a cyclone or hurricane, the following day revealed that nature had littered the landscape with the very building materials they needed. It was no big deal - just a seasonal ocurrence.

More recently, I see that the Fijians purchase consumer goods wrapped in non-biodegrable packaging, yet the country is not wealthy enough yet to have widespread rubbish collection and disposal services. The contrast between the natural landscape 30 years ago and the litter and pollution of that landscape today was enough to create a sinking feeling in my gut.

Some have taken this thread as being directed at the US in particular. It was not intended that way. In fact, the multinational corporations I believe are largely responsible for the African situation transcend the ability of any one country (even the US) to dictate to them.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by T4 Primera

I know many consider that the African nations have so far not shown the ability to govern peacefully and equitably. I think that part of that problem could be linked to the practice of foreign investment contracting local groups to protect their assets there - the upshot of which is corrupt governments that are little more than corporate militia.

Exactly; and the influx of modern weapons to the warring tribes of some regions has turned and occasional battle and slight loss of life into jarring slaughters, like the Hutu vs Tutsi massacre a couple years ago.

Another problem with the "Africa Situation" is that to the outside world, Africa is seen as a country, where in reality there are 54. Many of these countries has its own culture, language, and customs. These aspects of society cross the borders and lines drawn on a map. Much like the wildebeast migrations, some of the peoples of Africa have (or had) mobile societies and would move depending on the season. With citizenship thrust upon them and borders from a piece of paper enforced, they can no longer live as they did, moving away from rival tribes if necessary.

Please don't take this the wrong way; in no way am I saying the native peoples of any land are more primitive than the supposedly "advanced" society of the industrialized world. In many ways, they are more advanced, reaching a state of unconcern, happiness and functional, renewable society.

Originally Posted by T4 Primera

As far as bringing old cultures kicking and screaming into the technological consumer world, I have witnessed the effects of this in Fiji.

30 years ago, rural Fijians lived in perfect harmony with their environment - it fed and sheltered them and they didn't pollute it. Whenever there was a cyclone or hurricane, the following day revealed that nature had littered the landscape with the very building materials they needed. It was no big deal - just a seasonal ocurrence.

More recently, I see that the Fijians purchase consumer goods wrapped in non-biodegrable packaging, yet the country is not wealthy enough yet to have widespread rubbish collection and disposal services. The contrast between the natural landscape 30 years ago and the litter and pollution of that landscape today was enough to create a sinking feeling in my gut.

A great example of the problem. Once again, Paradise has been turned into a trash filled ghetto by technology.

[YogsVR4]

If someone wants to live a different way, its up to them. Living simply and living well are mutually exclusive.

[T4 Primera]

So the G8 agree to debt relief - hooray!

But wait a minute.....what does this say in the fine print.

Link: The G8 plan to save Africa comes with conditions that make it little more than an extortion racket

The IMF and World Bank are still being used to rob from the poor and give to the rich - business as usual.

BTW, I know some of you would rather look at the pictures than read the text so here you go....

[T4 Primera]

At the Make Poverty History march, the speakers insisted that we are dragging the G8 leaders kicking and screaming towards our demands. It seems to me that the G8 leaders are dragging us dancing and cheering towards theirs.

see link below:

Africa's new best friends

The US and Britain are putting the multinational corporations that created poverty in charge of its relief

[TexasF355F1]

Forgot to mention another problem i have with Live 8. The performers getting paid.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by T4 Primera

The US and Britain are putting the multinational corporations that created poverty in charge of its relief

I wonder if that lazy author just wants to get handouts like the welfare folks here. Do nothing and rake in some cash. I'd say he's embraced the art of bottom feeding.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I wonder if that lazy author just wants to get handouts like the welfare folks here. Do nothing and rake in some cash. I'd say he's embraced the art of bottom feeding.

Got anything of substance to rebut the author? Or are you just limited to name calling and shooting the messenger?

Link: Name calling

That you resent your tax money being spent in other countries is predictable, Yogs. But I wonder if you are aware of how that money is spent and whose pocket it ends up in.

Here is an example of how that money never reaches or benefits the people it is supposed to help, and how foreign aid is used as a convenient mechanism for transferring your money into the coffers of the opportunistic capitalists:

Roughly half of all aid to Cambodia is spent on "technical assistance", or TA. Between 1999 and 2003, this amounted to 1.2bn dollars. What is TA? It is an invasion of "international advisors" on whom up to 70m dollars was spent in 2003 alone. Add to them "international consultants", who each cost more than 159,000 dollars. By contrast, the cost of a genuine foreign aid worker in a truly independent NGO is less than 45,000 dollars, and the cost of recruiting a Cambodian expert is an eighth of this.

More than 740 foreigner advisers and experts earn nearly as much as 160,000 Cambodian civil servants, who get as little as 25 dollars a month. In many ministries, the pay of foreign advisers exceeds the entire annual budget. It is more than twice the budget of the agricultural ministry and four times that of the justice ministry.

Foreign aid workers constantly complain about local corruption, often justifiably. But they rarely identify and measure their own legitimised corruption. "There has been no systematic analysis of the effectiveness of TA in Cambodia," says ActionAid. "Government of Cambodia officials [have] suggested that this is because donors don't want to recognise the ineffectiveness of their aid." The Council for the Development of Cambodia says that the foreigners ?create parallel systems to the government. They don?t transfer capacity. The experts just provide reports which no one reads... donors always complain about the lack of human resources [but] Cambodians are human beings..."

The report cites a scheme to protect villagers from flood, in which Britain's Department of International Development is involved. Even though it is promoted as "community-based", three-quarters of the budget is being spent on foreign consultants, offices and administration. Cambodia has three separate national economic plans, each designed by a different foreign agency. One of the biggest donors is the American government agency USAID, notorious for its bloody political interventions throughout the world. USAID funds Cambodian opposition groups, "human rights advisers" and newspapers that are in line with Bush's idea of "good governance". Even the most basic humanitarian aid is tied to American business. For example, oral rehydration salts, which are essential in the tropics, must be bought in the United States at five times the price of the same product made in Cambodia.

Source: http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133466

Now, are you going to discuss the issues raised or would you prefer to rant on about what a [insert insult here] John Pilger is?