Irish rocker-activist Geldof takes aim at corruption in Africa

Yahoo! News ^ | 4/26/06 | AFP

[libertarianPA]

JOHANNESBURG (AFP) - Billions of dollars in aid will achieve "zero" in Africa unless governments on the continent are serious about fighting corruption and poverty, Irish rocker and humanitarian Bob Geldof said.

The 54-year-old political activist, who will be performing in Johannesburg and Cape Town this week, said he saw "many, many optimistic signs and just as many crap signs" that African governments were cleaning up their act.

"The rich world can pour endless billions into the continent of Africa but none of this will work unless African governments are serious," Geldof told a news conference in Johannesburg.

"Corruption is a byproduct of poverty. We have corruption in France, Germany and Ireland. ... We are rich enough so that it doesn't kill us.

"In sub-Saharan Africa, it kills people. And it must stop," he said.

Nominated five times for a Nobel peace prize, Geldof singled out Benin, Mozambique, Tanzania and South Africa as countries that have earned "plus points" for their good governments.

A member of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Commission for Africa, Geldof singled out as progress the Group of Eight's decision to cancel the debt owed by some of the poorest countries and double assistance by 2010.

But he added: "None of this works, none, zero, unless the governments of Africa are equally serious about trying to pull their people out of poverty."

The creator of Live 8, a series of concerts held worldwide last year that raised awareness about Africa's plight, will be performing for the first time in South Africa.

[F.J. Mitchell]

LOL! Knighthood seems to have achieved the same level of respectability and honor as the present day Nobel prize.

[LexBaird]

And in 1994 he was still friends with both our nations.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "friend". He wasn't a rejected leader, ala Castro or Saddam. GB was still propping up the thinly veiled land grab of white farmers until 1997.

However, I wouldn't have been handing out a knighthood, honorary or not, to a terrorist proto-dictator with blatantly racist policies, had I been Sovereign, regardless of what my Kingdom's official stance was with his country. But, then again it took until 1940 to revoke Mussolini's KCB, so I guess Mugabe has a fair chance of dying before the Queen gets around to kicking the murderous thug out of the club. Maybe Sir Bob could use his high profile to point that out, as long as he is campaigning to end corruption in Africa.

[astoundedlib]

Good day,

maybe he was wondering why we don't send troops to help them out like we do actually with Irak?? or maybe he doesn't think about that, but i do!

[reagan_fanatic]

If the African dictators took just 1 or 2 percent of the money they waste on military spending alone and put it towards improving the agriculture in their countries, they could have a serious impact on the poverty afflicting their people.

[libertarianPA]

maybe he was wondering why we don't send troops to help them out like we do actually with Irak??

Well, poor grammar and bad spelling aside, I don't know if he did. If you read the article, it doesn't mention him saying anything about sending troops into Africa.

or maybe he doesn't think about that, but i do!

Good for you. Which country would you like to invade first? What do you hope to accomplish by this? The African nations received their independence from colonialism in the mid 20th century. They then chose socialism as an economic system because capitalism was a "product of the oppressive European regimes." So now you want us to go in and re-colonize Africa so that we can go through all this again?

[astoundedlib]

"Good for you. Which country would you like to invade first? What do you hope to accomplish by this? The African nations received their independence from colonialism in the mid 20th century. They then chose socialism as an economic system because capitalism was a "product of the oppressive European regimes." So now you want us to go in and re-colonize Africa so that we can go through all this again?"

Thanks for clarifying! So i understand by that, we never tried to colonize iraq before so that is why it is worth the try (don't forget i specified iraq in my previous post)...Don't get me wrong, i don't favor invading at all but i was wondering why we were doing it in iraq and not in africa...But i think you answered well! Plus, i forgot that iraq was an actual threat, as africa is only "stealing" the money...


Sorry for my bad grammar, english is not my first language...I know it is not common on this site!

[libertarianPA]

i forgot that iraq was an actual threat, as africa is only "stealing" the money...

You seem to get it. If only more liberals were like you. We'd wipe out terrorism and save all that money we're wastefully dumping into Africa.

Oh. You forgot to mention that we also invaded Iraq for an unlimited access to oil. Of course, that's obvious since gas prices are so high and we're afraid of attacking Iran since they'll immediately cut off the oil supply.

[astoundedlib]

"If only more liberals were like you."

Haha! Unfortunately, i live in Canada and i am a "new-democratic" partisan...the close equivalent of the libertarian party, which explains my nickname! I think we should get rid of our problems in America (i mean the continent!!!) first! Even the war in Iraq is a bit doubtful but if it really is a matter of safety, i guess we "need" it, but i can't tell as we do not FEAR too much terrorist attack around here...

[dljordan]

"Holy cr@p! Who woke him up?"

Who knows but this will keep him busy for the rest of his life.

[libertarianPA]

I think we should get rid of our problems in America (i mean the continent!!!) first!

I honestly haven't the slightest clue whether or not the "new democratic" party is the Canadian equivalent to the Libertarian party, so I guess I can't remark whether or not we would have the same perspective on certain things. I'm more of a Neal Boortz Libertarian - I'm all for civil liberties and strict Constitutional adherence, but I also realize that the enemy we're fighting takes some measures to defeat that might be perceived as violations to those values. But it's certainly not something we can ignore. If we can stop terrorist attacks and not tread on certain rights, great. But that's not the world we live in. I'm not about to sacrifice my life or the lives of my countrymen because I find it inconvenient to have my bag searched at an airport on in a subway terminal. It's good to have values. It's another to have fetishes.

But to get to your quote - we are never going to get rid of our problems here. Never. We will always have problems. Thomas Sowell states it best when he says that there are no solutions to our problems, only trade-offs. You'll never get rid of crime, poverty, violence, etc. The best you can do is have a system that's best equipped to help the most people with the limited resources that we have. Given that, not doing anything about the Middle East situation is ridiculous. Not only will we have the problems we already have, but then we'll have more terrorist attacks if we let outlaw governments and groups go untouched. Now, I am open to debate to whether or not invasion is the answer or whether we just go in and bomb the hell out of these countries until they will and ability to fight is eradicated. Either one's fine with me.

And believe me. We do FEAR terrorist attacks here. Maybe you don't in Canada because nothing has happened there. But I certainly fear it here. And many of my countrymen do, as well. Unfortunately, there are a great many who don't fear it and want to forget that 9/11 ever happened. I never forget.

[astoundedlib]

I think you're right and it is well thought to think we'll never get rid of our problems, my bad! Problems are natural and part of a certain balance in this whole world...I understand why iraq was invaded at first, to get Saddam out of the way...But i doubt staying there will change a thing, as (without any racism) Arabs have always fought each other, so maybe it's simply in their blood, maybe not...So i can only say i am neutral regarding that conflict.

"And believe me. We do FEAR terrorist attacks here. Maybe you don't in Canada because nothing has happened there. But I certainly fear it here. And many of my countrymen do, as well. Unfortunately, there are a great many who don't fear it and want to forget that 9/11 ever happened. I never forget."

I understand this is obviously the worst thing happened to the USA, worst than Katrina, as 9/11 was a sign of human hostility not nature hostility... And i know you guys fear terrorist attacks, that was my point, by "caps-locking" the word fear...But fear is what the terrorists unfortunately achieved to implement in many "United Stater's" soul, which is the base of terrorism, create terror... I don't criticize, i empathize (is that a word?), as living in fear must not be something really enjoyable...

England seemed to have less problem with the attack they suffered, by addressing to their citizen to go to work and even take the subway, sending a clear message to terrorist...But it was nothing comparable to 9/11 though...I just liked their reaction... But maybe it is inappropriate to think that...
As for the "new democratic party" in Canada, http://www.ndp.ca/ take a look just for curiosity...It's not the exact same thing than libertarian but has some similarities...but they do not seek to get elected as the first party of the country, they just want to have their words considered in the parliament, and it's working good! They are the one responsible for the "overthrow" of our "democratic" party here (called liberals...I know this last sentence was weird, so tell me if i need to rephrase! Best regards.
Best regards.