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

[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