L8ter

[smokingboot]

I do not know if this is a political post. If it is, I make no apology for length or content, and put it behind no cut. I wouldn't normally do this, but people who don't want to know can scroll down, just this once. I'll try not to clutter lists with something this long again, but this time I must. Because politics is just about people, and we are all involved whether we like it or not.

I turned away from the Live8 concert yesterday, because when I learned previously that Liveaid money had been used in forced mass relocations and that the organisations involved in the famine relief had mainly kept quiet about it, I felt ill. So I turned away yesterday, only to find I was wrong.

A part of me is still the passionate, perhaps over-zealous hippy idealist who thinks that just the feeling of all those high happy people must be good for the planet. And a different part of me says that all the emotion in the world is no good if we do nothing about it, that we will cheer and then we will go home, after experiencing the greatest vibe, we will talk about experiencing the greatest vibe; we will watch the highlights on TV and then we will go and do something else. One Beeb political journalist said 'We used to have movements. Now we have moments.' He talked about connecting the moments. That made sense to me.

So. Yes, focusing on G8, ending global poverty, yes.

An oft repeated argument is that there is no point getting rid of a country's debt, because they just accrue it again, along with an entertaining habit in demanding hand-outs and pulling on the guilt strings of the West. 'They never learn,' is one way of putting it; a curious, hectoring attitude. 'They never develop political awareness, never learn the strategies of good government because they get away with bad government.'

Who gets away with bad government? The people of these lands never have the chance to develop democracy, or any other form of commonly agreed secure government, because the men at the top are gangsters turned politicians, and their spokesmen walk the streets with big guns. The base of their power has always been weaponry. They are in it for short term gain, so they couldn't care less about government, or a country's development. The money will continue to pour in, and continue to fund robber barons even while it feeds the people they feed off.

So, to end poverty now, feed the people. To end it long term, help the people at the bottom of the ladder to get involved in fair(er) government and create long term prosperity by removing the robber barons'weapons. And that means ending the arms trade. This is also a matter for the G8, because look who does all the selling:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL300072005?open&of=ENG-366

Some argue that if we don't sell those arms, someone else will. They might, but not for long if the international community puts pressure, and yes, that means economic pressure on them. Which, among the powers, is invulnerable to that massively useful tool, money? And here, we can control that tool with our vote, with giving it or withholding it.

If every person who watched the concert ensured their government knew that in order to keep their support, this G8 was required to a) end the spiral of debt and interest in the poorest nations, and b) end the irresponsible trade of arms in the developing world, I believe Live8 could become much more than a moment.

'Music makes the people come together.' Well fine, we're together. Now let's do something.

Comments

[itsjustaname.livejournal.com]

I think, in terms of the concept debt relief, that 'They never learn' applies more appropriately to the rich world governments handing out the money. Debt relief is a lovely idea and great for pop stars and such to make big statements about and feel like they're 'giving something back to the world'. But without any focus on how better to lend money in the future, it is ultimately a pointless one.

As my sister has just said, We are the loan sharks of the emerging world. We need to do better than that. Debt relief needs to be the start not the goal.

[delvy.livejournal.com]

Yes, but sthe entire point of Live8, debt relief is just the start. There is also fair trade, which the WTO currently works against, and things like getting all of the G8 governments to sign up to the international anti-corruption laws that are currently on the table. Amercia is particularly against these atm, partly cos several notable government figures may well be liable for prosecution under them possibly.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

I didn't know that the WTO still worked against fair trade, last thing I knew they were being scabby about bananas from, was it the Gilbert Islands? I thought they had calmed down since then. I don't even know who runs the WTO. Any idea where I could find out more about it?

[delvy.livejournal.com]

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto/

What the WTO does is promote the interests of certain select groups, namely the corporations that back it. It does not actually promote a free trade model, or a fair trade model. A real free trade model would mean that the resources of certain african nations were not stripped out by the mega-corporations of the G8 states.

*Froth**Growl**spit*

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

The whole 'they never learn' argument was my paraphrasing of a political journalist's argument against debt relief - I could dig him out again, but I can't remember his name, only that I think his column was in The Times.

It seems that you, me (and Delvy makes three!) agree that debt relief is only a start, but as starts go it would be pretty fine!

Are you back btw?

[itsjustaname.livejournal.com]

I am now. That was posted from the twinsters in Bangor. I arrived back in London yesterday and am back at work tomorrow.

Will you be at Stabcon at all this weekend? I am probably only there for the Sunday (need to make plans with dukeeuphoria as I hope to travel back Londonwards with him and thalinoviel) as I am at a wedding on the Saturday.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Good to have you back, hope you had a fine holiday!

Re stabcon, not this time, cos we are flying out to Paree on Saturday morning:-D

[itsjustaname.livejournal.com]

A fine reason! Although a shame as it does preclude dropping in on the way back.

Have a lovely time in Paris. :o)

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Here's to maybe meeting later in the year..

August 6th we are holding a bbq with paddling pool. You are very welcome to join us if you are around:-)

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

There are various things about Live8 that irritated me greatly. However, despite those I am still of the opinion that it was a good thing.

One thing that I do think is a big mistake is continually referring to AFRICA as if it is a single entity. As if the likes of Tunisia and the likes of Rwanda have anything in common at all other than geography.

However, my reason for commenting on this post is your comment about arms dealing. I really don't think that stopping dealing arms to them would stop the wars - they'd just make their own arms. Either those in those countries who already make/sell such things would enlarge their businesses, or some of those over here who sell to them would see their profit taken away by whatever embargoes are put in place, and move their businesses to somewhere that they can peddle their wares. I just don't think it's as simple as stopping dealing arms to them - if they're going to fight they will do it with or without our assistance.

Sorry for double post, used wrong word!

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

I agree with you when you say it is not that simple. It would need follow through and clear understanding of each country's unique situation (and nothing could be truer than your observation that to refer to Africa as one entity is entirely misleading.) But a beginning is needed, and to my mind, arms limitation must work alongside education and support, or the latter has very little chance of developing freely.

However, my reason for commenting on this post is your comment about arms dealing. I really don't think that stopping dealing arms to them would stop the wars - they'd just make their own arms.

But they are well behind in terms of technology; if you want to make state of the art (hell, even crappy) munitions, you need to invest in factories and the like; you need to invest time. It is a much longer term prospect than buying the ready-made and the best. Short term victories are much harder without other countries' investment. Look at the amounts being bought from the US and UK; no-one lacking the necessary infrastructure is going to make those in a hurry.

Either those in those countries who already make/sell such things would enlarge their businesses,

From what we see, it is not a homegrown business. Perhaps there is a booming cottage industry, but no-one wants knocked up home-made rubbish, or they wouldn't be chucking their cash at international arms dealers in the first place!

or some of those over here who sell to them would see their profit taken away by whatever embargoes are put in place, and move their businesses to somewhere that they can peddle their wares.

Doubtless first world companies could move, but the difficulties begin to pile up, profits begin to stagger...let's make life inconvenient for them!

I just don't think it's as simple as stopping dealing arms to them - if they're going to fight they will do it with or without our assistance.

Then let's espouse some principles and leave them to do it without; Gunmen become less trigger-happy when ammo is expensive and parts hard to replace. A torture session can do the job of 'persuasion' well enough with a bucket of water, let's not add to the torturer's bag of tricks by selling them electric batons.

In the end, everyone wants to be part of the world market. Consider Turkey, a country with a magnificent culture, an astonishing history, and a terrible human rights record. Turkey is working on improving that record because of the nation's desire to access the markets of Europe. Is this not an example of the positive power of money?

[delvy.livejournal.com]

Ah buts it's more complicated than that...

A UK company gers an arms deal, with let's say Nigeria.
Now as it's an export to a foreign power it goes to the DTI, who give it an export gauarantee (which the taxpayer pays for if the other ststae decides not to pay up) and the foreign office (who will have arranged the financing for the deal with the IMF, or the suchlike, and the contractual obligations on both sides as well as the export licence).
Eventually it gets shipped out and paid for, probably in some measure by the british tax-payer.

We not only encourage the purchase of the items, but pay for them too and encourage these developing nations to spend desperately needed monies on this instead of infrastructure projects. This is done to the extent that we politically and finacially lean on them in competition with our G8 partners. Get us all to agree not to sell and suddenly you free up huge amounts of resource and stop a dangerous and dirty trade.

http://www.caat.org.uk/
http://www.controlarms.org/

control arms is run by/in association with Amnesty International

Plus

[bytepilot.livejournal.com]

And this seems to be running in my current "hard hearted" vein, sorry*

If the countries that want guns and bombs have to make their own they will have to get a stable industrial base going, subsistance agriculture, ore mining, smelting, large scale chemical production, transport systems, and of course a viable healthy population to support such a change.

Plus the massive social changes that such a society requires, like the creation of a professional class, etc...

infact to make their own guns they'd have to pass through most of the stages that we did during the industrial revolution.

I'm willing to bet that a country coming out of the back end of such a transformation would suddenly have priorities other than "how many guns can we make"* especially if the only market for their weapons was internal.

We don't let people in this country have guns, why are we selling them to people too poor to buy food ?

*I'm nice really
**Unless it's the USA

A Voice of Cynicism Part 1

[larians.livejournal.com]

I didn't watch the Live8 on the grounds that I knew that it would just wind me up. I fail to see that x million people turning up for a free gig represents anything other than the fact that if you give something away people will take it. If people had to pay £50 a head for the tickets, cash would have been raised and the attendence would have been substantially lower. I wonder how many of them were wearing their £100 pair of trainers made in an African sweatshops by children? The performers and artists and celebrities have all given a day or two of their time and can feel good about themselves (yes I think that there are a few who really do care but I suspect that most of them couldn't name the G8 either.)

It won't put any pressure on the G8 leaders because they are only too well aware that 50% of the crowd don't know who the G8 and 95% will not give a f*ck in three months time. There are 60,000 homeless and 1 million people living below the poverty line in this country - so just how much do we really care? Or is it that Gordon Brown just wanted to pretend to be Prime Minister and so goes all the way out there to give away several billion pounds of charity, when there are pensioners in the UK who paid that tax money over the years and are now struggling to make ends meet.

Africa's problems are manyfold and a simplistic view of debt relief really doesn't go anywhere near them. By far the worst is the hypocracy and two facedness of the western world, which holds out platitudes in the one hand and self interest in the other. Zimbabwe was a prosperous country that exported food 5 years ago, now it only survives on aid because of the criminal activities of its leadership. Still, that didn't stop Mugabe being invited to the funeral of the old Pope and the enthrowning of the new one - and this is supposedly a moral organisation! Tony Blair wants to be responsible for bringing the Olympics to the UK and so his government refused to tell the English cricket team not to go to Zimbabwe even though it wouldn't have cost them a penny to do so, it would have just cost Olympic votes.

Then of course there is trade. Africa is unable to export agricultural products to the Western world because the Common Agricultural policy and US farm subsidies price them out of the market. Neither of these are going to dissappear and so land in Africa is turned over to cash crops that will not feed anyone.

An international ban on arms sales to Africa would be great. Two years ago Ethopia waged a war against Eritrea for 90 days, at the cost of around 1 million pounds a day. And at the same time told the world that it needed 30 million to stave off a famine. Yes they could, in time, develop their own arms manufacturing but that would take a great deal of time and without external expertise it would be extremely difficult. However given that both France and Russia signed deals with one Saddam Hussain to come into force the moment the sactions were lifted, I have limited hope that such an embargo would ever come into effect.

Then of course we have the HIV and aids problem. More thanks here to the Catholic church and its stance on birth control, but we should also remember some special praise for President Mbecki of South Africa who declares it to be a social problem and not a disease, and his Home Secretary whose name escapes me but she has publically declared that the drugs are expensive cons and that traditional remedies of root ginger and garlic are just as effective.

Part 2

[larians.livejournal.com]

Is it any wonder that the banks who would be funding any future investment in Africa are asking for a great deal of control over where the money actually goes? Of course in doing so they are then accused of trying to introduce colonialism by the back door.

So I avoided Live8 on the grounds that it will not make a slight bit of difference. The G8 leaders are all having a tough time at home, so they are concentrating everyone's view on somewhere that is worse. They make grandiose statements involving impressive amounts of money that don't actually add up to a hill of beans in the real world knowing that it will deflect what little passing attention from the truth that they don't actually want to change anything that matters.

For me I will continue to do what I have have done for the past 10 years or so, sponser a child with monthly payments that are invested in local projects, ensuring that he (as it is currently) get his shots, and education and fresh water for his village. It isn't a big gesture and I make no pretence that it is any sort of sacrifice on my part, but I genuinely believe that it does some good. If anyone wants to know how to do this then please contact me privately.

I meant to say

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

As itsjustaname points out.

Re: Part 2

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Or is it that Gordon Brown just wanted to pretend to be Prime Minister and so goes all the way out there to give away several billion pounds of charity, when there are pensioners in the UK who paid that tax money over the years and are now struggling to make ends meet.

Africa's problems are manyfold and a simplistic view of debt relief really doesn't go anywhere near them.

Gordon's 'gift' isn't the same as the debt relief issue, so I don't want to go into that here. Suffice it to say, I don't like bribes either, and I wish this government would stop using them.

The debt relief is about wiping out what is owed. I agree it's not as generous as it looks, but for different reasons to the ones you cite; the debt might as well be wiped out because many of the debtor nations will never be able to pay it off. It's just not feasible. They can carry on trying and struggling of course; How long did Britain take to pay off its debt to the States? That's with the benefit of secure government /sound infrastructure /north sea oil/ the wealth of empire behind us. We were the richest, it crippled us. Do we expect better from the developing world?

While they are paying back, they develop no long term ability to buy, to sell, or even to stick to a contract. So it's giving up on a lost loan in return for helping to build long term consumer markets. I think. With my deep understanding and clear insight into global economics:-P

Arrangements for future loans surely do need to change, as points out. But wiping the slate clean now is a sensible beginning, rather than a pointless gesture. I agree with much else you say. It is up to us to make L8 more than a free gig/empty gesture. I just don't know how...

Re: Part 2

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Ok, those two posts got swapped round, I managed to cut itsjustaname's name out completely, and when I tried to alter the post, lost the italics highlighting larians post.

I am an idiot, and it's time for bed.