The G8

Live 8 puts pressure on G8 leaders

'People power' can change our minds says Britain's Brown

LONDON, England -- After the success of Live 8, the largest live concert ever held, politicians said people power could make a difference as Group of Eight (G8) leaders prepared to meet to discuss Africa.

Over a million people listened to rock and pop musicians at 10 venues across four continents Saturday demanding that the G8 nations move to help Africa when they meet for a summit in Scotland Wednesday.

Event organizer Bob Geldof, who set up the Live Aid concerts 20 years ago that raised $100 million for Africa, is now pushing for a doubling of aid to Africa, forgiveness of debts and fairer trade rules. (Interactive: Live 8 explainer)

British finance minister Gordon Brown, an advocate of debt relief, said the weight of public opinion had already helped to shape recent agreements on canceling the debts of the poorest nations and upping the amount of aid.

"I think you've seen that ministers around the world have been affected by the strength of public opinion, churches, faith groups, and it does have an impact," Brown told BBC Television.

More than 26 million people worldwide sent text messages on Saturday in support of Live 8, setting a world record for a single event, organizers said. They had also expected up to two billion people to tune into the show worldwide.

In Edinburgh, close to where the G8 meets, 200,000 demonstrators marched peacefully through the city to back the Make Poverty History campaign.

"For God's sake, take this seriously. Don't behave normally. Don't look for compromises. Be great," Live 8 organizers said in a joint statement after the concerts ended.

The media in Britain, where the build-up to Live 8 has had a higher profile than in other countries, hailed organizer, rocker Bob Geldof, and the 170 pop acts who graced stages.

"A beautiful day," said the Independent on Sunday. "Is that loud enough for you?" asked the Sunday Times.

Britain's Peter Mandelson, the European Union's Trade Commissioner, said the pressure had to be maintained.

"They can't ignore it," he told BBC Television. "We need to see ... that energy channeled into continuing pressure and interest and attention not just to the issues of humanitarian aid and debt relief, but trade."

Tokyo kicked off Live 8, which was also staged in the Circus Maximus in Rome and before a crowd of 150,000 in Berlin.

In Barrie, near Toronto, 35,000 people turned out for the musical feast, while France's concert boasted the Chateau de Versailles as its elegant backdrop.

The numbers in Moscow's Red Square were low, perhaps unsurprising in a country where more than a quarter of the population lives below the poverty line. In Johannesburg, Nelson Mandela addressed nearly 10,000 people.

London's Hyde Park had the strongest line-up, with Paul McCartney, Bono, Madonna, Elton John, Pink Floyd, The Who and George Michael entertaining a total of 200,000 people. (A rock triumph)

The crowd fell silent when Live 8 organizer Bob Geldof replayed Live Aid footage of dying Ethiopians. After freezing on the image of a girl on the verge of death, the same person, a now healthy Birhan Woldu, was introduced on stage.

"Mahatma Gandhi freed a continent, Martin Luther King freed a people, Nelson Mandela freed a country. It does work. They will listen," he said.

But Live 8 has sparked debate over whether making money available to African governments encourages corruption.

"Throwing money at African governments is not the answer," the brother of South African President Thabo Mbeki wrote, Reuters reported.

"History and the generations to come will judge our leaders by the decisions they make in the coming weeks," former South African president Nelson Mandela said after taking the stage in Johannesburg, where the crowd of more than 8,000 people gave him a five-minute ovation.

"I say to all those leaders: Do not look the other way, do not hesitate ... It is within your power to prevent a genocide."

"This is our moment. This is our time. This is our chance to stand up for what's right," U2 frontman Bono told a crowd of 200,000 in London's Hyde Park.

"We're not looking for charity, we're looking for justice," Bono said. "We cannot fix every problem, but the ones we can, we must."

In Philadelphia, on the Independence Day weekend, actor Will Smith called the festivities a worldwide "declaration of interdependence."

"Today we hold this truth to be self-evident: We are all in this together," Smith said. Beamed around the world by satellite, he led the audience in snapping their fingers every three seconds, signifying the child death rate in Africa.

Neil Young performed rousing renditions of "Keep on Rockin' In The Free world" and "O Canada" before 35,000 roaring fans at Canada's event in Barrie, Ontario.

Paul McCartney and U2 opened the flagship show of the free 10-concert festival with a rousing performance of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."

A thunderous roar erupted from the crowd of about 200,000 as icons McCartney and Bono belted out the first line: "It was 20 years ago today..." -- a nod to Geldof's mammoth Live Aid benefit that raised millions for African famine relief in 1985.

Bono, dressed in black and wearing his trademark wraparound shades, wrapped the crowd around his finger, enticing tens of thousands to sing along to the anthemic "One" and "Beautiful Day." The crowd cheered when a flock of white doves was released overhead.

Geldof appeared onstage to introduce Microsoft billionaire and philanthropist Gates, whom the crowd greeted with a rock star's roar.

"We can do this, and when we do it will be the best thing that humanity has ever done," Gates said.

The crowd joined in as REM sang "Man on the Moon," then heard U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan declare: "This is really the United Nations ... The whole world has come together in solidarity with the poor."

As night fell in London, Sting performed "Every Breath You Take" as a message to the G8 leaders -- "We'll be watching you," he sang. The Who belted out their classic "Who Are You?" to a backdrop of images of the G8 chiefs.

And the crowd went wild for the reunion of '70s supergroup Pink Floyd -- the first time guitarist David Gilmour, drummer Nick Mason, keyboard player Richard Wright and bassist Roger Waters appeared onstage together since 1981.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Bush rejects Kyoto-style G8 deal

President George W Bush has ruled out US backing for any Kyoto-style deal on climate change at the G8 summit.

Speaking to British broadcaster ITV, he said he would instead be talking to fellow leaders about new technologies as a way of tackling global warming.

But he conceded that the issue was one "we've got to deal with" and said human activity was "to some extent" to blame.

Tony Blair is hoping for deals on climate change and Africa when he hosts the summit in Scotland this week.

Mr Bush said he would resist any deal that would require countries to reduce carbon emissions - similar to the 1997 UN Kyoto protocol, which the US never signed.

"If this looks like Kyoto, the answer is no," he said in an interview with ITV's Tonight With Trevor McDonald programme.

"The Kyoto treaty would have wrecked our economy, if I can be blunt."

He said he hoped the other G8 leaders would "move beyond the Kyoto debate" and consider new technologies as a way of tackling global warming.

Farm subsidies

The US was investing in developing techniques such as sequestration of carbon dioxide in underground wells, hydrogen-powered cars and zero emission power stations, he said.

"I think you can grow your economy and at the same time do a better job of harnessing greenhouse gases," he said.

But he showed signs of coming into line with general world opinion by describing climate change as "a significant, long-term issue that we've got to deal with".

In the past, he has strongly opposed any action on climate change in favour of further studies on the issue.

But he rejected the idea he should support British Prime Minister Tony Blair's G8 plan in return for his support during the war in Iraq.

"Tony Blair made decisions on what he thought was best for keeping the peace and winning the war on terror, as I did," he told the programme.

"So I go to the G8 not really trying to make him look bad or good, but I go to the G8 with an agenda that I think is best for our country."

On the other major issue to be discussed at the summit, African aid and debt relief, he signalled he was ready to abandon US farm subsidies, which have unfairly distorted the market for African farmers.

But he said he would only do it, if the European Union was prepared to scrap its Common Agricultural Policy.

"We've got agricultural subsidies, not nearly to the extent that our friends in the EU have," he said.

The G8 leaders - from Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US - meet in Gleneagles on Wednesday for the start of the three-day summit.

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4647383.stm

Published: 2005/07/03 23:09:56 GMT

© BBC MMV

As history has proven, a group of white men meeting in a room to decide anything has the power to change the world for good.

Sincerely, The Congress of the Confederate States of America, The Versailles Treaty, The Munich Pact, The Kellogg-Briand Treaty, and The League of Nations

USAID chief defends Bush's Africa plan

Says efforts will fail without economic, political reforms

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Too much aid to Africa without corresponding economic and political reform could cause relief efforts for the continent's poorest countries to fail, the head of the U.S. international aid agency said Sunday.

"You have to make changes to the capacity of governments to manage programs, to write the right laws, to have the rule of law," U.S. Agency for International Development Director Andrew Natsios told CNN.

"If you don't have those other conditions, you can put huge amounts of money into aid programs and they'll be ineffective."

Natsios defended the Bush administration's proposed increase in development assistance to African states from critics like U2 singer Bono, one of the performers at the weekend's Live 8 concerts, who say the additional money is still smaller than necessary.

Aid programs can fail if funding is increased too quickly without the accountability that democratic governments require, he said.

"Bono and many other very well-intentioned people have really never actually run aid programs and seen what happens," Natsios said.

"If you put too much aid too quickly into weak institutions, where there isn't capacity, you have corruption, and the programs don't work."

On Thursday, President Bush previewed his plans for the G8 summit, presenting three new initiatives for Africa, including a $1.2 billion effort to combat malaria. (Full story)

Bush said he had tripled aid to Africa during his presidency and planned to ask Congress to double it again by 2010.

A report last week from the Brookings Institution said, however, that U.S. aid to Africa did not triple from 2000 to 2004, but instead increased by 56 percent in real dollars.

Bush has been unwilling to endorse key elements of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's proposal for donor nations to increase aid to Africa by $25 billion annually by 2010. A second stage in Blair's plan would add another $25 billion per year by 2015.

In a compromise announced during Blair's June visit to Washington, Bush pledged an additional $674 million for "humanitarian emergencies" in Africa. (Full story)

Bush's response to Blair's push for more aid received a mixed response, with aid agencies saying the amounts promised were inadequate.

Blair is this year's chairman of the Group of Eight economic powers, and his ambitious program of debt relief, disease eradication and economic development for Africa will be on the agenda at this week's G8 summit in Scotland.

The summit follows the nine Live 8 concerts held Saturday across the globe to draw attention to anti-poverty efforts in Africa.

A 10th concert is scheduled for Wednesday in Edinburgh, on the eve of the July 6-8 summit at the nearby golf resort of Gleneagles.

Though the United States is the world's largest aid donor in total dollars, it provides a smaller fraction of its overall gross domestic product than other developed countries.

With an $11 trillion economy, the United States currently contributes about .16 percent of its gross domestic product to international aid programs -- about $19 billion. Norway, with a gross domestic product of about $183 billion, contributes .87 percent -- about 1.6 billion.

But Natsios said that comparison is skewed by the fact the United States has the world's largest economy, calling the proportion "a standard that Europeans created basically for their own purposes."

"If we did .7 percent, the aid budget would go from $19 billion to $91 billion. We couldn't spend that money if we wanted to," he said.

He said if the United States did provide that level of assistance, it would be criticized as "imperial aid."

Natsios said U.S. foreign aid totaled $10 billion in 2000 when Bush took office, rising to $19 billion last year and with further increases planned to about $25 billion.

Bush also said Thursday he would support easing the debt burden on many of Africa's countries and push for the completion of free trade negotiations.

In June, finance ministers from the G8 nations agreed to an accord to cancel up to $55 billion worth of debt owed by the world's poorest nations.

In case anyone missed this post (on the Africa thread):

The solution is radical but goes thus;

1. Abolish all immigration laws.

2. Establish a global single currency.

3. Create a truly democratic parliament of nations through the UN.

I self published a fictional novel about such a 'cloud cuckoo land' at:

http://www.20six.co.uk/cloudcuckooland

I know my plan is crazy and that no-one agrees with me; but humanity will be looking at extinction in a couple hundred years if we carry on the way we are.

I really do wonder about us web users, but if you're serious, we need more than just a single world currency to equalise out all inequality on our planet.

Why do all these wars really take place? Religion?

No: preconceived ideologies of how man has been brought up, believing his way of life - and everything he has had passed down through it - is right, and that anyone who tries to suggest otherwise is violating his human rights.

If there were no religion, how easily would man find another reason to point a gun at someone?

We need to stop the guns, bombs being used and ignorance towards the starving, by the above not being allowed to exist at all in the first place.

But how would this ever be possible? We'd need to be living in a world where one rule goes for EVERYONE - whether we are poor, super-rich or otherwise.

We therefore need one world government, with one set of rules for everyone:

No guns, No bombs, No more famine or drought, No more tax havens for the super-rich to hide assets, No more commercial over-the-counter sales of drugs that should only be used on a doctor's prescription - regardless of commercial pressures - such as all forms of tobacco, All schools to be DECENT comprehensives - what every child is entitled to and deserves;

And above all: No countries, or boundaries that divide us (and give us an excuse to ignore people outside our own borders), and No more political parties - or politically-based ideologies that fundamentally divide us as human beings.

We could make this happen - over a long period of time - if we have the courage, vision, imagination and the integrity needed to get a world political model fair for all in place AT THE FIRST TIME OF ASKING.

Here! Here! (Although religion isn't always bad; just the way people misuse it; that's appauling).

Can I make a Suggestion?

Could people please link articles they think others may be interested in and then post their own comments rather than cutting and pasting them in? It would make the exchange of Ideas much easier.

An area that needs to be moderated I think

The problem is, some people complain if you just provide a link..."I can't be arsed....etc", so I provided both a link and the text so everybody would be happy.

Or so I thought...

This site requires you to register, so for all those who "can't be arsed to register," here's both the link and the article...

A quote:

"But Bush has rejected the British targets, saying he could not commit a future U.S. administration to meeting them."

That's funny, the lying cunt was able to commit future U.S. Administrations to paying for his deficits...

and the article:

Activists pressuring G8 on Africa Aid By BETH GARDINER Associated Press Writer

5:27 PM PDT, July 5, 2005

EDINBURGH, Scotland — Activists kept up pressure on leaders of the world's richest nations Tuesday to lift Africa out of poverty, but Britain's Treasury chief said those who believe human misery can be eliminated "with the stroke of a pen" may be disappointed by the results of this week's G-8 summit.

As Irish singer Bob Geldof -- energized by his Live 8 concerts' success -- joined the demonstrators in Scotland, police warned they will crack down on any further violence by anarchists and others bent on spoiling the summit. About 100 arrested during clashes a day earlier appeared in court Tuesday.

The Make Poverty History campaign launched around the summit has been endorsed by the Dalai Lama, Pope Benedict XVI and Nelson Mandela, along with scores of others around the world.

They have something of an ally in British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who holds the G-8 presidency and hosts the three-day summit opening Wednesday at nearby Gleneagles. He has made Africa and climate change the central themes of Britain's G-8 presidency, and he describes global warming as "probably the most serious threat we face."

Blair, who has been battered domestically over his support for the Iraq war, has pressed those two issues with such zeal that the increasingly chaotic situation in Iraq has all but disappeared from the summit's agenda. Yet that by no means guarantees a summit free of acrimony.

At the heart of Blair's difficulties may be that his closest ally, President Bush, does not share the ambitious goals he has set for the summit.

Although the leaders appear ready to wipe out $40 billion worth of debt owed by 18 of the world's poorest countries, Bush has not accepted Blair's call for a massive increase in aid to Africa and seems unlikely to back British ideas about urgent action on climate control.

An additional complication is the lingering bad blood between Britain and European Union heavyweights France and Germany over a ferocious dispute about spending at last month's EU summit.

In the background, there are the protesters -- who find themselves in the unusual situation of being at least theoretically in agreement with the host government, and whose protests to date have not been very violent.

But some of the protesters are anarchists opposed to the G-8 in principle, and they could yet explode in anger. There are fears they may try to stop leaders from getting to the elegant Gleneagles golf resort where the summit is being held, or even try to breach the tightly protected five-mile security perimeter.

Geldof said Britain was pushing hard for a deal to help Africa, but sounded pessimistic. "I am not sure the others want to do it, which will be a grotesque failure," Geldof said.

Treasury chief Gordon Brown, who has worked closely with Geldof, U2's Bono and other campaign leaders, said he has warned them to temper their expectations.

"I know that what you will say is that what we can achieve is perhaps not good enough, but we have got to bring the whole of the world together," Brown, in an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. television, said he told Make Poverty History organizers. "What Britain says is one thing, (and) what we can persuade the rest of the world to do together is what we will get as the outcome of Gleneagles."

In addition to the proposal to double aid for Africa by 2010, Blair's Commission for Africa has also recommended a second $25 billion increase in aid to Africa, to $75 `billion annually, by 2015.

Oxfam, the British relief agency, said Tuesday that children would die without swifter action.

"2010 will be five years too late for the 55 million children who will die waiting for the world's richest leaders to deliver on their promises," said Jo Leadbeater of Oxfam.

But Bush has rejected the British targets, saying he could not commit a future U.S. administration to meeting them.

His administration boasts that aid to Africa has tripled since Bush took office in 2001, and that it plans to double the 2004 level to $8.6 billion by 2010.

Bush has sought $15 billion over five years to combat AIDS, mostly in Africa, and last week called for spending $1.2 billion to cut malaria deaths in half by 2010 in Africa.

Since the 1960s, however, the United Nations has called for rich countries to increase aid to 0.7 percent of their national incomes. U.S. spending now is at 0.17 percent, lagging behind the Europeans.

"So far France is in the lead, saying they will reach the 0.7 percent target by 2012, followed by the U.K. with 2013, and Germany and Italy with 2015," Leadbeater said. "Canada, the U.S. and Japan aren't even at the starting line."

Brown spoke of his frustration on the issue.

"It makes you angry because there's nothing in science or technology or medicine that should prevent us from tackling poverty," he said. "It's a lack of political will."

Just use the scroll function; only takes a sec...

Half empty...

half full...

And Georgy Peorgy gets his way. Again.

Speaking of media-created perceptions, AgentWood, look at what the BBC has to say re the G8 statement on global warming, and what ABC has to say.

bLuE oRdEr wrote: Speaking of media-created perceptions, AgentWood, look at what the BBC has to say re the G8 statement on global warming, and what ABC has to say.

and what do the conservatives say about the 'liberal' media? ABC is tip-toeing around bush like crazy!

Stop Aiding Africa!!

Der Spiegel interview of a Kenyan economist.

Economist James Shikwati: "Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor."

The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...

Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.

Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there's a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program -- which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It's only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it's not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa ...

SPIEGEL: ... corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers ...

Shikwati: ... and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle.

SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn't do anything, the people would starve.

Shikwati: I don't think so. In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders -- drawn by the Europeans by the way -- more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy.

SPIEGEL: Would Africa actually be able to solve these problems on its own?

Shikwati: Of course. Hunger should not be a problem in most of the countries south of the Sahara. In addition, there are vast natural resources: oil, gold, diamonds. Africa is always only portrayed as a continent of suffering, but most figures are vastly exaggerated. In the industrial nations, there's a sense that Africa would go under without development aid. But believe me, Africa existed before you Europeans came along. And we didn't do all that poorly either.

SPIEGEL: But AIDS didn't exist at that time.

Shikwati: If one were to believe all the horrorifying reports, then all Kenyans should actually be dead by now. But now, tests are being carried out everywhere, and it turns out that the figures were vastly exaggerated. It's not three million Kenyans that are infected. All of the sudden, it's only about one million. Malaria is just as much of a problem, but people rarely talk about that.

SPIEGEL: And why's that?

Shikwati: AIDS is big business, maybe Africa's biggest business. There's nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical.

SPIEGEL: The Americans and Europeans have frozen funds previously pledged to Kenya. The country is too corrupt, they say.

Shikwati: I am afraid, though, that the money will still be transfered before long. After all, it has to go somewhere. Unfortunately, the Europeans' devastating urge to do good can no longer be countered with reason. It makes no sense whatsoever that directly after the new Kenyan government was elected -- a leadership change that ended the dictatorship of Daniel arap Mois -- the faucets were suddenly opened and streams of money poured into the country.

SPIEGEL: Such aid is usually earmarked for a specific objective, though.

Shikwati: That doesn't change anything. Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: "The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."

SPIEGEL: In the West, there are many compassionate citizens wanting to help Africa. Each year, they donate money and pack their old clothes into collection bags ...

Shikwati: ... and they flood our markets with that stuff. We can buy these donated clothes cheaply at our so-called Mitumba markets. There are Germans who spend a few dollars to get used Bayern Munich or Werder Bremen jerseys, in other words, clothes that that some German kids sent to Africa for a good cause. After buying these jerseys, they auction them off at Ebay and send them back to Germany -- for three times the price. That's insanity ...

SPIEGEL: ... and hopefully an exception.

Shikwati: Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here. Instead, our tailors lose their livlihoods. They're in the same position as our farmers. No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in ****'s textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000. The results are the same in all other areas where overwhelming helpfulness and fragile African markets collide.

SPIEGEL: Following World War II, Germany only managed to get back on its feet because the Americans poured money into the country through the Marshall Plan. Wouldn't that qualify as successful development aid?

Shikwati: In Germany's case, only the destroyed infrastructure had to be repaired. Despite the economic crisis of the Weimar Republic, Germany was a highly- industrialized country before the war. The damages created by the tsunami in Thailand can also be fixed with a little money and some reconstruction aid. Africa, however, must take the first steps into modernity on its own. There must be a change in mentality. We have to stop perceiving ourselves as beggars. These days, Africans only perceive themselves as victims. On the other hand, no one can really picture an African as a businessman. In order to change the current situation, it would be helpful if the aid organizations were to pull out.

SPIEGEL: If they did that, many jobs would be immediately lost ...

Shikwati: ... jobs that were created artificially in the first place and that distort reality. Jobs with foreign aid organizations are, of course, quite popular, and they can be very selective in choosing the best people. When an aid organization needs a driver, dozens apply for the job. And because it's unacceptable that the aid worker's chauffeur only speaks his own tribal language, an applicant is needed who also speaks English fluently -- and, ideally, one who is also well mannered. So you end up with some African biochemist driving an aid worker around, distributing European food, and forcing local farmers out of their jobs. That's just crazy!

SPIEGEL: The German government takes pride in precisely monitoring the recipients of its funds.

Shikwati: And what's the result? A disaster. The German government threw money right at Rwanda's president Paul Kagame. This is a man who has the deaths of a million people on his conscience -- people that his army killed in the neighboring country of Congo.

SPIEGEL: What are the Germans supposed to do?

Shikwati: If they really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own survival. Currently, Africa is like a child that immediately cries for its babysitter when something goes wrong. Africa should stand on its own two feet.

Interview conducted by Thilo Thielke

Translated from the German by Patrick Kessler

It's the nature of aid - is it aid or is it a loan? If it's a loan there's no hope of making poverty history as the interest on the loan perpetuates the debt.

If it's no strings aid then that's good - the only strings should be that good governance is applied - if good governance is not applied then fines should be applied in respect of the aid given.

It should be the UN co-ordinating / enforcing all this - the G140 (or however many countries there are the world) - not the bloody G8!

George Bush sure shit all over Tony Blair's G8 agenda, didn't he? A few more well-placed Downing Street memos ought to make things even-steven, though. Right around election time 2008.

Ally3000 wrote:

craigy wrote: I know my plan is crazy and that no-one agrees with me; but humanity will be looking at extinction in a couple hundred years if we carry on the way we are.

To be honest mate, we'd be looking at extinction alot sooner if the world you suggest was even attemped to be made a reality. In fact your "new" world and its facets genuinely scared me because of the sheer anarchy it would cause. I agree our current world has more flaws than can be counted but I'd go back to the drawing board with your one and incorporate a teeny bit of realism.

Anyway, my aims for a new world would be as follows:

1. No rain
2. No bad nasty people
3. No pain cos it's bad
4. Free money
5. Free food
6. Free medicine

Then I'd get Geldof to stage a few pop concerts to put pressure on the world leaders to make Bubblegum waterfalls more widely available to the country of Antarctica.

Sorry I know I'm taking the piss, I'm in that sort of mood

I know my model could cause anarchy:

http://www.20six.co.uk/cloudcuckooland

It is controllable though - at the moment events are spiralling out of control (war on terror et. al.) and events are beginning to control us (climate change).

The human race will die if we stick with our addiction to capitalist expansion.

I know you're taking the piss, but give me a serious alternative...