The Daft World of Lobbying the State or Make Bob Geldof History
L.A. | 06.07.2005 09:51
Many are cynical of the rich calling for an end to poverty but I am not interested in questioning the sincerity of people like Bob Geldof in relation to alleviating hardship in Africa. Questioning the intelligence of their strategy of action is another story.
Criticisms of the rocks stars’ actions just as often tend to be an indictment of wealth as they are of the essence of the call and of the means of going about it. How they earn and spend their money is an issue. Even Live 8 supporters gave pause to think about this. One woman writing in to British IMC complained about the hypocrisy of people like David Beckham, who earns tons from promoting sweatshop Nike and Adidas, appearing at Live 8 to support an end to poverty. More importantly though is the misunderstanding of the real mechanisms of poverty endemic to many liberals and a gross naivite about the people they see as key players in poverty alleviation, namely the state and corporations. As all liberals who believe in top-down solutions, they go to “the people who can change things” with the belief that they will do the right thing, despite their historic tendency not to. They do not seem ever to make the connection that perhaps the people who benefit the most from poverty are not those who should be trusted to combat it. Nor do they seem to understand the instrumental function of human beings for the state and corporations; if they do agree to work on poverty elimination, it will only be because this may benefit them in other ways - as consumers they may provide valuable markets or as a new labour force they may be more attractive in normal poverty as opposed to abject.
Bill Gates is one of the people the rock stars think can “change things” because he’s damn rich. He’s so damn rich that he could afford to pay workers down the Microsoft line a lot more money and give consumers a break too – except then he wouldn’t be rich enough to give charity. So why is Bill so ready to give money to Africans suffering from AID but not to the people who work for him? The rock stars would ooze praise of his generosity of the soul, as if it could even assuage their own guilt. So convinced are they of the cleansing act of donating ones own wealth that lights do not go off when they hear of what else Billy has going in Africa. For example the $25million Gates spent to commission research on whether GM foods would help Africans and his involvement with a project with US agriculture and the World Bank. Another $50million to lobby governments to relax food import regulations and help out American food giants.
How importing GM food to Africa plays into poverty alleviation is only something the corporate food industry can invent. One wonders if the rock stars are so dumb or if they just believe that you’ve got to let the rich bastards take something in order to motivate them to give something.
Even more bells should go off when one hears of Bono’s meetings with Jeffrey Sachs. His plans for the Millennium Development Goals may seem like just the thing to the rock stars; create wealth, jobs, education. Where Sachs has been though, he has helped bring in economic reforms which have increased the gap between rich and poor and increased the incidence of poverty. Of course this is all hidden behind manipulative statistics which might be challenging for a rock star to see through. For people like Bono, what probably counts if how many people are able to pay 50 euros to see him play in Poland. If there are 50,000 people with this kind of money whereas at his last concert here in 1997 there were not as many rich folks, then this must surely be proof enough that Mr. Sach’s magic has worked here and can perform similar wonders in Africa.
Some observers have come to the conclusion that the British government is a shadow force behind the Live 8 concerts and Make Poverty History marches, and should it be, it would not surprise me. The question then would be why Africa, why now? Is it the last great untapped consumer market, or is it a potential labour market? Or have the costs of war and refugees become to high for the rich world? Or have they all just gotten a humanitarian urge?
The white man has a long history of devising developmental solutions for Africa. Trade and commerce usually plays a central role yet historically, few other than the elite and their colonial (and other) trading partners have seen any benefit from this. The Make Poverty History Manifesto points out trade restrictions as one of the elements hurting the African economy. This may be so, but if the economic wealth is concentrated in too few hands, trading will not relieve poverty. Of course there are plenty of people who support freer trade for Africa, including all the major oil companies, Citicorp and Bank of America and even major retailers like the GAP or (in the past) K-Mart. They see that trading is beneficial – for themselves. As to their commitment to alleviating poverty, no doubt they are still humming the legends of the Reaganesque “trickle-down” economic theories.
There are plenty inside Africa who have pointed out that the first world’s economic theories for their salvation have usually ended up exacerbating the situation. In the 50s and 60s, development aid money was the salvos of the day, only 50 years on, the poverty in Africa has increased manifold in some regions. Few in the political world seem ready to make the connection that the interests behind the last push to end African poverty is essentially the same as this one. (Jesse Jackson being a notable exception withdrew his support of liberalized trade in Africa when he put two and two together and started to refer to the NAFTA for Africa Bill as the Africa Recolonization Act.)
What makes an economy beneficial to people or not is never the amount of investment or trade allowed but rather the relation of the workers to the creation of wealth. Do they create wealth for others to dispose of, manage and reinvest or do they create wealth for themselves, to be managed directly by their communities and used to improve the quality of life for everybody. There is no getting around this fact. No influx of cash, no debt relief will truly do the job, although arguably, it can be of minor influence. Charity is merely a bandaid on the festering wound of capitalism.
Twenty years ago, there was such a salve and Band Aid was appropriately named. Nobody doubts the intentions of all the millions who donated to the cause and, hopefully they did good. But even the rock stars saw that, despite their initiatives, nothing really was done about poverty. You would think that 20 years later, they would have educated themselves enough to find out what it was they were dealing with and begin to realize that what they are asking governments and business leaders to do is historically totally out of line with what governments and business leaders are known for doing? Or perhaps they have such illusions of grandeur that their influence in society can transform bastards into a nicer group of people? Hmm. And Sir Bob had the nerve to call the anarchists idiots.
Laure Akai
Criticisms of the rocks stars’ actions just as often tend to be an indictment of wealth as they are of the essence of the call and of the means of going about it. How they earn and spend their money is an issue. Even Live 8 supporters gave pause to think about this. One woman writing in to British IMC complained about the hypocrisy of people like David Beckham, who earns tons from promoting sweatshop Nike and Adidas, appearing at Live 8 to support an end to poverty. More importantly though is the misunderstanding of the real mechanisms of poverty endemic to many liberals and a gross naivite about the people they see as key players in poverty alleviation, namely the state and corporations. As all liberals who believe in top-down solutions, they go to “the people who can change things” with the belief that they will do the right thing, despite their historic tendency not to. They do not seem ever to make the connection that perhaps the people who benefit the most from poverty are not those who should be trusted to combat it. Nor do they seem to understand the instrumental function of human beings for the state and corporations; if they do agree to work on poverty elimination, it will only be because this may benefit them in other ways - as consumers they may provide valuable markets or as a new labour force they may be more attractive in normal poverty as opposed to abject.
Bill Gates is one of the people the rock stars think can “change things” because he’s damn rich. He’s so damn rich that he could afford to pay workers down the Microsoft line a lot more money and give consumers a break too – except then he wouldn’t be rich enough to give charity. So why is Bill so ready to give money to Africans suffering from AID but not to the people who work for him? The rock stars would ooze praise of his generosity of the soul, as if it could even assuage their own guilt. So convinced are they of the cleansing act of donating ones own wealth that lights do not go off when they hear of what else Billy has going in Africa. For example the $25million Gates spent to commission research on whether GM foods would help Africans and his involvement with a project with US agriculture and the World Bank. Another $50million to lobby governments to relax food import regulations and help out American food giants.
How importing GM food to Africa plays into poverty alleviation is only something the corporate food industry can invent. One wonders if the rock stars are so dumb or if they just believe that you’ve got to let the rich bastards take something in order to motivate them to give something.
Even more bells should go off when one hears of Bono’s meetings with Jeffrey Sachs. His plans for the Millennium Development Goals may seem like just the thing to the rock stars; create wealth, jobs, education. Where Sachs has been though, he has helped bring in economic reforms which have increased the gap between rich and poor and increased the incidence of poverty. Of course this is all hidden behind manipulative statistics which might be challenging for a rock star to see through. For people like Bono, what probably counts if how many people are able to pay 50 euros to see him play in Poland. If there are 50,000 people with this kind of money whereas at his last concert here in 1997 there were not as many rich folks, then this must surely be proof enough that Mr. Sach’s magic has worked here and can perform similar wonders in Africa.
Some observers have come to the conclusion that the British government is a shadow force behind the Live 8 concerts and Make Poverty History marches, and should it be, it would not surprise me. The question then would be why Africa, why now? Is it the last great untapped consumer market, or is it a potential labour market? Or have the costs of war and refugees become to high for the rich world? Or have they all just gotten a humanitarian urge?
The white man has a long history of devising developmental solutions for Africa. Trade and commerce usually plays a central role yet historically, few other than the elite and their colonial (and other) trading partners have seen any benefit from this. The Make Poverty History Manifesto points out trade restrictions as one of the elements hurting the African economy. This may be so, but if the economic wealth is concentrated in too few hands, trading will not relieve poverty. Of course there are plenty of people who support freer trade for Africa, including all the major oil companies, Citicorp and Bank of America and even major retailers like the GAP or (in the past) K-Mart. They see that trading is beneficial – for themselves. As to their commitment to alleviating poverty, no doubt they are still humming the legends of the Reaganesque “trickle-down” economic theories.
There are plenty inside Africa who have pointed out that the first world’s economic theories for their salvation have usually ended up exacerbating the situation. In the 50s and 60s, development aid money was the salvos of the day, only 50 years on, the poverty in Africa has increased manifold in some regions. Few in the political world seem ready to make the connection that the interests behind the last push to end African poverty is essentially the same as this one. (Jesse Jackson being a notable exception withdrew his support of liberalized trade in Africa when he put two and two together and started to refer to the NAFTA for Africa Bill as the Africa Recolonization Act.)
What makes an economy beneficial to people or not is never the amount of investment or trade allowed but rather the relation of the workers to the creation of wealth. Do they create wealth for others to dispose of, manage and reinvest or do they create wealth for themselves, to be managed directly by their communities and used to improve the quality of life for everybody. There is no getting around this fact. No influx of cash, no debt relief will truly do the job, although arguably, it can be of minor influence. Charity is merely a bandaid on the festering wound of capitalism.
Twenty years ago, there was such a salve and Band Aid was appropriately named. Nobody doubts the intentions of all the millions who donated to the cause and, hopefully they did good. But even the rock stars saw that, despite their initiatives, nothing really was done about poverty. You would think that 20 years later, they would have educated themselves enough to find out what it was they were dealing with and begin to realize that what they are asking governments and business leaders to do is historically totally out of line with what governments and business leaders are known for doing? Or perhaps they have such illusions of grandeur that their influence in society can transform bastards into a nicer group of people? Hmm. And Sir Bob had the nerve to call the anarchists idiots.
Laure Akai
L.A.
