Geldoffs and Bono's lying by omission.

by John Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:31

Although not directly linked to this post, did anyone see an interview on RTE 1 last night when some tool from GOAL attempted to blame all the problems in Africa on corruption in Governments?

I think this attitude borders on racism (the Africans can't govern themselves) and could only be stated by someone with scant knowledge of the history of independence struggles in Africa.

I accept there is corruption in some African governments, but its a bit rich coming from an Irishman considering one of our present government parties, FF was shit deep in corruption. Few European (civilised?)nations have had corruption scandals.

Also overlooked by our GOAL rep is the fact that western powers often put the corrupt in power but the real point is that Africa is wealthy. It has the resources to feed its people but these resources are being robbed by western powers and capitalists. If Geldof and his cronies want to address this they could/should argue that Africa and its people have been victims of a holacaust and its people should be entitled to compensation as the German Jews are from its imperialist occupiers.

by Seán Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:02

Didnt see the interview and Im not that read up on the plight of Africa but from the small bits i have read there does seem to be an element of corruption. I read somewhere that one country was given 30million in aid and almost immediately that country purchased a new government jet for a similar amount. Im not apologising for our corrupt maFFia by the way as i deem them beyond redemption.

by Agree Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:47

The simplistic attitude about corruption is patronising, I agree with John.
Good governance is about ordinary people, aka civil society, taking part, using their voice. African friends of mine get so frustrated and insulted when the corruption argument is trotted out - this undermines the work that people are doing at community level.
Re what John said, I think this rep from GOAL was actually the head - I heard him on Morning Ireland today. Worrying.

by Deirdre Clancy Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:02

I just heard a missionary priest on the radio saying that not only were the governments corrupt, but that civil society groups were too weak in standing up to them, but that Africa was now 'growing up' and the young people were realising the need for change.

I think this view is endemic, and it's essentially a paternalistic view, which ignores the fact that the so-called Western democracy is part of the problem. We all know there are corrupt governments who seize the aid. Civil society finds it hard to resist this, but that's not due to any inherent moral weakness. It's hard to be part of a resistance movement when you and your extended family are on battling starvation.

The whole debate ignores the fact that the legacy of colonialism and the current economic imperialism is largely responsible for the problems that exist. If the US and UK were so concerned about democracy and rogue regimes, which became the stated reason for war with Iraq once the WMDs didn't emerge, then they would have done something about them in Africa years ago. Instead, it suits many governments to have large swathes of Africa in thrall to corrupt governments.

Thousands are being currently being dispossessed because they voted for the wrong party in Zimbabwe and there is no talk of military intervention. The world is operating on double standards, where corrupt regimes are toppled only if they refuse to cooperate economically with the West, and start doing awkward things like nationalise their oil industries. The "Make Poverty History" people are rubbing shoulders with the politicians responsible for these double standards. They are calling for a more efficient capitalism, rather than a way to address the underlying systemic problems. The goal to make poverty history is laudable, but the methodology is like putting a band aid on a large wound (no pun intended). I know I am stating the obvious, but I felt like a rant after hearing that priest and seeing Prime Time last night. Maybe I should stay away from the mainstream media...

by Deirdre Clancy Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:11

To clarify, I agree with 'Agree' that much good work is being done at community level. I saw this on visits to South Africa.

My posting was referring to more extreme cases of poverty and dispossession, where basic survival is the priority. It's always really awkward talking about Africa as if it's some monolithic concept, rather than a group of culturally and economically diverse countries - one can tend to make generalisations without meaning to...

by iosaf Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:20

(& I hope in the next month readers will see the two poorest continents South America and africa compared and contrasted across the whole range of their problems and crises, and I've made it clear I don't think "corruption" is the only problem but the kneejerk term used by gesture politics, one comparison "for young people" is easily made by looking at the bottom of the screen for a brief moment. There you see the extent of the indymedia network, compare the south america list with the african list, the lack of imc collectives is not just a matter of lack of IT infrastructure, or computers, it indicates something else as well, of another stage perhaps in the "growing up"? I think thats a bit "patronising and neo-imperialist", maybe its language.)

by Stevie Wed Jun 08, 2005 17:08

Well, I don't know, I'm no expert, but it seems to me we should be paying plenty of attention to the important though rarely mentioned conditions attached to the Blair-Brown proposals for G8. If they don't matter, can we drop them? If they do, what's in them? Don't they insist that third world economies remain "free" in the sense of being open to profitable foreign investment and corporate control as opposed to democratic in the sense of open to local popular control. Isn't it just this neoliberal agenda which allows the Gold mining company mentioned at the top to continue to exploit the natural resources of South Africa and prevents higher corporate taxes or even the nationalisation of local mining industries such as, for example, is being demanded by the peasants of Bolivia right now and which could reap the riches of these peoples' natural resources for their own benefit. In other words, isn't the proposal itself not merely a greenwash or something that doesn't go far enough, but something whose very purpose (even though its means are disputed by the Whitehouse) is to preserve existing structures of power and privilege both in the Third World countries themselves and between the First and the Third worlds. Debt relief is fine, but what if the conditions attached to it preserve an global economic system which benefits the US and existing Third World elites and leaves the remainder of the population in destitution?

Without any answers to these questions or any detailed analysis the Bono-Geldof trip merely serves as an attachment to the Blair-Brown soft-neo-liberal pressure on hard-neo-liberal Washington. The poster is correct. It is a distraction at best, and may even risk vitiating the very movement it claims to support.

Those are just my thoughts, but I don't know. I keep looking for answers to these questions.

by tajedeen Thu Jun 09, 2005 02:27

well as all us "whities" decide the future of Africa there are available here....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions_transcripts_20050525.shtml

....some African opinions, thought they might be of interest, especially those of Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem

If you have broadband you can listen to this Africa Special program or if not you can read the transcript

by Whatever Thu Jun 09, 2005 14:56

Of course. Why try neo-liberalism in Africa when Marxism has worked so well?

by Dave Thu Jun 09, 2005 21:41

"Although not directly linked to this post, did anyone see an interview on RTE 1 last night when some tool from GOAL attempted to blame all the problems in Africa on corruption in Governments?

I think this attitude borders on racism (the Africans can't govern themselves) and could only be stated by someone with scant knowledge of the history of independence struggles in Africa."

The GOAL rep was John O'Shea. He has spent the past 28 years working on issues of poverty in Africa, so his cynicism towards African governments and western aid industry is most likely based on years of bitter experience.

I think however, that his insistence that the whole thing can be boiled to corruption is a gross over-symplification. he ignores the fact that many African governments are improving drastically in terms of governace and democracy, and also the fact that corruption is a symptom, as well as a cause of poverty.

by Mary Kelly Fri Jun 10, 2005 09:10

Absolutely spot on Paul, thanks for putting it out there.

by Davros - Dalek's Intergalactic Football Club Fri Jun 10, 2005 17:13

Seven of the world's top 10 arms dealers are G8 nations, responsible for the export of 12 billion worth of weapons to the 'developing' world. Read more if the link below works.

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story=645335&hostdir+508