|
Live 8
Jul 5, 2005 21:07:41 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 5, 2005 21:07:41 GMT -5
Live 8, the concert successor to Live Aid, took place on July 2nd. Live 8 in many ways represents a lot of things that have changed in between the two concerts. First, the concert did not rely on direct aid donations as Live Aid did, but instead relied on NGO networking and publiscizing tactics to get the word out and ally with Roman Catholic groups, the One Campaign, and others in order to put pressure on the G8 meeting, chaired by Tony Blaire, to change how these major lender nations related to Africa. In addition the use of the internet and other mass communications in order to bring the concert to even more viewers. The concert pretty much followed the text book of any NGO Course in terms of putting pressure on a closed group to change its policies. So the question remains - will these theories of NGO and Trans-National Activist Network theory be validated by the example of the Live 8 concert?
I feel that it will to some extent be proved true. There was too much political momentum leading into the G8 conference for there not to be an announcement of a changed stance on Africa. Keep in mind that many G8 proposals are high in rhetoric at the heads of state level, but if they have momentum can create real change at the ministerial and sub-ministerial level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Live 8
Jul 6, 2005 9:13:33 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2005 9:13:33 GMT -5
I sure hope they do. The global stance on Africa - in general - is atrocious. I'm no bleeding-heart, save-the-world type, but I was raised to believe that America is at its best when it helps people help themselves - be they fellow Americans, people in developing nations, or the downtrodden in third-world countries. If there were really a "culture of life" in America, we'd A) be a lot more concerned with the daily horrors, genocides and other atrocities committed in all parts of Africa, B) do more to stem the AIDS epidemic sweeping the continent and C) take REAL steps to changing things - like following Dikembe's lead and building hospitals, not spewing rhetoric year in and year out.
Unfortunately, I fear that no matter how many billions of dollars are raised, money will be tied up in political squabbles, given to friends of politicians, etc. I don't mean this as a knock against the current American administration at all, that applies to ALL the governments that have let the continent and its people deteriorate over the last decades.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Live 8
Jul 6, 2005 10:02:25 GMT -5
Post by Cambridge on Jul 6, 2005 10:02:25 GMT -5
I sure hope they do. The global stance on Africa - in general - is atrocious. I'm no bleeding-heart, save-the-world type, but I was raised to believe that America is at its best when it helps people help themselves - be they fellow Americans, people in developing nations, or the downtrodden in third-world countries. If there were really a "culture of life" in America, we'd A) be a lot more concerned with the daily horrors, genocides and other atrocities committed in all parts of Africa, B) do more to stem the AIDS epidemic sweeping the continent and C) take REAL steps to changing things - like following Dikembe's lead and building hospitals, not spewing rhetoric year in and year out. Unfortunately, I fear that no matter how many billions of dollars are raised, money will be tied up in political squabbles, given to friends of politicians, etc. I don't mean this as a knock against the current American administration at all, that applies to ALL the governments that have let the continent and its people deteriorate over the last decades. Amen Buffalo. I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph. Although I feel very much as you do (re: second paragraph) I'm willing to be more optimistic -- at least in regards to this poll. Not that voting will help in any way, obviously, but in that a lot of change requires people to believe that change is possible. Therefor, I'm consciously putting myself on the side of possiblitity and optimism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Live 8
Jul 6, 2005 10:12:43 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2005 10:12:43 GMT -5
Alright you win. I shall henceforth be optimistic that the well-to-do on the planet get their collective acts together. By the way, if any of you are interested sign up at www.one.org. Or if you want to contribute more than just a signature, head over to the groups I "work" for, www.data.org or www.careusa.org.
|
|
|
Live 8
Jul 6, 2005 14:42:23 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 6, 2005 14:42:23 GMT -5
I agree that I was also raised to think that America was a land of opportunity and also a country that gave a "hand up" to those in need abroad. Needless to say I was shocked when I discovered that we offer less than 1% of 1% of our federal budget for foreign aid - as a matter of fact we give about as much in total foreign aid as Brazil does. In fact, we actually give less aid than that because a good percentage of our aid is "tied" meaning that those we aid have to buy American products meaning we're not really giving them the opportunity to do what they really need to do to help themselves out.
I was hoping YB who is conservative and has also run and NGO would discover this post - I would pay a good amount of money to figure out his views on an event like Live 8.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Live 8
Jul 6, 2005 15:02:59 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2005 15:02:59 GMT -5
I'm not concerned with the effect the concerts themselves have - this movement to "save Africa" was swelling long before Geldof and Bono got invovled (although I'm VERY glad they did - unfortunately, people rarely respond to anything these days unless a celebrity is involved). I'd rather hear what someone like you're describing, St. Pete, thinks about changing the way America and other well-off countries treat the countries that need help the most - not the ones we can most benefit from helping. Until we do, all this "culture of life" crap is just that.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Live 8
Jul 6, 2005 20:42:11 GMT -5
Post by thebin on Jul 6, 2005 20:42:11 GMT -5
"Needless to say I was shocked when I discovered that we offer less than 1% of 1% of our federal budget for foreign aid - as a matter of fact we give about as much in total foreign aid as Brazil does."
That is shocking indeed. According to the CIA World Fact Book, Brazil is one of the largest recipients of economic aid in the world. It received $30 Billion USD in 2002. Conversely, the US is the largest donor nation in the world on the government aid alone- which is a fraction of what Americans, who shame Europeans in the realm of private philanthropy, give privately. But at any rate, I would love to see you explain how Brazil, one of the world's biggest recipients of aid, "gives about as much" aid as one of the biggest donor nations does.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Live 8
Jul 6, 2005 20:49:35 GMT -5
Post by thebin on Jul 6, 2005 20:49:35 GMT -5
The US is the largest aid donor in the world, giving $19 billion USD, or more than #2 Japan and #3 France combined. That is merely the public money. On a per capita basis, Americans are among the most generous charitible private givers in the world. None of this of course accounts for the TRILLIONS in treasure we have spent on our European and Asian allies' defense for the last 2/3rds of a century- subsidizing at stagerring costs their own economic largesse- be that aid or welfare, an economic possibilty on their parts spurred in the first place by the Marshall plan. That's for another day.
Net ODA in 2004 as US dollar amounts Country Aid amount by dollars Source: Official Development Assistance increases further - but 2006 targets still a challenge, OECD, April 11, 2005
United States 18,999 (million) Japan 8,859 France 8,475 United Kingdom 7,836 Germany 7,497 Netherlands 4,235 Sweden 2,704 Spain 2,547 Canada 2,537 Italy 2,484 Norway 2,200 Denmark 2,025 Australia 1,465 Belgium 1,452 Switzerland 1,379 Portugal 1,028 Austria 691 Finland 655 Ireland 586 Greece 464 Luxembourg 241 New Zealand 210
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Live 8
Jul 6, 2005 20:55:28 GMT -5
Post by thebin on Jul 6, 2005 20:55:28 GMT -5
Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas — more than the governments of the UK, France, Japan, and Germany COMBINED according to the OECD 2004 estimates.
Partial Breakdown: "International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers. Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development. US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000 "
Source: Dr. Carol Adelman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002.
|
|
|
Live 8
Jul 6, 2005 22:06:47 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 6, 2005 22:06:47 GMT -5
Interesting findings, bin. My qualm with your rebuttal is that very little of this charitable giving is tied to our government, which means that, although it contributes to American soft power as deployed overseas, it is not associated with our government, so (mis)perceptions of American policy and leadership endure.
This said, I have great faith in these charitable efforts because most of them are more able to respond to local needs than some government bureaucracies. This giving should be encouraged.
When we examine the aid program and the Department of State budget, we find important programs that are shortchanged. The President's Millennium Challenge Corporation should receive $3 billion in funds every fiscal year. This program provides aid on a performance/criteria-based scale and aims to move developing nations to even more favorable ground. Yet, it is slated to receive $1.8 billion in FY06. This is far too little if we want to affect real change in Africa and elsewhere.
There are important programs in our foreign aid budget that merit increased funding. Charitable organizations offer no substitute to what these programs can do. Radio Marti and TV Marti are key efforts to advertise democracy in Cuba, and they have similar programs in the Middle East and Asia,. Congressional leaders have considered whether to cut these programs because they do not compete favorably with local media, but maybe the solution is to throw more money behind them so we have increased capabilities.
Finally, I'll just throw something out there. Compare how much we spend on peacemaking to how much we spend on hard power/defense. If we are moving toward a policy of regime change, we must invest in peacemaking capabilities. We currently do not have adequate resources in our foreign aid/operations budget to do so, which is why Defense has carried the load.
Anyway, interesting discussion. I have more points to make, but these are enough for now. MY main point is to suggest that charitable giving is no substitute for government spending in these areas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Live 8
Jul 6, 2005 23:34:17 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2005 23:34:17 GMT -5
I don't care how many billions or trillions the US government or our people donate. Same goes for people in Europe and their governments. The fact remains we've ALL allowed an entire continent to fall into a squalor most of us cannot even comprehend simply because it benefits us in no way. Meanwhile we spend millions of dollars a day on "aid" that is either tied to our personal economic interests or goes to asinine programs that are merely "fingers in the dike" and do little to solve any real problem. As with a lot of the developed worlds spending, we attack the symptom and not the disease. Spend all the billions you want, it is OBVIOUSLY not helping because we're obviously not spending it the right way.
And of those billions of dollars we've "donated" I'd like to see how much of it is actually put to the use of the people it is intended for and not lost in the shuffle somewhere. Once again, I'd like to add the disclaimer I'm in no way taking shots at the Bush administration or anyone/thing affiliated with it. This problem has been going on for decades, at least Bush seems willing to address the problem (although his blind eye to Darfur was/is horribly reminiscent of what went down in Rwanda a few years ago). What has happend in most parts of Africa is a black eye on all the world's developed, well-to-do nations. Shame on all of us for letting it get this far. But it is NOT too optimistic to think we can change things... we can. It is just going to take the commitment of the American people, the English, the French, etc. Unfortunately, most American's are so out of touch with what is going on in the world, they "see [that] footage, they say 'Oh, my God, that's horrible.' And then they'll go on eating their dinners."
|
|
|
Live 8
Jul 6, 2005 23:37:48 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 6, 2005 23:37:48 GMT -5
The wrap on the numbers that bin mentions is that the US accounts the amount of foreign aid giving. For example, the African Growth and Opportunities Act - which is actually a series of tax cuts for businesses doing business in Africa - counts as foreign aid. In general what we think of as foreign aid - direct bilateral support for specific development programs in a thrid world nation is not the definition that the US uses. The numbers I am refering to are from a Foreign Affairs article written by Professor Madeline Albright, I would assume Maddam Secretary knows something about the accounting of the foreign aid budget because that is the responsbility of state.
|
|