Politika> OFF Komentar

“Par zamolčanih resnic o LIVE 8 AID-u” (5764 bralcev)
Torek, 5. 7. 2005
Erik

Re: “Par zamolčanih resnic o LIVE 8 AID-u”
Medard Kržišnik [05/07/2005]
http://www.sky.com/showbiz/article/0,,50001-1188023,00.html
odgovori >>

Re: “Par zamolčanih resnic o LIVE 8 AID-u”
Erik [06/07/2005]
Pozdravljen Medard, Opravicujem se ti, ker moj odgovor ne bo vseboval sumnikov, vendar sedim za bolgarskim kompjuterjem, toda ze na zacetku ti lahko zatrdim, da mi ne bo manjkalo proti-argumentov na clanek, cigar link si mi pripel kot repliko na komentar. (Dvigam obrvi nad dejstvom, da si mi repliciral s clankom iz Sky, glede na to, da oba veva, kaksna mizerna ´medijska´ hisa je to, ampak ok...) Zaradi sodelovanja skupine Pink Floyd na ‘Live 8 aid’ koncertu je prodaja njihovega albuma ‘Echoes’ samo v Britaniji poskocila za 1343%, vendar kot zatrjuje kitarist Dave Gilmour, bi bilo narobe profitirati na racun tega. Ekstra zasluzek, kot trdi dobra dusa, bi moral biti namenjen v humanitarne namene. Zanima me, kako bodo Dave Gilmour in ostali clani skupine izracunali, koliko so dejansko profitirali od ‘Live 8 aid’ spektakla ter kam bo denar dejansko namenjen. Veliko glasbenih oligarhov namrec plehko trdi, da je treba ‘ekstra denar’ nameniti Afriki, kot da bi bila Afrika ena velika drzava ali pac neka sirotisnica. Organizatorji ‘Live 8 aid’ spektakla (med njimi prednjacita Bono in Bob Geldof) so se v prenekaterih intervjujih in na uradni spletni strani kricece distancirali od prvotnega ‘Live aid’-a. Razlog? Originalni ‘Live aid’, ne glede na njegove plemenite namene, je storil zelo malo pri zajezitvi lakote v Afriki. Denar, ki je bil zbran na koncertih, je namrec v stevilnih primerih koncal v napacnih rokah, predvsem v rokah skorumpiranih birokratov, diktatorjev in na koncu v rokah lokalnih voditeljev paravojsk. Denar je bil v veliki meri uporabljen za nadaljnje oborozevanje in oba veva, kaj to pomeni na crni celini. Obmetavati Afriko z denarjem se je do sedaj v nestetih primerih izkazalo za popolnoma jalovo. Dolarjev se ne da namazati na kruh in poleg tega je treba tudi vedeti, da je lakota v Afriki v mnogih primerih direktna posledica ekstremno nepravicne razporeditve naravnih dobrin. Toda Pink Floyd, U2, Bob Geldof in sploh vecina zahodnih dobrotnikov je prepricanih, da je denarna pomoc (v katerikoli obliki) najucinkovitejse orozje v boju proti revscini. Vse vec afriskih intelektualcev se s tem ne strinja in kakor na primer kenijski ekonomski strokovnjak James Shikwati zahod pozivajo: “Prenehajte ze s tem.” Kenijski casopis ‘The Standard’ je v svojem vodilnem clanku z naslovom ‘Aid is not the Solution’ pravilno ugotavljal, da denar ne pride do ljudi, temvec da obtici v birokratskih strukturah in zgolj krepi obstojeci vladajoci sistem. Tudi ce Pink Floyd in nekateri drugi glasbeniki ne bodo profitirali na racun ‘Live 8 aid’ koncertov, to se ne pomeni, da niso drugi namesto njih. Glasbena industrija, ki tehta trilijone dolarjev, bo vnovcila ceke namesto njih. Druge korporacije tudi. Amerisko megapodjetje America OnLine v sodelovanju z organizatorji ‘Live 8 aid’ dogodka ponuja posnetke koncertov na svojih spletnih straneh, kar logicno pomeni vec obiskovalcev njihovih strani, kar nadalje pomeni rast delnic podjetja. Uradna spletna stran ‘Live 8 aid’-a cello reklamira to korporacijo. Takole gre: ----------- -------------------- ------------ WATCH IT Relive the global experience - watch the LIVE 8 concerts on demand, only on: www.aolmusic.com, www.aol.co.uk, www.aol.fr, www.aol.de --------------------- -------- Kaj je to, ce ni reklama? “Live 8 aid’ koncerti so, kot sem ze poudaril v komentarju, del globaliziranega spektakla, ki potencialen cloveski upor proti strukturam drzavne ter korporacijske moci spreminja v pasivno zabavo. Izreci se proti revscini je dandanes isto abstraktno kot izreci se proti Hollywood-u. To so impotentne izbire, ki nam jih spektakel mece v obraz, zato da ne bi videli sirse slike. Ne zanima me boj proti revscini kot tak, ko pa vem, da je treba najprej uniciti strukture globaliziranega kapitala, ki tovrstno revscino gojijo na svojih prsih. Bush in Blair sta ze spretno izkoristila celotno kampanjo. Potem ko sta si prisluzila sovrastvo milijonov nasprotnikov vojne v Iraku po vsem svetu, sedaj isceta priloznost, da bi se pokazala v humanitarni luci na plecih stradajocih v Afriki. V farso se je podal tudi britanski financni minister Gordon Brown, ki je ‘Live 8 aid’ oznacil za “zarek upanja” za crno celino. Bono je Blaira in Browna ze oznacil za Johna Lennona in Paula McCartneya globalnega razvoja, medtem ko je za Busha cello izjavil, da bi lahko njegova trdna politika o Afriki obrnila usodo tega kontinenta, kar ni samo naivno ampak naravnost kretensko. Klub G8 je namignil, da bi na srecanju na Skotskem dosegel dogovor o odpisu 40 milijard dolarjev (v desetletnem obdobju) dolga osemnajstim najrevnejsim drzavam - od tega se jih 14 nahaja v Afriki. Odpis dela dolga s strani VB in ZDA je zelo majhen v primerjavi z denarjem, ki ga obe drzavi porabljata za vojno v Iraku. GreenLeft na svoji spletni strani ugotavlja: "Britain’s annual contribution to the debt write-off will amount to between $70 million and $96 million, which is much less than the Blair government spends on its occupation of Iraq each year, and just a shade more than the $67.1 million it forks out each year in payments to maintain Queen Betty Windsor and her dysfunctional family. Washington will need only find between $130 million and $175 million a year, which is almost three times less than it spends each year just to run its Baghdad embassy. The total 10-year cost for the US is around what Washington will spend to build a new embassy in the Iraqi capital. Washington alone spends $2 billion a month to wage war in Iraq." Tudi ce G8 v nadaljnjih desetih letih odpise teh 40 milijard dolarjev dolga, je to se vedno obcutno premalo. Drzave saharske Afrike razvitemu svetu (beri: Svetovni Banki, Monetarnemu Denarnemu Skladu, Pariskemu Klubu in drugim) dolgujejo 230 milijard dolarjev, medtem ko celotni dolg nerazvitega sveta znasa 2.4 trilijone dolarjev. G8 se je v preteklosti ze zavezal, da bo odpisal podobne zneske dolga najrevnejsim, pa vendar revscina v tretjem svetu se naprej narasca in marsikatere obljube so se izkazale za prazne. Poleg tega vsaka dodatna pomoc (beri: zadolzevanje) ali odpis dela dolga spremljajo pogoji, ki nerazvite drzave silijo v odpiranje svojih trgov, nadaljnjo privatizacijo in fleksibilizacijo delovne sile, kar eventualno zgolj povecuje revscino. V enem izmed svojih komentarjev z naslovom ‘Hipokrizija bogatih drzav ob zagotavljanju pomoci nerazvitim’ sem podal jasen primer: "Finančna posojila za razvoj vse pogosteje spremljajo ekonomske zahteve razvitih držav in mednarodnih bančnikov, ki revne izsiljujejo, naj v zameno za pomoč razprodajo svoja naravna bogastva in javne storitvene sektorje, kot sta zdravstvo ter šolstvo, podredijo pravilom svetovnega trga. Mednarodni denarni sklad je med letoma 1995 in 2000 svoja posojila najrevnejšim pogojeval s povprečno enainštiridesetimi tovrstnimi zahtevami, na izpolnitev katerih so morali prosilci pomoči pristati vnaprej. Mednarodni bančniki se niso ozirali na uničujoče gospodarske ter socialne posledice, ki so jih njihove direktive puščale za seboj v nerazvitih državah. Najpogostejša posledica njihove tako imenovane denarne pomoči je bil občuten porast revščine. Najbolj znan primer je prav območje jugovzhodne Azije, ki ga je leta 1997 prizadela huda ekonomska kriza. Mednarodni denarni sklad je od indonezijske vlade zahteval, naj pred nakazilom denarja poleg restrukturiranja bančnega ter javnega sektorja tudi ukine državne subvencije za gorivo, elektriko in hrano. V par letih se je število najrevnejših podvojilo na 100 milijonov, plače pa so upadle za povprečno 30 odstotkov. Poročilo Svetovne banke iz leta 2002 razkriva, da polovica Indonezijcev živi z manj kot dvema dolarjema na dan, medtem ko ta številka v indonezijski provinci Aceh znaša 90 odstotkov populacije. Bolezni, kot sta malarija in hepatitis, sta v Acehu polnili pokopališča že zdavnaj pred prihodom cunamijev. Isto velja tudi za Šri Lanko in druge države v jugovzhodni Aziji." ‘Live 8 aid’ organizatorji in raznorazni sodelujoci bi morali prenehati dvoriti globalnim financnim ter gospodarskim institucijam ter se istocasno zavzemati za abstraktne cilje, kot je odprava revscine v Afriki. Glasbeni oligarhi so preko ‘Live 8 aid’ spektakla profitirali (ce ze ne materialno) na svoji slavi, medtem ko so Bush, Blair in drugi svetovni voditelji ze povzeli njihovo retoriko, s katero bodo na srecanju G8 predstavili svojo afrisko agendo – ta pa je vedno ista in njihov glavni problem je v bistvu v tem, kako jo svetu vedno znova predstavljati na nove nacine. Vseeno mi torej je, ce bodo Dave Gilmour in ekipa razdali ekstra denar od prodaje svojega albuma Echoes. Problem revscine ostaja, dokler bodo svetu vladale nedemokraticne institucije tipa G8. In proti njim je usmerjen moj pogled. Erik
odgovori >>

Re: “Par zamolčanih resnic o LIVE 8 AID-u”
Medard Kržišnik [06/07/2005]
Problem revscine ostaja, dokler bodo svetu vladale nedemokraticne institucije tipa G8. In proti njim je usmerjen moj pogled. Erik Strinjam se s tvojim pogledom. To je osrednji problem te institucije, poleg nje tudi IMF, WB, WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, WEF, itn. Njihova osrednja agenda je promovirati ideologijo neoliberalnega programa "razvoja", t.i. neliberalni globalizem, hegemonijo ekonomizma nad človekom in naravo, kjerkoli po svetu. Razumljivo je zato, da v ospredju sploh ne more biti reševanje problema revščine, ker ta ideologija razvoja zahteva njeno nenehno ustvarjanje, kakor si prikazal s številnimi podatki, denimo z izsledki aktivistov Green . Reševati je treba ekonomijo, kapitalizem, ne človeka ali globalno naravno okolje, kar poudarja te dni predsednik Bush, ko nasprotuje veljavi podobnega sporazuma kot je bil kjotski. V tem kontekstu je zato še kako smiselen angažma, delovanje, opozarjanje na globalizacijo revščine, prav zato, ker je pravilno naslovljen, na institucijo kot je G-8, ki v okviru svoje agende "svobodni trg űber alles", zato, da jo lahko uresničuje, mora delovati nedemokratično, netransparentno, torej "učinkovito", skratka kot le eden od mnogih nedemokratičnih klubov, poleg korporacij (tudi SKY konec koncev). Zato pozdravljam vsakršno politično delovanje, ki prepozna, da je na tej, torej na globalni, nad državni in ne državni ravni, danes treba delovat. Med to delovanje štejem tudi Geldofov, Bonov, Gilmourjev,... Live Aid spektakel. Vsekakor pa v prvi vrsti pozdravljam delovanje vseh aktivistov in aktivistk Gibanja za globalno pravičnost, ki v teh trenutkih, v Edinburgu skušajo preprečiti z lastnimi telesi nadaljevanje tega elitnega summita. Oba angažmaja bosta skupaj zopet dokazala nedemokratično naravo teh institucij in njenih elit, in to se mi zdi, da je zopet osrednjo sporočilo tako glasbenikov kot aktivistov (podobno kot v Genovi 2001), politično delujočih ljudi, pač pred novo globalno revolucijo, ki jo je danes prav tako naznanil član Boomtown Ratsov! (Beri Geldofovo izjavo pod njegovo sliko v naslovnici današnjega Dela, sreda, 6. julija 2005). Geldofova generacija angažmaja t.i. civilne družbe in rock koncertov iz osemdesetih lahko vedno bolj spoznava, kako je treba danes delovati. Ljudje imajo že stalno vsega dovolj. Aktivni razkroj (disruption, ha ha) is the only answer ! Tako tudi jaz vidim vse te zadeve. Lep pozdrav v Bolgarijo Tvoj Medard
odgovori >>

Re: “Par zamolčanih resnic o LIVE 8 AID-u”
Erik [06/07/2005]
Vnovic pozdravljen, tovaris Medard. Vidim, da sva danes oba priklenjena za kompjuter, kar je lepo in prav, treba je namrec spremljati dogodke na Skotskem. Ok, glej, v marsicem se naceloma strinjam s tabo, predvsem v tem, da se je treba proti globaliziranemu kapitalu in institucijam, ki ga scitijo ter zastopajo, boriti na cim vec moznih nacinov. Toda moja kritika je sledeca: kar v zadnjih nekaj letih dozivljamo v tako imenovanem razvitem, zahodnem svetu je popolna komercializacija gibanja za pravicno globalizacijo, ki nima skoraj vec nic skupnega z navidez podobnimi gibanji v tretjem svetu, recimo v Argentini, Indiji ali Juznoafriski republiki. Aktivizem na zahodu je postal del spektakla, ki producira svet, katerega se v bistvu ne da vec preveriti. Preidimo na osnovne primere: zametke komercializacije gibanja najdemo ze takoj po Seattlu 1999, ko je predvsem med mladimi protestniki zavladala moda nosenja crnih oblek in mask. Oba sva bila v Genovi 2001, kjer si lahko videl ‘cete’ zamaskiranih najstnikov s krizo identitete, ki so prisegali na Black Bloc, ne da vedeli, zakaj pri celi stvari sploh gre. Nedolgo kasneje je korporacija Diesel predstavila kolekcijo punk-hip oblek pod geslom “Rebel!”. Na reklamnih panojih so mladi fotomodeli pozirali, kakor da se nahajajo sredi ulicnih bojev. Vendar, kot receno, to so bili zgolj zametki. Aktivizem v razvitem svetu je nedvomno postal del spektakla dve leti kasneje ob masovni kampanji proti vojni v Iraku. Mirovno gibanje so prevzeli burzujski moralni pridigarji in politicni oportunisti, glasbeni oligarhi ze ves cas sluzijo gore denarja na racun skladb proti vojni ter Bushu (Eminem se mi zdi najocitnejsi primer), price smo poplavi cenenih in prepisanih knjig, medtem ko se je debata o vojni preselila iz ulic v blescece televizijske studije, kamor imajo dostop le redki ter kjer sleherno besedo v prvi vrsti omejuje samocenzura. Protivojni protesti seveda se vedno potekajo, vendar so vsi isti, kar se tice naravnost utopicnih zahtev in vse vecje pasivnosti, v katero drsijo. Danes se izrekati za ali proti vojni v Iraku je nekako isto kot se je izrekati za Pepsi ali Coca-Colo. Ce hoces, lahko temu recemo ´amerikanizacija gibanja´ – kot ves, so te lazne divizije v ZDA prisotne na vsakem koraku: ali si demokrat/liberal ali republikanec/konzervativec, ali za abortus ali proti, ali si za gej poroke ali proti, ali si za legalizacijo ali proti. Ce me kdo vprasa, ali sem za vojno v Iraku, bom odvrnil, da sem za vojno proti domacim ter globalnim oligarhom vseh vrst. Nikakor nisem za mir. ´Live 8 aid´ koncerti so zadnji megaprodukt druzbe spektakla, ki hoce gibanje predvsem mladih vsrkati vase ter ga podrediti svojim moralnim kodeksom, ki so v svoji osnovi enako plehki kot spektakularna porocanja o pedofiliji Michaela Jacksona. In tu je osnovni problem. CNN je takole povzel ´Live 8 aid´: »9 stages, over hundred artists, one million visitors and two billion spectators.« Kaj ti to pove? Natancno to, kar sam trdim v zadnjem odstavku svojega komentarja in prav nic drugega. Zame osebno aganzma raznih Bonotov in Geldofov nima realne vrednosti v boju proti revscini in globalnim kapitalisticnim institucijam. Le kako je ‘Live 8 aid’ dokazal nedemokraticno naravo teh institucij in vodilnih elit, kakor to trdis? S pozivanjem clanov kluba G8, naj odpisejo dolg afriskim drzavam, so nastopajoci v mojem mnenju prej kot kaj drugega legitimirali moc te organizacije. Ni treba odpisati dolga, v prvi vrsti je treba odpisati G8! In WTO! In IMF! In tako naprej. Geldof in Bono sta osebna prijatelja taistih elit, katerih politiki javno nasprotujeta. Seveda vrsita dolocen pritisk na clane G8, vendar ce si opazil, slednji to sprejemajo z nasmehom. Ves zakaj? Ker v zameno dobijo dve milijardi in sto milijonov pasivnih opazovalcev, kar je zanje veliko boljse kot tistih nekaj tisoc protestnikov, ki ravnokar razsajajo po Skotskem. Lep pozdrav tudi tebi v Ljubljano, Erik
odgovori >>

Re: “Par zamolčanih resnic o LIVE 8 AID-u”
Erik [07/07/2005]
Razglasam K.O. v drugi rundi.
odgovori >>

Re: “Par zamolčanih resnic o LIVE 8 AID-u”
Medard Krzisnik [08/07/2005]
Kljub k.o. ju, ki si mi ga namenil, se ti moram javit, dragi tovariš, he he. Se pridružujem do podaljškov, ker se nikakor ne počutim knock out-an, niti ni čas za to. Danes sem prebral novico na POP TV 24 ur com, da je vrh G-8 na škotskem predčasno končan. Zaradi včerajšnjega »terorističnega napada« na London, se je osmerica voditeljev odločila, da je za njih tako predčasno končana tudi razprava o problemu ustvarjanja globalne revščine ter o ekološkem Kjotskem sporazumu. Komajda dva meseca po zasedanju G-8 v Genovi, kjer je Gibanje za globalno pravičnost (GGP) v javni diskurz uspelo z akcijami nepokorščine uvrstiti ti dve temi, se je podobno zgodilo tudi po Enajstemu septembru. Po terorističnem napadu na New York, se je prenehalo javno razpravljati o teh dveh temah, začelo pa se je govoriti in tudi prakticirati: »Vojno proti terorizmu«, najprej v Afganistanu in nato v Iraku. Včeraj je globalna politično ekonomska elita zopet dobila možnost odpiranja teme o »terorizmu«, le nekaj dni po Geldofovem koncertu zoper revščino v Afriki ter po ponovnem aktivnem naslavljanju Kjotskega sporazuma s strani GGP. S predčasnim končanjem G-8 summita so G-8 elite zopet prekinile javno razpravljanje o problemu ustvarjanja revščine, oziroma globalne neenakosti ter ekologije, ki sta jo odprla Geldof in Bono, zlasti pa že Gibanje za globalno pravičnost. Na agendi se je spet znašla priljubljena tema elit: vojna proti terorizmu, ne pa tudi omenjeni temi, ki zadevata preživetje človeka in narave pred kapitalizmom. Pravzaprav ravno včerajšnjo teroristično dejanje v Londonu ter današnja odpoved nadaljevanja summita služi globalnim elitam v prid, da se znova in znova onemogoča ravno javna razprava o revščini in o ekologiji. Torej revščina le ni abstraktna tema. Kako tudi ne, saj je institucionaliziranje neoliberalnega modela razvoja G-8, ki naj bi »nerazvite« popeljal iz revščine, kakor so še v sedemdestih in osemdesetih razglašali ideologi razvoja Nove desnice, te, ki »še niso razviti«, še globlje potisnili vanjo. Toda to si Erik, že dobro prikazal z navajanjem številnih podatkov mnogih aktivistov, skupaj z navajanjem strukturnih polomov IMF in WB v Afriki in drugod v tako imenovanem »tretjem svetu«, v tvoji prejšnji razpravi. Ker elite ne marajo govoriti o nadaljnjem doživljanju poloma enega od svojih številnih razvojnih modelov, se pa zavedajo, da javnost ve, da so prav ti recepti krivi za revščino ljudi kjerkoli po svetu se te modele uveljavlja, jim prav pridejo dejanja, ki odvračajo pozornost ljudi od te teme, pač od neuspeha neoliberalnega razvojne paradigme »svobodni trg za vse«. Terorizem lahko tudi političnim elitam pride prav za odvračanje pozornosti od tem, ki se izkazujejo kot relevantne, a problematične za elite, glede na to, da je konkretno uresničevanje idej, ki jih zastopajo problematične za ljudi. Terorizem, a tudi zastraševanje pred njim, ostaja orožje elit za zastraševanje ljudi, z namenom, da se ne agendira zanje problematičnih tem, kot je ustvarjanje revščine. Nenazadnje, ali ni morda prav terorizem posledica takšne vsiljene razvojne koncepcije, ki jo legitimirajo današnji neoliberalni jupiji Blair, Bush. Nenazadnje se za neoliberalni program pri nas muzajoče ogrevajo tudi zdajšnji, trenutni socialdemokrat Borut Pahor in oba apolitična Janeza, skupaj z miselno in paradigmatsko prav tako omejenim, a popolnoma mepomembnim Strateškim svetom. Kar hočem poudarit je, da nikakor ne izključujem možnosti, da so bile v včerajšnji teroristični napad vpletene lahko ravno elite G-8. Tako pomembnega sestanka kot je G-8, na katerem se lahko vedno sprejemajo tudi »odločitve za zaprtimi vrati«, tudi ni mogoče kar tako predčasno končati. Zato moram še enkrat spregovoriti v prid Geldofovem in Bonovem angažmaju v soboto, ker sta z njim dokazala, da elite onemogočajo odpiranje dveh, očitno zelo konkretnih tem. Globalno revščino zato še naprej vidim kot konkreten problem, torej kot zelo perečo, relevantno temo, od katere se želijo distancirat sedanje politično ekonomske G-8 elite. Vse kar ponujajo javnosti je vsiljevanje vojne proti terorizmu ter krepitev nadzornih mehanizmov globalnih državljanov, z uvajanjem raznih »patriotskih aktov«, vse od Washingtona do Londona in še kje. Avtoritarna minimalna globalna država za nadzor kogarkoli in kjrerkoli po svetu. Kar želim poudariti je, da naj se začenja v bodoče bolje ozaveščati, da je potrebno javno odpirati temo o povezanosti med terorizmom in sedanjim elitnim neoliberalnim razvojnim modelom, ki ustvarja globalno revščino. V tukajšnjih osrednjih medijih danes nisem zasledil te razprave, v GGP pa ta razprava obstaja od 11. septembra dalje. Nadaljevati jo kaže še naprej, ko je zopet onemogočena razprava o ustvarjanju globalne revščine, torej Geldofova razprava. Gre za zelo konkretno in ne abstraktno revščino, naj ji rečem raje planirano revščino. P.S.: O situacionizmu in krizi identitete znotraj GGP bova kdaj drugič. Še enkrat Medard
odgovori >>

Re: “Par zamolčanih resnic o LIVE 8 AID-u”
Erik [11/07/2005]
Zadnje dni tekam naokoli zato nimam veliko casa, da bi ti odgovoril na poslednjo repliko v svojem dolgem in sirokem stilu, ampak sem ti nasel dva odlicna clanka, ki bi se ju izplacalo prebrati. Pripel ti ju bom od spodaj. Pozdrav v Lj, Erik
odgovori >>

Live 8: Who organised the PR campaign for Blair and Bush?
Erik [11/07/2005]
By Ann Talbot In what was dubbed “the final push,” the last Live 8 concert took place in Edinburgh on July 6 as heads of state assembled at Gleneagles for the G8 conference. A rain-soaked crowd of 50,000 heard Nelson Mandela say via video link, “In this new century millions of people in the world’s poorest countries remain imprisoned and enslaved in chains. They are in the prison of poverty. It’s time to set them free.” The Edinburgh concert marked the end of a truly massive media event. Five million people are said to have logged on to AOL’s live video stream of the Saturday, July 2, concerts. Upward of a million people are said to have attended the Live 8 events. Hundreds of millions are reported to have watched the concerts on TV. A quarter of a million people marched through the streets of Edinburgh. The scale of the Live 8 event was spectacular. But its essential aim was of a far more politically sinister character than its altruistic pose would suggest. It was organised and backed by individuals and organisations with close ties to the Labour government of Tony Blair, and had the official backing of the government itself. By boosting the pitiful debt relief package agreed on by the G8 and hailing the proposals of Blair’s own Commission for Africa for aid and relief tied to free-market initiatives, it set out to provide a much-needed mask of humanitarian concern to both Blair and US President George W. Bush. The organisers of the event and its leading spokesmen—Bob Geldof and Bono—both harked back to the legacy of Live Aid, Live 8’s 1985 predecessor. But whereas Live Aid raised millions of pounds to combat famine in Ethiopia, they stressed that this time they did not want “your money.” Echoing Lord Kitchener’s 1914 call for army recruits, they wanted “You!” However, this is not to say that no money changed hands. The 10 concerts cost Ј25 million to stage. Ј1.6 million was paid to the Prince’s Trust to persuade that organisation to cancel its Party in the Park. Performers were not paid, though those at the Philadelphia concert reportedly got gifts worth Ј1,700. Perhaps the greatest payoff will be in the boost the concerts give to record sales. Sir Paul McCartney’s performance of “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” was on sale within hours. London record shops reported a 1,000 percent increase in sales for Pink Floyd CDs the next day. David Gilmour, Floyd’s lead guitarist, immediately announced that his share would go to charity, and some other artists followed suit. But the royalties paid to artists are just a small proportion of the profits made from sales by the record companies. And there have been no magnanimous gestures from this quarter. Moreover, in a digital world, CD sales represent a declining section of the market compared to sponsorship, broadcast rights and merchandising. Most of the costs of the event will be recouped in this way, and it is here that much of the profit and relatively cheap and phenomenally lucrative publicity will be sought. Naked commercialism was evident in even the most ostensibly charitable aspects of the operation. White “Make Poverty History” wristbands have been one of the most visible emblems of the campaign. From the start, they have been surrounded by controversy. It has been reported that some of these wristbands were made in Chinese sweatshops. Journalist Stuart Hodkinson revealed in Red Pepper magazine that some of the wristbands were being sold with the logos of companies that are accused of violating workers’ rights. This included fashion company Tommy Hilfiger, accused by Stephen Coats, Executive Director of the US/Labor Education in the Americas Project of being “at the bottom of the list in demonstrating refusal to accept responsibility for the way workers are treated.” The offending wristbands were being sold at shops owned by Scottish millionaire Tom Hunter, who has pledged Ј1 million to the Make Poverty History campaign. However, Hunter is a relatively small player compared to some of the corporate enterprises that have been signed up. The backing that Live 8 has won from media mogul Rupert Murdoch is just one indication that a massive business machine has been set in motion. Murdoch’s British tabloid the Sun gave the event enthusiastic support, although it is not a paper noted for its interest in Africa or liberal causes. It is, however, a key supporter of Blair. The Murdoch and Live 8 connections are close. Elisabeth Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch’s daughter, is married to Matthew Freud, one of the organisers. Freud runs a leading public relations company that is, according to the Financial Times, one of the most influential in the UK. It has the largest media and entertainment client list in the country, with clients including famous actors and major companies such as AOL—of which more later. He and his wife also have connections to the Blair government. They sit on various government committees, and his company, Freud Communications, has organised events for both the government and the Labour Party. Freud’s sister, Emma, is married to Richard Curtis, the writer/director/producer responsible for Love Actually, the Bridget Jones movies, Notting Hill, Mr Bean and Four Weddings and a Funeral. His latest film, The Girl in the Cafй, is a love story set at a fictional G8 conference, and is supposed to show how ordinary people of conscience can persuade the political establishment to do good. He is among those who founded the charity Comic Relief in the wake of Live Aid. Curtis has been one of the main organisers of Live 8. He is said to be particularly close to Chancellor Gordon Brown, who featured sympathetically as a barely disguised character in his latest movie. Geldof’s production company, Ten Alps, which provided the two big screens in Hyde Park, is also closely associated with the government. It owns 70 percent of Teachers TV, which makes programmes for the Department for Education and Skills. Last year, it enjoyed a 400 percent increase in profits. Ten Alps is positioning itself to become one of the key independent television companies in Britain. The high profile that Live 8 has given it can only enhance the company’s international exposure. Live 8 offered an unprecedented marketing opportunity. Nokia and Volvo were among the major corporate sponsors. Volvo spokesman Soren Johansson said the event “fits with the DNA of the company” and “appeals to people’s emotions.” AOL ran live video streaming, billing Live 8 as “the day music changed the world.” The general opinion was that video streaming had proved its commercial value. Live 8 may indeed have changed the world or at least that part of it that comes under the heading of advertising. ABC in the US was disappointed that its coverage netted only 2.9 million viewers because the lineup had been aimed at “boomers,” who would likely be at home on a Saturday night. But as one media expert said, the advertising was already paid for. Although some of the charities affiliated to Make Poverty History had expressed their alarm over the scandal surrounding the wristbands, the commercial orientation of the campaign was no secret. The Live 8 web site still offers a link to AOL’s music download service. Despite its appearance, Live 8 was not a protest. It was a pro-government rally. Both Blair and his Chancellor Gordon Brown closely associated themselves with Live 8. Brown spoke on a charity platform in Edinburgh the evening before the Make Poverty History rally that was supposed to be putting pressure on him! As part of the buildup to the concerts, Blair gave an hour-long interview on MTV sitting alongside Geldof and fielding questions from Destiny’s Child. The Notting Hill glitterati “did good” for Blair if no one else. As an effusive Observer journalist said, “By first light today, a world majority will have offered Tony Blair a significant mandate for change.” We are now being asked to believe that attending a concert, or merely watching it on television, confers a democratic mandate. The Blair government was elected by only 20 percent of UK voters. It has the lowest mandate of any British government in history. The slogan of the campaign might as well have been “Make Elections History.” Even the arrangements for the concerts, with their separate enclosures for celebrities, spoke of the essentially elitist conception of Live 8. This was an elitism based not on the traditional values of the British ruling class, but on the new global super-rich who are close to the Labour government, and who have made their base in London with its sympathetic tax laws. Black African musicians of considerable talent were relegated to a side event in Cornwall, because they do not have the same commercial weight as the acts booked for the Hyde Park event.
odgovori >>

Africa´s new best friends
Erik [11/07/2005]
The US and Britain are putting the multinational corporations that created poverty in charge of its relief------ George Monbiot Tuesday July 5, 2005 The Guardian------ I began to realise how much trouble we were in when Hilary Benn, the secretary of state for international development, announced that he would be joining the Make Poverty History march on Saturday. What would he be chanting, I wondered? "Down with me and all I stand for"? Benn is the man in charge of using British aid to persuade African countries to privatise public services; wasn´t the march supposed to be a protest against policies like his? But its aims were either expressed or interpreted so loosely that anyone could join. This was its strength and its weakness. The Daily Mail ran pictures of Gordon Brown and Bob Geldof on its front page, with the headline "Let´s Roll", showing that nothing either Live 8 or Make Poverty History has done so far represents a threat to power. The G8 leaders and the business interests their summit promotes can absorb our demands for aid, debt, even slightly fairer terms of trade, and lose nothing. They can wear our colours, speak our language, claim to support our aims, and discover in our agitation not new constraints but new opportunities for manufacturing consent. Justice, this consensus says, can be achieved without confronting power. They invite our representatives to share their stage, we invite theirs to share ours. The economist Noreena Hertz offers, according to the commercial speakers´ agency that hires her, "real solutions for businesses and individuals. Hertz teaches companies how to be smart and avoid the frictions that surface when corporate interests conflict with private life ... the political right is not necessarily wrong." Then she stands on the Make Poverty History stage and calls for poverty to be put at the top of the agenda. There is, as far as some of the MPH organisers are concerned, no contradiction: the new consensus denies that there´s a conflict between ending poverty and business as usual. The G8 leaders have seized this opportunity with both hands. Multinational corporations, they argue, are not the cause of Africa´s problems but the solution. From now on they will be responsible for the relief of poverty. They have already been given control of the primary instrument of US policy towards Africa, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. The act is a fascinating compound of professed philanthropy and raw self-interest. To become eligible for help, African countries must bring about "a market-based economy that protects private property rights", "the elimination of barriers to United States trade and investment" and a conducive environment for US "foreign policy interests". In return they will be allowed "preferential treatment" for some of their products in US markets. The important word is "some". Clothing factories in Africa will be allowed to sell their products to the US as long as they use "fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United States" or if they avoid direct competition with US products. The act, treading carefully around the toes of US manufacturing interests, is comically specific. Garments containing elastic strips, for example, are eligible only if the elastic is "less than 1 inch in width and used in the production of brassieres". Even so, African countries´ preferential treatment will be terminated if it results in "a surge in imports". It goes without saying that all this is classified as foreign aid. The act instructs the US Agency for International Development to develop "a receptive environment for trade and investment". What is more interesting is that its implementation has been outsourced to the Corporate Council on Africa. The CCA is the lobby group representing the big US corporations with interests in Africa: Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Starbucks, Raytheon, Microsoft, Boeing, Cargill, Citigroup and others. For the CCA, what is good for General Motors is good for Africa. "Until African countries are able to earn greater income," it says, "their ability to buy US products will be limited." The US state department has put it in charge of training African governments and businesses. The CCA runs the US government´s annual forum for African business, and hosts the Growth and Opportunity Act´s steering committee. Now something very similar is being set up in the UK. Tomorrow the Business Action for Africa summit will open in London with a message from Tony Blair. Chaired by Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, the head of Anglo American, its speakers include executives from Shell, British American Tobacco, Standard Chartered Bank, De Beers and the Corporate Council on Africa. One of its purposes is to inaugurate the Investment Climate Facility, a $550m fund financed by the UK´s foreign-aid budget, the World Bank and the other G8 nations, but "driven and controlled by the private sector". The fund will be launched by Niall FitzGerald, now head of Reuters, but formerly chief executive of Unilever, and before that Unilever´s representative in apartheid South Africa. He wants the facility, he says, to help create a "healthy investment climate" that will offer companies "attractive financial returns compared to competing destinations". Anglo American and Barclays have already volunteered to help. Few would deny that one of the things Africa needs is investment. But investment by many of our multinationals has not enriched its people but impoverished them. The history of corporate involvement in Africa is one of forced labour, evictions, murder, wars, the under-costing of resources, tax evasion and collusion with dictators. Nothing in either the Investment Climate Facility or the Growth and Opportunity Act imposes mandatory constraints on corporations. While their power and profits in Africa will be enhanced with the help of our foreign-aid budgets, they will be bound only by voluntary commitments: of the kind that have been in place since 1973 and have proved useless. Just as Gordon Brown´s "moral crusade" encourages us to forget the armed crusade he financed, the state-sponsored rebranding of the companies working in Africa prompts us to forget what Shell has been doing in Nigeria, what Barclays and Anglo American and De Beers have done in South Africa, and what British American Tobacco has done just about everywhere. From now on, the G8 would like us to believe, these companies will be Africa´s best friends. In the name of making poverty history, the G8 has given a new, multi-headed East India Company a mandate to govern the continent. Without a critique of power, our campaign, so marvellously and so disastrously inclusive, will merely enhance this effort. Debt, unfair terms of trade and poverty are not causes of Africa´s problems but symptoms. The cause is power: the ability of the G8 nations and their corporations to run other people´s lives. Where, on the Live 8 stages and in Edinburgh, was the campaign against the G8´s control of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the UN? Where was the demand for binding global laws for multinational companies? At the Make Poverty History march, the speakers insisted that we are dragging the G8 leaders kicking and screaming towards our demands. It seems to me that the G8 leaders are dragging us dancing and cheering towards theirs.