Saii's post here below from libcom I think is superb. They are my thoughts on Dive 8 also.
Saii
Posted: Sun 03 Jul, 2005 1:25 pm
www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=60002&sid=93af9a138d54ff8e3ecece6adcde21ac#60002 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hm well first you'd need to know the history, following on from the original Live Aid.
Counted a massive success, the original formula raised hundreds of millions for aid, of which (I think, haven't got the exact figures to hand) about 30% actually made it. The important bit to note though, is it made no long term difference. The total money raised by Band Aid up to 2004 was £144m. The debt repayment for Ethiopia that year alone was £150m, more than was given to them by our 'generosity' even if it had all got there, which it didn't.
It did however act as an enormously useful way for western governments to call Bob a saint, promise they would do more, and then ignore the problem for another 20 years with the charitable middle classes able to go home saying 'I did my part' having chucked a couple of quid in the pot.
So when Bob went back to Ethiopia, 20 years on, he found, quelle surprise, that not alot had changed. People were still starving, the debt was bigger than ever, businessmen were still exploiting them for their resources to line their bulging pockets, buying off national leaders, corrupting officials, enslaving/slaughtering locals etc.
His solution to this has been twofold.
1) Repeat the same plea he made last time to western governments to save the poor Africans from themselves.
2) Suggest a means to do so.
The means he has chosen is debt relief, and the lowering of Western trade barriers. He is hailing Tony Blair's plan to do both of these as the great leap forward - 'I can't believe we're nearly there' he said. It's a shame he's not saying that in a sceptical way.
Labour does indeed plan to alleviate debt repayments via the use of copious western monetary funding. They are indeed attacking Europe's subisidising of farmers and asking the US to take a full role in the whole scheme to 'make poverty history'. But there are strings.
If you look at the actual proposals (reported in Freedom fortnightly,
www.freedompress.org.uk if you want to subscribe), the strings for debt alleviation are as follows:
- The only countries eligible will be those who have adhered to 'neo-con' principles of privatisation of services and deregulation of business. As has been shown in the UK, this leads almost without exception to monopoly cartels taking over vital utilities such as water, which they then run into the ground and hike the prices. Bolivia is a good case in point, where privatised water led to a cartel raising water prices higher than the poorest could pay, and even preventing people from collecting rainwater in the courts. It took mass dissent to get the bastards out. Bolivia's actions in terminating that contract would render them ineligable for aid.
- 'Debt relief' stands only for reilef on the interest payments, over the course of ten years. This will lead to not a 100% write-off, but 30%, which will fail utterly to make a dent on the problem.
Conventionally well-respected NGOs such as Amnesty and the World Development Movement have already condemned the terms and conditions suggested as a waste of time, and worse than that, afaic they are an actual attack on the poorest countries in the world.
The second measure is to remove trade tarrifs in Europe and the US. Now on the face of it, fair trade is an ineffably good thing. But that's not what we're talking about, it's certanily not what Bob is talking about. We are talking here about Free trade - the ultimate aim of the Friedmanite dream.
Currently, trade tarrifs are what keeps Europe rich. In order to make the extra money that keeps us in the Western lifestyle, we have erected a system of quotas and tarrifs that form a near-total barrier to third-world goods flooding our markets. We in turn use our clout to open the third world markets to product dumping of our excess,0 at prices they can't compete with.
To remove all trade barriers would allow the massive production capacity on other continents to flood our markets, driving our farmers and industries - indeed all practical production skills - out of business. However, that would not solve the problem. rather than dragging the third world out of poverty via free enterprise, it would mean that we would simply have to fight on the same field for industrial production, agriculture etc to stay on our shores.
It would merely accelerate the 'race to the bottom' that we are already partially engaged in - you've seen places around your way outsource I'm sure, wherever you live. Friedman has already pointed out that in his ideal world, France would have already collapsed because the Indians already work harder and for a tenth of the salary. That is the outcome the neocons want for all workers.
That is the policy Saint Bob is calling on world leaders to pursue.
Now Live 8 is not just a concert dedicated to raising awareness of African plight. It is a means to set up a global, mass movement to promote this policy to ruin Europe. It is not billed as such, and the motives behind are not such. But that is what it is doing.
It is also why it will be unsuccessful. The G8 leaders are aware of what I have outlined above. They are in it for 'their country', and have no wish to usher in the final collapse of the west in favour of a truly global poverty run by a truly global elite.
So trade barriers will remain. Another policy to rip off Africa will be set in motion and it will be loudly applauded by Bob and Bono, along with all the guilty liberal masses who want change, but not equality.
Leftists meanwhile will continue pointing out that as long as the world is controlled by businesses and governments, poverty will not stop. They will point out that you can't 'wish away' bad things, you can only retake control of the world that is yours and reorder it so it finally makes sense. And doubtless, they will continue to be ignored.
That's why I'm against Live 8.