Geldof's Praise For The US (Bush) Is Criticised By Aid Agencies

Heedless of the dismay caused to international aid agencies by his support for Washington's Africa policies, Bob Geldof heaped more praise on the Bush administration yesterday.

The Live Aid founder, who is visiting Ethiopia for the first time in nearly 20 years to highlight the danger of another famine, hailed President George Bush's signature on a $15bn (£9bn) plan to fight Aids in Africa and the Caribbean, saying: "That is extremely radical and welcoming ... and will take the fight against Aids to new heights."

Earlier, Mr Geldof startled the aid world by describing Washington as one of Africa's best friends in its fight against Aids and famine. He compared Mr Bush favourably with his predecessor, Bill Clinton, who he said talked passionately about Africa, but did "f*** all". As for the EU, its response to Africa's humanitarian crisis was "pathetic and appalling".

Aid agencies have generally welcomed the $15bn US commitment against Aids, but believe it does little to counteract the Republican administration's hardline approach to trade and debt questions.

Justin Forsyth, Oxfam's director of campaigns and policy, said: "The international trade rules are a major obstacle to developing countries and America is a big impediment to resolving these.

"The harm that trade rules do to the developing world is worth much more to African countries than the American aid budget will ever be."

Undaunted by the controversy, Mr Geldof visited a feeding centre in the Awassa region of Ethiopia yesterday, one of the areas worst hit by more than two years of severe drought, where dozens of children lay waiting for high-energy food to keep them alive. He said it brought back memories of his first visit to Ethiopia in 1984, when nearly a million people starved to death.

"The situation is worse than I expected," he said, taking an emaciated child from the arms of its mother. "We are condemning these drought-affected people to death.

"Why do all this elaborate work in bringing all these people back to health if all we are going to do is send them back out to nothing? It probably isn't a famine yet. I keep going on about it, and I don't understand why we don't learn."

The Red Cross launched an appeal yesterday for emergency help to fight Aids, which it described as southern Africa's "axis of evil". John Sparrow, from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, said: "Aids looks around and takes something evil like poverty or malnutrition and makes it worse."

Mr Sparrow said government and donor aid had little impact on the devastation the disease has caused in southern Africa. The federation made an emergency appeal for $10.3m (£6.3m) to extend its operations in Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

The federation's successful one-year food programme ends in July and it will be another five months before a new appeal is approved and relief programmes can resume. "The emergency appeal will allow continuity between current relief and the longer-term programme which starts at the year end," Mr Sparrow said.

Sub-Saharan Africa has 70 per cent of the world's Aids cases and the United Nations has predicted that life expectancy in Botswana will be only 29 by 2010.

The Red Cross programme will cover essential food needs, health care, water and sanitation, Aids prevention and economic sustainability. "Conventional responses to drought and disease have disappeared in the face of Aids and they can't bounce back," Mr Sparrow said.

From the article:

Then You said:

It just goes to show you, no matter WHAT Bush does, there are those that will hate him. It shows them for what they are: Bush/Republican haters with blinders on. ... All they care about is criticizing Bush. ... You'd think they'd be embarrassed.

What are you talking about? it seems Geldof was pretty much Pro Bush and Anti-Clinton.

Did I miss someting?

The goal of U.N. et al is to let the peasants die of starvation and disease, and blame the US for it.

From: "Greens Eat Organic Pears, Africa Starves"
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taedec02b.pdf

"romantic environmentalism"-the view that protecting the environment must override all other concerns-emerged as a big loser at thegiant U.N. Earth Summit in Johannes-burg during September. The winner was economic development. After all, decades of academic research shows that clean air and water are byproducts of prosperous economies.In Johannesburg, poor countries said they wanted to get rich. To get there, they need cheap, abundant energy-not the windmills and solar cells the Europeanswant to foist on them. Expensive, exotic energy sources are fine for Denmark and France, but not-at least now-for Mozambique and Bangladesh.
"While failing to achieve their romantic vision on energy, theEuropeans managed to impose an unscientific perspective in another economic sphere-agriculture. Four years ago, Europe slapped a moratorium on any further approvals of genetically modified(G.M.) food products. Americans have been eating G.M. corn, potatoes, and soybeans since the mid 1990s with no adverse consequences. Europeans them-selves have had no safety or health problems with the nine G.M. products approved between 1994 and 1998. In fact, the European Commission's own environmental ministry has indi-cated it opposes the moratorium. Still, governments of individual European countries have decided to pander to the Greens, who share power in many shaky governing coalitions. As a result, genetically modified foods have been blocked in all of Europe.
"Europeans led the agricultural revolutions of the past. Today, much of Europe wants to stop the clock on foodprogress. That's fine for them- Europe is rich- but their superstition badly hurts the world's poor.Genetic techniques have sped the development of crops that are resistant to pests, that grow faster, that can tolerate bad soils, that don't require as much fertilizer. As a result, about 40 percent of America's corn crop and 70 percent of its soybeans now come from G.M. seeds. Sensible environmentalists like G.M. crops- because they help preserve land, reduce fertilizer use, and keep chemicals out of streams. The European moratorium, however,has stopped G.M. farming in places like Africa. Why should Africans make an investment in superior G.M. plants if they will be prevented from selling themto a prime export market like the E.U.?
Of course, Africans can still use the improved crops at home to feed them-selves, can't they? Not necessarily. Greenpeace and other extreme environmental groups have focused desperately on keeping the African continent bio-tech free, spreading horror stories in the process. So far, they are succeeding.
"There is more than just environmental romanticism and aversion to sound science behind this. Europeans also have a desire to beat Americans at agri-business by using non-tariff trade barriers.And it's not just Americans who lose in theprocess. Genetic technology could eventually allow Africans and Asians to compete with European farmers. Fearing the political power of the farm lobby and the Greens, European politicians would rather placate their former colonies with handouts than buy their goods. As a result, the danger of Africans suffering and dying because they're denied the latest modern technology is much higher than it ought to be."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.