John Pilger isn't celebrating victory

[bravecaptain]

John Pilger
Monday 27th June 2005



Tony Blair's "vision for Africa" is about as patronising and exploitative as a stage full of white pop stars (with black tokens now added). By John Pilger

The front page of the Observer on 12 June announced, "$55bn Africa debt deal 'a victory for millions'". The "victory for millions" is a quotation of Bob Geldof, who said, "Tomorrow 280 million Africans will wake up for the first time in their lives without owing you or me a penny . . ." The nonsense of this would be breathtaking if the reader's breath had not already been extracted by the unrelenting sophistry of Bob Geldof, Bono, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, the Observer et al.

Africa's imperial plunder and tragedy have been turned into a circus for the benefit of the so-called G8 leaders due in Scotland next month and those of us willing to be distracted by the barkers of the circus: the establishment media and their "celebrities". The illusion of an anti-establishment crusade led by pop stars - a cultivated, controlling image of rebellion - serves to dilute a great political movement of anger. In summit after summit, not one significant "promise" of the G8 has been kept, and the "victory for millions" is no different. It is a fraud - actually a setback to reducing poverty in Africa. Entirely conditional on vicious, discredited economic programmes imposed by the World Bank and the IMF, the "package" will ensure that the "chosen" countries slip deeper into poverty.

Is it any surprise that this is backed by Blair and Brown, and Bush; even the White House calls it a "milestone"? For them, it is a useful facade, held up by the famous and the naive and the inane. Having effused about Blair, Geldof describes Bush as "passionate and sincere" about ending poverty. Bono has called Blair and Brown "the John and Paul of the global development stage". Behind this front, rapacious power can "reorder" the lives of millions in favour of totalitarian corporations and their control of the world's resources.

There is no conspiracy; the goal is no secret. Gordon Brown spells it out in speech after speech, which liberal journalists choose to ignore, preferring the Treasury spun version. The G8 communique announcing the "victory for millions" is unequivocal. Under the section headline "G8 proposals for HIPC debt cancellation", it says that debt relief will be granted to poor countries only if they are shown to be "adjusting their gross assistance flows by the amount given": in other words, their aid will be reduced by the same amount as the debt relief. So they gain nothing. Paragraph two states that "it is essential" that poor countries "boost private sector development" and ensure "the elimination of impediments to private investment, both domestic and foreign".

The "$55bn" claimed by the Observer comes down, at most, to £1bn spread over 18 countries. This will almost certainly be halved - providing less than six days' worth of debt payments - because Blair and Brown want the IMF to pay its share of the "relief" by revaluing its vast stock of gold, and passionate and sincere Bush has said no. The first unmentionable is that the gold was plundered originally from Africa. The second unmentionable is that debt payments are due to rise sharply from next year, more than doubling by 2015. This will mean not "victory for millions", but death for millions.

At present, for every $1 of "aid" to Africa, $3 are taken out by western banks, institutions and governments, and that does not include the repatriated profit of transnational corporations. Take the Democratic Republic of Congo. Thirty-two corporations, all of them based in G8 countries, dominate the exploitation of this deeply impoverished, minerals-rich country where millions have died in the "cause" of 200 years of imperialism. In Cote d'Ivoire, three G8 companies control 95 per cent of the processing and export of cocoa, the main resource. The profits of Unilever, a British company long in Africa, are a third larger than Mozambique's GDP. One American company, Monsanto - of genetic engineering notoriety - controls 52 per cent of South Africa's maize seed, that country's staple food.

Blair could not give two flying faeces for the people of Africa. Ian Taylor at the University of St Andrews used the Freedom of Information Act to learn that while Blair was declaiming his desire to "make poverty history", he was secretly cutting the government's Africa desk officers and staff. At the same time, his "Department for International Development" was forcing, by the back door, privatisation of water supply in Ghana for

the benefit of British investors. This ministry lives by the dictates

of its "Business Partnership Unit", which is devoted to finding "ways in which DfID can improve the enabling environment for productive investment overseas and . . . contribute to the operation of the overseas financial sector".

Poverty reduction? Of course not. Instead, the world is subjected to a charade promoting the modern imperial ideology known as neoliberalism, yet it is almost never reported that way and the connections are seldom made. In the issue of the Observer announcing "victory for millions" was a secondary news item that British arms sales to Africa had reached £1bn. One British arms client is Malawi, which pays out more on the interest on its debt than its entire health budget, despite the fact that 15 per cent of its population has HIV. Gordon Brown likes to use Malawi as an example of why "we should make poverty history", yet Malawi will not receive a penny of the "victory for millions" relief.

The charade is a gift for Blair, who will try anything to persuade the public to "move on" from the third unmentionable: his part in the greatest political scandal of the modern era, his crime in Iraq. Although essentially an opportunist, as his lying demonstrates, he presents himself as a Kiplingesque imperialist. His "vision for Africa" is as patronising and exploitative as a stage full of white pop stars (with black tokens now added). His Messianic references to "shaking the kaleidoscope" of societies about which he understands little and watching the pieces fall have translated into seven violent interventions abroad, more than any British prime minister in half a century. Bob Geldof, an Irishman at his court, duly knighted, says nothing about this.



The protesters going to the G8 summit at Gleneagles ought not to allow themselves to be distracted by these games. If inspiration is needed, along with evidence that direct action can work, they should look to Latin America's mighty popular movements against total locura capitalista (total capitalist folly). They should look to Bolivia, the poorest country in Latin America, where an indigenous movement has Blair's and Bush's corporate friends on the run, and Venezuela, the only country in the world where oil revenue has been diverted for the benefit of the majority, and Uruguay and Argentina, Ecuador and Peru, and Brazil's great landless people's movement. Across the continent, ordinary people are standing up to the old Washington-sponsored order. "IQue se vayan todos!" (Out with them all!) say the crowds in the streets.

Much of the propaganda that passes for news in our own society is given to immobilising and pacifying people and diverting them from the idea that they can confront power. The current babble about Europe, of which no reporter makes sense, is part of this; yet the French and Dutch No votes are part of the same movement as in Latin America, returning democracy to its true home: that of power accountable to the people, not to the "free market" or the war policies of rampant bullies. And this is just a beginning.

[Guest]

Fuckin ell.

I just started reading Pilgers ""New World Leaders". I'm barely past the introduction and already want to top meself.

xxx

[Kris]

That was me being suicidal just then.

xxx
_________________
"fashioned by the blade of a world that doesn't care,
feeling so removed, drifting thru stealing air then...
pause and think about it, try to move and shift the pain, but it's there you feel it kicking and you scream and feel alive."

[Peace Cat]

From what I’ve read about Glastonbury there appeared to be some kind of weird holding hands thing going on, but I don’t think that many people (myself included) fully understand the position they’re unifying behind. I liked Conor Oberst comments: ‘if you like poverty you’re fucked- because it’s all coming to an end’- just for a dose of reality against the triumphalism, however I wasn’t there and it could just be the bias of the reports I read that made me feel so sceptical. I’d like to hear what anyone who was there at the time made of all that.

As for the Pilger article, I agree with most of what he says without being able to know the accuracy of his facts and figures. Just those two points from the G8 proposal are enough for me. The promotion of the free market is a fantastic tool for politicians; it has been used for 25 years in Britain and provides an almost unbeatable argument. Do you want the developing world to be forever dependent on aid? Don’t you want to give them their self-respect back? The assumption that only a free market system can provide self-sufficiency and prosperity has become such common sense that we won’t even consider anyone who proposes anything different.

The point about debt relief coming in place of aid and contributing to a decrease in money contributed by G8 countries in real terms, I can well believe. The simplicity of it is almost breathtaking- just attach a few conditions to the money sent and suddenly we’re providing a concrete solution, not a stop-gap. As Hunter S Thompson once said to his lawyer: ‘That is pure nut-crunching politics and I advise you to stay out of it- you’re too sensitive’

Thanks for putting this up- it has made me think, although I’ve been in a bad mood since I read it. It is dead easy to be cynical (see Pilger’s comments about the pop star consortium and http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/06/21/bards-of-the-powerful-/ ), but blundering attempts to do good aside, it is still worth registering an interest. I’m still hauling my apathetic ass up to Edinburgh, to let my protest be ignored once again…

[bravecaptain]

‘if you like poverty you’re fucked- because it’s all coming to an end’

inherent nonsense. that's like a policeman saying "if you like murder you're fucked etc".

who likes poverty?

how is it coming to an end? because of some gig?

african countries don't need money, they need to be left alone and be given back access to their own resources and live the way they want to live.


The economics of failure: The real cost of ‘free’ trade /20.06.05

New research from Christian Aid shows that sub-Saharan Africa is a massive US$272 billion worse off because of ‘free’ trade policies forced on them as a condition of receiving aid and debt relief.

The figure represents the income that poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa have lost over the past 20 years as a result of being forced to open their markets to imports.
• Download the report here (83kb PDF)
• More about downloading PDFs

In human terms it represents tens of thousands of destroyed lives and years of lost opportunity.

Two decades of liberalisation have cost sub-Saharan Africa roughly what it has received in aid over the same period. The amount lost would have been sufficient to wipe out all of sub-Saharan Africa’s debt and allow all of its children to be vaccinated and go to school.

Counting the cost
The research reveals that in 2000 alone the cost for Africa was US$28 billion – enough to halve poverty in the continent, according to UN estimates.

When the cost of these ‘free’ trade policies is calculated on a country-by-country basis, the lost opportunity is starkly revealed.

The cost for Mali – one of the poorest countries in the world – was US$191 million in 2000, more than what the country spent on healthcare that year.

The reforms that rich countries forced on Africa were supposed to boost economic growth. However, the reality is that imports increased massively while exports went up only slightly. The growth in exports only partially compensated African producers for the loss of local markets and they were left worse off.

A message for the G8
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have said that tackling poverty in Africa is top of the agenda for the G8 summit.

Increased aid and debt cancellation are of course welcome, but if nothing is done to stop the forced opening of African markets, the G8 will be giving with one hand and taking with the other.

The UK government has recently announced that British aid will no longer come with economic policy strings attached.

However, aid from other G8 countries – and the debt cancellation package recently announced by G7 countries – still demands that poor countries open their markets in return.

[Kris]

[peacecat]

I think I should have made it clearer that Conor was taking the piss- from what I read he thought it was a bit of sham.

I didn’t mean to suggest that aid is the way to go- I was actually trying to have a pop at politicians who insist that free trade is the only viable option (the questions were meant to be rehearsal of the argument that Blair/Bush might give). Likewise, I certainly don’t believe that free trade is common sense, but it is frequently presented that way to the extent that alternatives seem like crackpot ideas.

Sorry if this wasn’t clear- I think I need to brush up my punctuation I think

[F-H]

I know this is going to be in simplistic terms but it depresses me that politicians and their economists are moved to state that the free market is the only viable form of governance for the 21st century world. That all other forms have been discreditted.

How can the continent of Africa prosper (in terms of peace and stability as well as financially) as long as western countries continue to use protectionist policies for themselves. Free Trade, my arse!

Incidently I'm reading an interesting book called 'Africa: A Biography of a Continent' by John Reader and although it starts off slowly with loads of geological shit about the dawn of time and the creation of land masses and rock forms it progresses into a fine yet saddening tale of exploitation by all types of influences, both internal and external. If, as the author suggests, Africe is a micronosm of the world then it's a very sad world in which we live and maybe our politicians and businessmen will lead us down the same routes in the decades (centuries?) to come.

There could be a happy ending, but like bc says it'll come from within not because of Saturday.

[Guest]

Well we're talking about it, which was what Geldof said the intention was, to raise awareness, its up to people on how they act on that awareness, maybe by writing to your mp on how you feel about the issue. Personally I dont think you can just say 'oh leave them be and theyll sort themselves out' its an extreme example but look at Rwanda intervention was needed there. Neoliberal restructuring is a bad idea but that doesn't mean there isn't anything the wealthy north can do for the impoverished south, bad policy doesnt mean there should be no policy. And in the absence of any other suggestions at this particular moment aid is better than nothing. It kind of annoys me people who slag off live 8 because its not going to solve the problem, its not, but at least its something and whilst it may be a flawed ego driven adventure by celebrities and the politically expedient sucking up to Blair and Bush is pretty sickening, its not going to make the facts on the ground any worse. And if even only a little bit of aid gets through it will be worth it. On the other hand you're right trade policies do need to be sorted out, but since it isnt an situation of or but probably and I dont think giving the concert stick because of its cheesiness or is really valid.

And the White Stripes are playing which is enough for it to be worthwhile.

[Dave w.]

if they could double aid without the strings attached, cancel the debt and change the trade rules so that subsidised goods from developed countries aren't dumped on africa, and african goods aren't overly expensive due to tariffs, that would be great. but i don't suppose they can.

there was a drama/documentary type of program on tv on sunday that seemed to be arguing that we should end aid. i don't think it really made the argument very well. the west is largely responsible for many of the problems in africa and i think we owe that continent more than just to walk away and say "you sort it out". how many millions would that sort of policy condemn to death in the short term?

[F-H]

I agree, I don't think the western world should walk away from Africa and leave them to it. There are far too many corrupt and downright evil people who would take advantage, what with all those minerals, gold and diamonds under the ground for example, but it needs a clean start and new thinking not the same old, same old.

And, of course, there must be some merit to Live8, so long as the kids who are enthused by it follow it up. There has been nothing more frustrating than seeing a girl from Zimbabwe on big brother and not one person talking with her about the dire situation in that country. I'm not sure they even know how bad things are there. That ignorance has to be tackled for a solution to emerge as much as giving the politicians a kick up the backside.

[Dave w.]

isn't big brother censored? i don't really watch it, but i've seen bits where the sound is turned off. i imagine deep political discourse or anti-mugabe rants aren't really what the makers want people talking about. i may, however, be giving the contestants credit where it's not due...

[joeloke22]

[bravecaptain]

'oh leave them be and theyll sort themselves out'

i don't think anybody suggested that. africans aren't children or somehow backwards. they can, given the chance, use their own resources to feed their own. we do need to drop the debt but what we need to stop doing is attaching if's and buts, caveats and provisos to everything that we offer. it's all false.

Well we're talking about it

until when? until the last band walk off stage? people selling tickets on ebay got everybody talking about it but that didn't matter to geldof, all of a sudden it was about money again.

that doesn't mean there isn't anything the wealthy north can do for the impoverished south

yeah, for a start they could stop impoverishing them.


It kind of annoys me people who slag off live 8 because its not going to solve the problem, its not, but at least its something

what is it? it is doing as much harm as good. it's propagating the myth that bush and blair et al are doing something positive, that a gig can solve problems the causes of which aren't even being addressed.


its not going to make the facts on the ground any worse

if collusion with the what you term as 'neoliberal reconstructing' isn't making things worse then i dunno what is.

I dont think giving the concert stick because of its cheesiness or is really valid.


i completely and wholeheartedly agree. anyone who does that is an idiot.

And the White Stripes are playing which is enough for it to be worthwhile.

yeah, if i was starving in africa the thought of a couple of rich kids playing boring seventies sludge riffs for a mass of pampered white kids would cheer me right up. or are you implying that they are some kind of reward for being good and obedient liberal children. yes i am trying to be condescending, no i will not accept excuses of the 'tongue in cheek' variety.

we sat through this twenty years ago, people (not me, i was fifteen and just wanted to watch queen and bob dylan) being shouted down for daring to criticise live aid, well, here we all are. see you in twenty.

mx

[F-H]