Point of Live 8

[gothwalk]

I'm somewhat bemused, somewhat amused, and somewhat despairing over the number of people who are saying "Live 8 is [insert negative] because any amount of money collected will make no difference in the long term".

People, you clearly didn't notice, but there was no money collected. The tickets were free, there was no donation method. That was not the point. Those people who are saying that corrupt governments in Africa are the problem - yes, that's what Live 8 was saying! Those people who are pointing to third world debt and trade barriers, yes, that's what Live 8 was saying. It really does your credibility no good when you rail against short term money collections by rich pop stars when there weren't any.

Let me summarise: Live 8 was about putting pressure on the G8 leaders to:

Drop third world debt
Dispose of trade barriers preventing Afican nations from exporting
Lend support to getting rid of corrupt governments in Africa
Increase aid to an actual meaningful level

Four items, very few of which have been comprehended by the naysayers. I hope the actual G8 were paying attention, but given the obtuseness of much of the population who were aware of Live 8, it's not awfully hopeful.

[Edit: hkim points out re: collecting money - That's not necessarily true. Each text for the London gig cost £1.50. I think about £3 millionw as raised. £1.6 million went to the Prince's Trust, a pay-off for cancelling Party in the Park. The rest covered costs, AFAIK.

So money wasn't collected for anything more than running costs.]

Comments

[hkim.livejournal.com]

there was no money collected

That's not necessarily true. Each text for the London gig cost £1.50. I think about £3 millionw as raised. £1.6 million went to the Prince's Trust, a pay-off for cancelling Party in the Park. The rest covered costs, AFAIK.

Collecting money

[(Anonymous)]

The enclosure in front of the stage cost £1000 per head. Perhap this money paid for the goodie bags which varied in value from £7000 down to £1000 depending on the celebs status.

[theferrett.livejournal.com]

The problem is, how do you support getting rid of corrupt governments when you're giving them money? Most of it gets siphoned off by those governments. The only way to get rid of them that I know of - and I didn't hear any alternatives proposed by the Live 8 folks - is to either starve them out or kick them out with military force, which may not work.

I don't know what the problem is, but at least two of them are contradictory to me. I'm all for lowering trade barriers, though.

[kehoea.livejournal.com]

Sure, that's a problem, and the Live 8 approach is thus massively inefficient of money--I mean, there was no decent argument for writing off Nigeria's debts with oil prices where they are now--but it is a distinct improvement on nothing at all.

[theferrett.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure it is. The money, siphoned off by corrupt and oppressive governments, helps them to purchase more weapons and power and thus stay in power longer.

I don't know what the solution is, but I'm reasonably sure throwing more money on it.

[kehoea.livejournal.com]

Well, historically, pretty much the only way corrupt and oppressive governments have fallen has been through civil war or coups. And civil war is much worse than having a corrupt and oppressive government, especially since you can be reasonably certain that its end won't make the government any less corrupt and oppressive. Coups hardly ever change anything but the faces at the top. So, eh, I don't see the governments remaining in place as _the_ problem.

Note also that the oppression doesn't prevent the ending of poverty; South Korea, Indonesia and Taiwan grew rich under dictatorships. Corruption is the issue, and perhaps the lack of national feeling that results when previously populated parts of the world are assigned national borders that have straight lines. I am vaguely pro-imperialist on this question--as far as I can work out, big chunks of Africa were better off than they are now when Her Majesty the Queen and the French President were guaranteeing the rule of law. But going back to that won't work in the modern international political climate, so perhaps something along the lines of the British guarantee of non-Civil-War for Sierra Leone would be workable. The corresponding French action in Côte d'Ivoire hasn't worked out, unfortunately, so this probably isn't a great general model.

[dmh.livejournal.com]

I quite agree. And of course it raised awareness to a lot of people who hadn't even heard of the G8!

how Live 8 was seen in Poland

[(Anonymous)]

I thought you might like to see how the whole thing was seen (or not seen) in Poland. This was NOT a worldwide event. See Live 8? What Live 8? at http://beatroot.blogspot.com/

Re: how Live 8 was seen in Poland

[(Anonymous)]

Poland is, so far as I recall, not a G8 member.