I've hear the idea that Live 8 is nothing new tossed about a lot recently and have decided both to post an explanation of why Live 8 is fundamentally different from 1985 Live Aid (which I never saw as I was a fetus at the time ) and to debate whether that difference is a good thing.

First... out with the old.

Stop right there, Live Aid was a fundraising event for one country in an emergency situation.

Live 8 is none of those things.

Let's go on.

Live Aid
So Live Aid made Sir Bob and a couple hundred mil' besides.

As I'll explain later, the funds that Live 8 intends to raise make that figure look almost microscopic as welcome as it was for Ethiopians.

So, what was "Live 8"

Live 8
Now here's the rub. Live 8 is not a fundraiser but is purely political. It's was meant to put further pressure on the G* who have already been hit with...
The UN's Millennium Project
and Blair's Africa Commission as well as numerous related wakeup calls from economic experts that the West can and must do more to help Africa join the global marketplace.

As the organizer made clear.


Well they got that much. There is a extremely popular petition circulating (I know my name's in there somewhere...) as well as several other petitions.
Live 8 List

The list is to be delivered to each G8 leader including an enthusiastic Tony Blair.

There is, of course, something strange about this to many of our ears. Since when did yelling end poverty. For the realists in the crowd who know that economics is almost purely about money the question in raised.

Where's the cash?


The UN has had plans since before even Live Aid for the rich nations of the world to give 0.7% of GNP as Official Development Assistance. Although government's around the world have signed documents to this effect many (including the US) have yet to set a target date.

This money would measure in the billions of dollars, but will be collected from more than a billion people and would not affect living standards in rich countries appreciably.
The 0.7% Target: An In-depth Look

Last concern is why all three factor Trade, Debt and Aid are needed. Many wonder why the last especially is essential and why it must come from the government and therefore tax payers.

Understand that there are things that the private sector simply does not do well. Basic needs and infrastructure principally. That's why the government fund them her at home.

Relying on thousands of fractured private aid groups is a plan for failure as they cannot coordinate on large projects they way governments can and have far less funding.

So, let me stop there and hope to address further points later in the debate.
Do you believe that the Live 8 has a better chance than Live Aid to reduce poverty in Africa? Why or Why not?

Is it hypocritical for world governments to sign up to the 0.7% target and then refuse to commit the funding?

Can the combined efforts of the UN, UK and various NGOS and campaigners work to affect a policy change in the US and other countries yet to commit to funding?

Should they?

Do you believe that the Live 8 has a better chance than Live Aid to reduce poverty in Africa? Why or Why not?

No- no politician pays attention to rock stars and thier political causes- there is no payoff and no punishment for not listening to them.

It would be better to have a fundraiser and start a goverment/private hybird organization that stops duplicating the admin duties of several aid organizations. In any social problem, and such a large scale one as this- stop inventing the wheel and make a hybird organization that gets the job done. Clinton and Gore showed how this can be done with housing in America- have the basic administration under one goverment heading for oversite- and then disperse to private organizations that can more efficiently than goverment to distribute the aid.


Is it hypocritical for world governments to sign up to the 0.7% target and then refuse to commit the funding?

Well, Duh. That one is self evident LOL

Can the combined efforts of the UN, UK and various NGOS and campaigners work to affect a policy change in the US and other countries yet to commit to funding?

Nothing can be accomplished on this area while we have a neo-con republican goverment in this area. There is no one except Rove and Haliburton that can have any real access to the president to change his mine.

Should they?

They should try, I just don't think they can be succesful with this guy.

This comment is high on partisanship but low on facts. One of the problems with Bush is he’s throwing money all over the place. I am not sure why he does it because it does make his detractors any more happy with him. Ultimately, the problem in Africa are the terrible governments in charge. Until that changes the people will suffer. However, the US is trying to help.

As Turnea pointed out in another thread- and Geldof deserves some thumbs up for pointing out that America, no matter what president, pretty much ignores Africa- we still spend less than 1% of our GDP-

but to be consistant- I am not a huge fan of help to any country while we have our own problems- and is the primary reason for my opposition to the Iraq war- we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars there while claiming poverty for helping our own poeple.

Spending money everywhere, horrible fiscal policy etc is not going to help any country in the long run, including our own.

Perhaps Geldof is right, GW helped more than any other president- Clinton pretty much stood by and let the Rwanda genocide play itself out without any interventiobn whatsoever- and he deserves the blame for not helping as well- but we are not doing well still either.

Turnea deserves credit for bringing both side of the aisle to task for this oversite and silliness on this subject.

It is in our own best interest to see Africa more succesful.

I have several Gambian friends, and they are always talking about how horrible it is that thier countries have despot after despot that wastes these countries resources year after year. There is an amazing amount of potential wealth in that continent- and it is all going to waste.



I have no idea how to make a suggestion to go about this- it is evident that what we have been doing isn't working, no matter what administration or president.

I am angry at GW for his domestic policies and Iraq and WOT- but really, no so angry at his Africa policies- these are just business as usual for America, no matter who is in power-

and in my statement- my main eye rolling is "hey, he is not going to do any real shake up that has a positive effect, do ya think?" - he will keep basically the status quo- because Africa has no payoff for him. I don't see an immediate payoff for any politician in this debate- some lip service perhaps just to show how up they are on the subject- but no real substance.

What- is some American politician going to lose his job because he didn't or did do something regarding Africa? -

The solution is staring us right in the face. Look to the US, Western Europe, India, China, SE Asia.

The solution is CAPITALISM.

The problem with Africa is not race, geography, or natural resources. It is politics.

They are stuck in a time-warp of tribalism, totalitarianism, and socialism. Anyone, it seems, who is educated was educated by the Karl Marx theory of the world. A LOSERS view of the world.

What that continent needs is freedom, capitalism, and a Hong Kong (pre-China takeover) mentality.

We are here to do BUSINESS. Low to no taxes. Bend over backwards for the industrialists.

The class and race warfare concepts have killed Africa and will continue to do so if people like America and W. Europe don't step in. Colonialism, to that extent, would NOT be a bad thing.

What's the alternative? Rawanda? Somalia?

I say, get a clue. All the spoiled rock stars in the world, taking one day out of their drug-addled lives won't help Africa. Neither will handouts. They need economic training and the rejection of that Islamist disease that is ravaging them, the middle east, and part of Asia.

Perhaps, but then again these concerts are not operating in a vacuum they serve as a media amplification to points that the UN and especially Blair's UK government has already been saying.

Sending the message that some of the public actually cares should count for something.

Certainly this pressure is at work in the UK with Bob Geldof appearing on the BBC daily reminding Blairs to be tough on the issue.


I don't think any single organization other than the national government could even begin to think of raising the amount of money we are talking about. Yet for the government (which habitually throws trillions of dollars around like confetti) it would be a piece of cake.


You know you would think so, but this gives me an opportunity to bring up another odd thing that is new to this Live 8 effort.

I overheard on the "700 Club" this morning (hey, the satellite went out and it wasn't me watching anyway don't get any ideas...) Pat Robertson voicing support for the movement.

You talk about neocons, who's "neocon" #1?

Wolfowitz seeks more Africa aid


This is a common misconception that has, of course, a kernel of truth.

Nevertheless consider to logistics. Africa is the second largest continent in the world in both population and area.

It is home to more separate nations than any area on earth. It is probably the most diverse place on the planet.

Do you really believe that this whole place suffers from the same political issues?


There are countries in Africa with bad leadership certainly, poverty enables poor leaders to come to power. Africa's leadership is little worse than other places with comparable income.

...but there are also countries with good leaders and they are the places that can use aid.


Friendly reminder, Africa HAS capitalism as much of it has had capitalism for years.

Most of Africa was carved up by Europe pre-WWI and stayed that way for years. Capitalism became heavily entrenched during that period.


As I remarked to nemov that is a gross oversimplification.


..and just what private company is going to move into a country with no road, no ports, and an ignorant population dropping like flies of preventable disease.

The private sector can only work to Africa's advantage when is has the basic structures to allow it to work.

These are all public sector provisions, that is the point of aid.

Turnea- Lot's of politicians have given lip service to the plan- I think about every president since we became a super power LOL - however- unless the commitment is massive- which you pointed out- it will not really help in any meaningful way.

I don't remember the exact numbers here, but I was laughing really hard when Bush and Blair about Africa were featured on the Daily Show- were Blair says something like "We need about 20 billion as a minimum commitment by US to combat this problem" and then when Bush gets up and says "we are giving a massive increase in funding- up to 63 million now" LOL

Listen, if I have 2 pennies, and then someone gives me 8 more pennies- I have had a massive increase in contributions to my cause- but 10 cents still won't buy me a cup of coffee.

What I am saying, the amount of financial support by the G8, all the G8, is so massive, (though not impossible, and may have a larger investment potential than anything we have done to date in foriegn policy) that anything less than what is needed is pure lip service.

Turnea- what is the total expenditure of all aide to Africa only by the US for all aid combined, private and public? You used to have that figure I believe- but if that
number is doubled- do you think it would accomplish what needs to be accomplished?

If you are going to commit to something like this- the nation has to be behind it 110%- and the US just doesn't have that commitment level to that cause right now, if ever.

I think Turnea is right on most of this debate- when I suggested a hybird goverment/private admin- it was because I agree it is too massive for any single or conglomerate of private entities to get the job done.

The western world, when sectioning up Africa, probably made this job much harder they way they arbitrarily cut the country up- but that is old history, water under the bridge- but recognizing that we have lumped groups of poeple that historically do not possibly belong together, and work to make them trading partners and such in the long run, will probably be the answer.

Saying third world poeple are lazy is just plain ignorance of the poeple that live there. I have never seen poeple slave and work so hard in my life- to the point of seeing it is depressing. Men and women will do anything to feed thier family, and thousands in some areas will show up for a small spattering of jobs.

In indonesia- I saw subletting of jobs- one guy will take the job- and then hire 5 poeple to do the job for him, paying them a small portion of the salary he earns- it was a wierd concept to me- but ultimate capitalism I suppose.

I have not been to Africa, but many other "third world" countries- and blaming the poeple of those countries for thier problems is like blaming a rape victim for the rape- it is just kicking the victim when they are down.

Corruption flourishes in desperation- and there is alot of desperate poeple in Africa.

I don't blame this admin or really any other for the lack of caring on, really, our society in general.

But, I feel bad for them, but most of these countries will have to work it out for themselves, I don't think we can pull them up out of were they are now than we could force freedom and western democracy on Iraq- every society and goverment has to grow on it's own- when meddled with by outside interests- it comes back to haunt that goverment!

Will someone please explain to me why they think it's ok for our government to take money from us and then turn around and give it to someone else in another country? I'm all for charity, but it should be voluntary not compulsory.

Liberalizing trade with Africa by ending restrictions to trade (tariffs, subsidies) would be a good start.

Isn't the fact that we're farming out our military to help many countries (Afghanistan, Balkans, Iraq, Colombia, Horn of Africa, tsunami relief) enough?

I'd rather see us use our military for regime change in despotic African countries rather than throw it away with more useless aid.

And I firmly believe that charity starts at home- and we have precious little charity for our own poeple right now- unless of course, AMD, Haliburton, Enron and such need our charity so much - How many billions has Haliburton recieved for Iraq- without one thin dime going to America? It is so nice that we are so charitible to multi-billion dollar corporations- so many CEOs starving- look at Cheney- isn't he just wasting away?

Eliminating the barriers to free trade you are talking about is barely even an issue- because, even if you wish the world in those areas- the rank and file person in Africa will participate in the corruption because they are desperate.

Here is how it works in a fairly "rich" country such as Kenya or Gambia- I work for, let's say Maersk shipping in Gambia, a very big employer there. There are 20 ships in port (hypothetical) and I can unload 10 today, 10 tommorow. There is dockage fee etc, typical of any "capitialist" society. A ship owner that is scheduled to unload tomorow by cue comes to me with an envelope of money to move him forward in the cue. So, I take the envelope and move him forward. In LA, with similar scenario, someone would get fired or go to jail- in Gambia- that would only happen if someone didn't get thier cut as they were supposed to-

Do you see the problem? The institution of capitalism is in place in many countries- but the system is corrupt, the poeple running it corrupt.

Replacing these corrupt poeple with other corrupt poeple won't do you any good.

Using our military against these countries will just create millions of potential suicide bombers and terrorists- because, anytime your military gets involved in another countries' domestic issues- you are risking immediately becoming entangled in a system that you can not change by force of military or will- i.e. Iraq, Vietnam, etc etc.

That is why, in Turnea's former thread on aide to other countries- he pointed out that we spend less than 1% of our budget for humanitarian aide- which is true- but, with the currect regime in our country- "humanitarian" means- bomb the crap out of everyone, and those who die are merely "collateral damage" that we "didn't mean to kill"- so we are not as bad as those that "meant to" even though they might have killed less overal poeple- and those families that have victims of "collateral damage" have become radicalized to the point of not worrying about whether they live or die-

and thus, the cycle of death continues-

it is not working anywhere else in the world- even afghanistan is cycling back up now- because we don't have the resources to "nation build" two countries at a time (duh)

Africa has potential to become our greatest economic trading partner- immense natural resources, raw materials, original lines of foodstuff that is neccesary for disease resistance, yadda yadda yadda- not to mention a billion potential customers.

I would say, for the good of America- some very smart focused plan help will be good for us all.

But it takes too big a sacrifice for Americans to take right now I think.

Do you believe that the Live 8 has a better chance than Live Aid to reduce poverty in Africa? Why or Why not?

No, I don't believe it will change anything in Africa. Why? The same reason it hasn't in the past: corruption. Throwing money at Africa does nothing to address the real problems there, government corruption. Most of the aid and funding we send to countries in Africa and in other parts of the world that have no representative governments or real legal systems, end up going into the pockets of the very people that helped put these countries into there desperate conditions in the first place. I watched a special on what happened to supplies to build a water pipeline system in one village...The government came in and took all the materials to use for themselves and it wasn't the first nor will it be the last time.

You know someone has a point when I have to sleep on the response.

It is true that the American government as a whole has no grasp on the scale of the issue here, both in terms of the costs and the possible benefits. As you pointed out Africa is the biggest untapped market in the world and all that potential is being squandered.



I couldn't have said it better myself every poor country has dealt with corruption, that doesn't mean they are beyond help.

Eastern Europe including Poland was a by-word for corruption for years and yet persistent help including substantial debt relief pulled that country back from the brink.




Do you have any figures on the proportion of aid that is stolen due to corruption? I can tell you right now it's not the majority as most of it never reaches Africa and goes to beauracratic overhead. The main reason aid has not worked is not he Africans, it's the West.
U.S. Foreign Assistance to Africa: Claims vs. Reality


Every heard of "The Big Dig" in Boston?

There is corruption in every country, more so in desperate countries.

But corruption can only siphon on a tiny percentage of aid. Africa is home to more countries than any other continent and not all of them are corrupt.

I just ran across this column by Max Boot on the subject and thought it made a couple of good points on the situation.
...regarding capitalism:
...and political corruption:


I've read pretty extensively on Africa and I have absolutely no clue how to help. The 0.7% goal is a nice benchmark, but will it address the underlying issues or not? I remember reading about some Canadians who went to Africa to help combat disease. They brought a $1400 ten-year-old SUV to get around and had to pay the government $8000 to get it out of customs. Multiply this level of structural incompetence times 0.7% of our GDP and what does it buy you? A lot of frustrated taxpayers and probably very little help to poor Africans. As turnea has pointed out, there is indeed corruption in every country, but it's at breathtaking levels in Africa. Very frustrating.

At the very least the EU and US could eliminate our farm subsidies to allow Africans to compete on the world markets. Would be a good first step anyway, with a lot of side benefits for us consumers.

I honestly don't have time today to dig for stats. I can only say that from past reading and television specials on this subject, the impression I got was that the siphoning off of aid funds is massive, not a tiny percentage. Look how much money has been "misplaced" in Iraq and we have well over 100,000 troops in place there. If millions can simply disappear in a country where we have a massive presence, imagine what happens in countries with no standards for governance or legal redress for abuse. I hope you didn't get the mistaken impression that I am blaming the average citizen of the African Continent for their plight, I'm NOT. Simply pointing out that the average citizen in these countries have no voice in what their governments do with the aid that was intended to go to them.

...and that is exactly the extent of it" an "impression".

This one goes for carlitoswhey too. We all know that the media is more prone to focus on failures rather than success.

In all the times his has been debated I have seen zero evidence that most aid to Africa is stolen. There are bound to be a number of incidents, the cases of corruption are countless even in America.

...but the idea of boosting aid doesn't just come from starry-eyed protestors. This plan was crafted by economic experts in the sixties and has survived critical eyes for decades without being fully adopted by the richest nation is the world which pledged to do so.

Corruption is highly overrated in Africa the idea that an entire continent (the second largest on earth) is corrupt kind of defies belief doesn't it?


The UN and the UK both formed commissions on the subject that point to the fact that increased targeted aid can make the basic infrastructure improvements necessary to attract investment.

The biggest obstacle standing in the way is a baseless belief that aid to Africa is invariably stolen.

If there is no evidence for it, why believe?

Here you can see the transparency international corruption survey of the world's countries. They rate transparency from 1 (corrupt) to 10 (not corrupt). For context, Finland is the most open, transparent country at 9.7 (yay Finland!) and the USA is way down at #17, along with Belgium and Eire with a 7.5 score. Guess where nearly every African country scores? You got it. Exception Botswana, where they have a government who gets it. (sadly they have an AIDS problem there too, but I bet they solve it better and faster)



To use your words - "an entire continent" is corrupt, in little arbitrarily-drawn, ex-colonial governmental border-sized pieces. I'm not happy about it. I'm not celebrating it. I'm just sayin' it. If we solve that concurrent with adding more aid, OK by me. But not addressing it and simply adding more aid is not the answer. It's sick and twisted that there are millions of Africans who lived better under colonialism, but it's also true.


I'm not arguing that aid to Africa is "invariably stolen." I'm arguing that corruption frustrates aid. It's not that every government is a kleptocracy; it's that institutional incompetence hinders the people we are trying to help.

Very well we can settle on this as a measure of corruption and yes most African nations fall low on the list.


..but when I say that it defies belief that all of Africa is corrupt I was referring to a corruption level so high that a large fraction of foreign aid is stole, wasted etc.

That has still not been established.

Corruption and poverty do not share so strong a correlation at low income levels. African nations are far poorer than many of the central asian and central american states at the very bottom of that list.

To what extent?

After all foreign aid has worked in corrupt countries before now.

Corruption plays a second fiddle at best to problems of disease and poor infrastructure.

Thanks Carlitoswhey for providing what I don't presently have time to do myself. If turnea is really interested he can type in a search and find tons of links (I just did). I typed in "percentage of African Aid funds being siphoned off " There are many examples but I don't have the time to research the links and offer up specifics but here's one link. http://pages.zdnet.com/plm/id160.html


Today’s Headlines: Friday, December 10, 2004
http://www.worldbank.org
The Fight against corruption, which the United Nations heralded Thursday in its first International Anti-Corruption Day, is one of the World Bank’s priorities, writes Agence France Presse.



According to the organization, over $1,000 billion are spent each year on bribes worldwide. James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, initiated the fight against this “cancer” in 1996 by adopting two measures: a zero tolerance policy within his organization, and the promotion of good governance in developing countries. Daniel Kaufmann, one of the directors in charge of the research institute of the World Bank, says that “you do not combat corruption simply by fighting against corruption. It is important to prevent this phenomenon, and to promote good governance, the liberty of the press and transparency, particularly in developing countries.”



Since 1996, the World Bank has financed over 600 anti-corruption programs in a hundred countries, and has introduced a clause of good governance in 40 percent of its contracts. Since 1999, a department of institutional integrity tracks down fraud and corruption allegations and trains World Bank employees to fight corruption. Its staff, which comprises investigators, former prosecutors, jurists, accountants and public market experts from all over the world, has carried out over 1500 investigations and sanctioned 280 companies, associations and individuals since its creation. Defrauders are often found out thanks to an anti-corruption hotline the service keeps open. “We are the only multilateral organization that publishes a black list of companies whom we will not give contracts,” Kaufmann underlines. He adds that this list, which is available on the World Bank website and updated daily, also constitutes an important source of information for NGOs and investors.


Current examples such as the Oil For Food Scandal and the missing millions in Iraq make the case quite nicely as well.

What case, that corruption does exist?

I think we already knew that. You will note that the article makes no claim that most aid to Africa is wasted due to corruption.

I'd like to add that Live 8 organizers certainly seems pleased with some results.

The fact is the G8 did agree to double aid and although it doesn't yet mathc up to all of our promises it is a step foward.


Geldof delighted at G8 action on aid

Do you believe that the Live 8 has a better chance than Live Aid to reduce poverty in Africa? Why or Why not?

Money is worth more then words, so obviously Aid is worth more then lobbying. However, I don't see why giving aid and giving words must be two mutually exclusive goals.

Is it hypocritical for world governments to sign up to the 0.7% target and then refuse to commit the funding?

If Clinton signs a agreement to spend .7% of the US budget on aid, then is it dishonest for Bush (who never signed such an agreement) to pull himself out of it? No.

That having been said, we should honor the agreement because it will save lives.

Can the combined efforts of the UN, UK and various NGOS and campaigners work to affect a policy change in the US and other countries yet to commit to funding?

No. Bush is convinced that aid alone will not save Africa, because the main reason for Africa's plight is its selfish authoritarian leadership (which is the result of poverty causing instability, and instability ensuring that only fear based governments can survive). While he may be right, money can nonetheless soften the povertys impact, and my proof for this is how perhaps a million lives have been saved by the work of charity groups in ensuring the survival of Sudanese refugees.

Should they?

Yes. Lives are on the balance.

You really do need to try to reign in your blanket generalizations, helmet. You may disapprove of activism to combat poverty and disease. You may disapprove of charity. You may disapprove of philanthropy. But that is no reason to resort to slandering people about whom you are clearly ignorant. The prime movers behind the ONE campaign have been Bob Geldof and Bono. I know Bob Geldof. I have worked with Bono and U2. Neither lives up to your rather glib characterization.

Geldof founded BandAid, which raised millions for direct relief of famine in Ethiopia. He founded Live Aid and travelled all over the globe raising funds for and awareness of third world poverty. He has spent the past five years campaigning for debt relief in Africa - and considers Live 8 and the ONE campaign first steps in an ongoing program. He has also been an active and outspoken Euro-skeptic, campaigning against the single currency and several other EU moves - and he has campaigned on behalf of fathers' rights in terms of divorce and custody. I do not agree with all of his positions by any means, but I can at least recognize that he is no dilettante and is more than willing to put his time and money - and considerable amounts of both - where his mouth is. Oh, yeah - he also campaigned against substance abuse in Ireland.

Bono has been a dedicated activist for more than twenty years, specifically relating to third world poverty and the AIDS epidemic. He has met often with world leaders (including George W. Bush) to address such things as trade and debt relief. In terms of direct aid, he has always been careful to make sure that contributions go directly to those who need it - in the form of pharmaceuticals and healthcare workers, for example, that can't be sidetracked into the pockets of despots. The educational funding which is being raised by DATA, an organization which he founded in 2002, goes only to those African countries in which it can be demonstrated that the money will go to building schools and hiring teachers and not diverted into into bureaucracies or government agencies. He is one of the most knowledgeable, committed, and generous men I have ever met. And - this should warm the cockles of your heart - he is a consummate capitalist (though, granted, he has nothing on Larry Mullin), investing in numerous successful business ventures in Ireland and the UK - and turning a lot of his own profits over to charitable work.

Every peformer that appeared at Live 8 could have got thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars for such an appearance, drug-addled or not (though I suspect that musicians like Newsboys and Michael W. Smith and Jars of Clay would find your characterization somewhat less than Christian). How much money have you ever given up for the sake of a charitable event, helmet?

There is a reason that Geldof has been knighted and nominated for a Nobel Prize - just as there is a reason that Bono was a contender for the presidency of the World Bank.

You may dislike social activism and philanthropy, but please don't try to dismiss it as people "taking one day out of their drug-addled lives" when that is clearly, demonstrably, and irrefutable not the case. Maybe you should get your own clue.


Do you believe that the Live 8 has a better chance than Live Aid to reduce poverty in Africa? Why or Why not?

Yes, I do. For one, the Live 8 concerts were organized in conjunction with the ONE campaign. Contrary to what turnea initially posted, ONE is also a charitable organization. As ALHP put it, ONE gives both words and aid. ONE incorporates a coalition of faith-based and anti-poverty relief agencies working together - and it is hoped that they will be more effective by working collaboratively. This is already cutting the percentage of donations that go into administrative overheads and so on by an enormous amount - in fact, due to piggy-backing with existing organizations, they're claiming that 100% of donations received through ONE will go directly to food, medicine, and costs for workers directly involved in relief programs.

Is it hypocritical for world governments to sign up to the 0.7% target and then refuse to commit the funding?

No. It's somewhat worse than hypocritical, it is dishonest.

Can the combined efforts of the UN, UK, and various NGOs and campaigners work to effect a policy change in the US and other countries yet to commit to funding?

The US? Unlikely. Other countries? Hopefully.

Should they?

While I believe that charity begins at home, I would much rather see our money spent on building schools and hospitals in Africa than bombing schools and hospitals in the Middle East. Ideally, such charity should come from individuals rather than governments, but governements do have a greater ability to see that their aid goes where it is needed and is not diverted into the pockets of corrupt leaders (especially without people like Geldof and Bono overseeing such organizations). And note that I said "ability", not "political will". Besides, considering the amount we spend on warfare and other pork barrell programs, I don't think that 0.7% is really that much of a sacrifice. A whopping 1% probably wouldn't be that crippling, either.

Yes, for many, if not all of the same reasons mentioned by Wertz and Turnea. The concert offers both words and money, and the part I love most about it is that it is, just as some have said, philanthropy...Not state forced "charity". I'm not sure how anyone can have a problem with people assembling for a common cause, and promoting free charity for unfortunate people.


Yes, but I also believe that we never should have signed up to the 0.7% target to begin with.


I don't think so, at least not in the United States.


Yes, in a way. I believe that international aid organizations [private ones] should focus on advertising and recruiting, allowing people to give money on their own accord. I don't think that this whole concept of the government forcing people to give their money to foreign citizens, no matter how unfortunate they are, is right.

CP

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20041206&s=gordon



The Oil For Food Program was a 30 Billion dollar program so I'd say 21 billion in siphoning is not an insignificant percentage nor is the 9 Billion currently missing from the Iraqi reconstruction fund.


http://www.transparency.org/in_focus_archive/g8/faqs.html


In fairness The African Nations are working on the problem but I'm not going to pretend it doesn't exist or has a minimal impact on where aid money goes. They have a VERY long way to go.

http://ippanigeria.org/page.php?instructio...d=164&nav_id=81

If that is true than one of the greatest things the US has done was totally wrong. We spent upwards of 2% of our GDP rebuilding Europe after WWII with the Marshall Plan. The returns on investment are obvious.

Just like aid to Eastern Europe worked to solidify their independence from Soviet domination (despite rampant corruption I might add).


Private groups are simply too fragmented and small to do what is necessary. Private aid groups don't build highways or fund schools on a large scale.

Again basic development is not something the private sector does well.


The Bush administration itself was signatory to the Monterrey Consensus(PDF) in 2002 that reiterated that target which by the way was initially set by the UN in the 70's.


Indeed you seem perfectly willing to leap to the conclusion that is has the primary impact.

No one is arguing some aid is lost to corruption, but no one has yet proven is is a large portion of the actual aid.

Corruption comes from poverty it is not the actual cause. The US found it could build a Kabul-Kandahar road in Afghanistan. they could do the same in Mozambique.

I've been a little busy lately, but here are a few numbers estimating the percent of aid that flows out as corruption. My emphasis added.
Herbert Werlin in Foreign Affairs, responding to a Jeffrey Sachs article


He goes on to note several observations by the World Bank that their programs in the world's poorest countries (<$2 / day) are mostly (only 1 / 4) unsustainable due to persistent corruption and factors that are out of the World Bank's control.

Again, I point this out not to complain about aid or largesse to Africa. With all the money our government wastes on pork projects it would be hypocritical to complain about wasting another 0.7% of GDP. I personally donate to causes which aid Africa. However, endemic corruption is part of the infrastructure problem which you cite. There are also sociological and cultural factors worth noting - if you magically make the infrastructure appear, do you really expect the Africans to adopt an American-style work ethic overnight, despite decades of lethargy? Perhaps slow-change via agricultural subsidy elimination would allow these cultures to move towards industrialization at a more natural pace? Or, as Werlin suggests:

While I do think that the Marshal Plan as a very good thing, I'd also like to mention that it came on the heels of the most destructive war in human history. There are some extreme circumstances warrant extreme action, World War II, for example would qualify as an extreme circumstance.


Can you explain how this connects to the aid organizations providing aid in the way we're speaking of.

CP

Let's start here by realizing that most aid to Africa is not the type of aid that is needed to reduce poverty, namely development aid.

Then there is the concern of whether Mr. Guest managed to account for inflation seeing as the Marshall Plan was back in the 50's.

We are giving far less than half as much as a percentage of our income than we did during the Marshall plan. That is a fact.


Lethargy?!

You really think a person who's starving to death lives in "lethargy"? These are some of the hardest working people on the planet.

Most are sustenance farmers who barely grow enough to feed themselves. In the depleted Africa soils (something that could be fixed with fertilizers and better farming techniques both of which costs money) this mean hours of back-creaking labor a day.

Lethargy...


The Bank already has many conditional loans. The result was African nations paying more in debt service than they receive in aid. That was what lead to the debt cancellation this year.

I am not arguing for throwing money away but there are ways we can spend the money which would insure it's proper use. Right now that's not what we are doing and it shows.



CP, poverty in Africa has claimed far more lives than WWII. Millions die every year from utterly preventable and treatable disease.

WWII can't even begin to measure up to Africa as an extreme circumstance.




Are you referring to Live8? they aren't focused on private organizations, their plan is to encourage governments to direct infrastructure projects. We don't wait for private organizations to build roads in the US and it isn't going to happen in Africa either.

Doesn't it matter how many poor people are actually fed / trained / clothed, vs. how much a % of GDP is pledged? Why are Africans worse off after decades of aid?

I wasn't referring to sustenance farmers. I was referring to a more general sense of slowness that exists in Africa. You can't deny that some cultures are faster-paced, more efficient and yes, more productive than others. If you've ever waited in a line for service in an African hotel, restaurant, government office, whatever, you'd know what I mean. Totally different concept of time. Lethargy may be the wrong word, but even Che Guevara was frustrated in Tanzania with the africans simply not showing up to fight. I'd say the same comparing an island like Puerto Rico with a country like Germany. Trains either run on time or they don't. When I lived in Mexico, we called it "Mexican time" - show up for a meeting sometime on the day it's supposed to happen, maybe a couple of hours late. Some cultures work to live, while others live to work.

We have a "productivity index" which measures output per worker, and the US is usually on top. We work ourselves to death metaphorically. As you noted, some africans do so literally, whether farming, diamond mines, whatever. I apologize for my choice of words. Further compounding the work force problem now is AIDS, which is really going to make things tough economically.

As to how corrupt / incompetent governments hamstring aid, here is more from the BBC on Niger


The government is refusing to distribute the food aid that they have received. The answer - send more food aid. They are literally refusing to feed their own dying people. How can we act effectively with this crazy inept government in place?

And the requisite US bashing from the UN:
I'm sure Mr. Egeland isn't suggesting that we keep Africans as pets (or that Europeans buy them ice cream). As always, the emphasis is on what countries "pledge" and "promise" and to note that corrupt leaders (each with a vote in the UN) tend to abscond with the money is racist or cruel.

edited to add - while I was attempting flippancy with the "keeping as pets" line, it's worth noting that today there are something like 40,000 slaves in Niger. antislavery.org

Again, I want to help. I really do. I just wonder if we don't need a much more radical solution vs. the incrementality of increasing year-on-year the percentage of aid not stolen or misused.

The two are inseparable. The fact is that just as our population and wealth has grown the need has grown. If we are to gauge our spending by that of prior decades it would simply be to fool ourselves.

We aren't doing what we can and we haven't been for a long time.

A large chunk of the aid to Africa goes to Egypt and other nations for military aid. Sure we could play games and count it but to what end?

Mainly because most of that aid wasn't the kind that is needed to improve living standards over the long-term. Feeding and clothing people for a day does help... if they live only to die of malaria or waste their days frantically trying to scrape a living from dead soils in the absense of any other education it really doesn't matter.

Extreme poverty always gets worse if it is not stopped completely.

It's not like these people have any wealth to accumulate and pass on. Time doesn't heal wounds in Africa it deepens them. The soils get worse, the country more crowded, the diseases more virulent, the donors more mealy-mouthed.

Until there is a fundamental change in the economic situation it will get worse.


Then you must be aware you weren't referring to most Africans because that is their lot in life.


You cannot deny this does not occur in a vacuum and is more the product of wealth than its source. Africans who were well educated and not dying by the millions of preventable disease would be more productive.


...some don't live at all. I think you're way off base here.


Thanks. its a common mistake to think that American culture is responsible for our "productivity." It is mostly a function of our infrastructure and human resources.


It is crazy, in fact is is perfectly beyond belief.

I am often amazed at just what people believe African governments are capable of. They are poorly run, but they aren't insane.

The government of Niger refused to hand out its on food stocks (not the donated food) for free because it feared they would be depleted ruining the chance for them to be used in an even greater emergency. They instead sold them at a subsidized price.

They are pinching pennies (or grain whatever the case may be) because they don't have enough to begin with.

Is it a wise decision? I don't know, perhaps they are being too cautious. But this is not some maniac at the helm laughing at the starving children.
Niger scorns 'free food' demands



More like misguided. This is just one example of how the public can chase after red herrings. Jan Egeland is right to say that to the West 30m is nothing.

The fact that not a dime had been given until just recently shows the shallow nature the commitment often has.


If we hope to actually do something about poverty we must strike suddenly to change the situation. A trickle of aid will merely be soaked up without reversing the trend into further poverty.