,
2005 — "What Now?" was all the
little sign said. It was lost in a sea of much bigger
banners demanding economic justice for Africa. Only
one marcher clutched it in a crowd of more than
200,000 rallying to Make Poverty History in Edinburgh,
Scotland, just down the road from where the G8 leaders
were to meet the following week.
"What now?" is an even more urgent question now that
that meeting is over, and with concerns about
terrorism explosively interrupting the summit where
world leaders debated how the rich world could help
the poor. England's Tony Blair insisted that the
original agenda would be pursued despite the bombings
of three London underground trains and a bus by an
unknown and possibly
home-grown terrorist group.
The outcome of the G8 summit for Africa was portrayed
as a major victory, and one that rocker Bono and Live
8 organizer Bob Geldof applauded.
Said Sir Bob: "I wouldn't say this is the end of
extreme poverty, but it is the beginning of the end."
Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, head of the
African Union, called the summit a success and said
that African issues were being tackled
"realistically." Africa must respond by promoting good
governance, democracy and human rights, and tackling
corruption, he told BBC.
It sounded real good and was just what western
governments want to hear, even from the president of
one of the most corrupt countries in Africa.
Objectively, the G8 promise was nothing to sneeze at:
$50 billion was pledged to help ease African poverty
over the next five years, along with debt relief for
18 countries. Sounds good -- but is it?
If the outcome was so great, then why were the
organizations behind the campaign, the people who know
and care the most about African poverty, so bummed
out? This is not a question that most of the media
explored in a culture where perception trumps reality
and spindoctors have proven much more impactful than
witchdoctors.
The G8 patted itself on the back. And much of the
media, like the world leaders, moved on, but Africa's
needs have not.
African journalists, who know more than most western
reporters about their own countries, were frustrated
because they couldn't even question their own leaders
at the summit. "Was this some kind of a hoax?" asked a
Nigerian who works for Sky TV. "If we do not have a
chance to talk to them, then it will be the mother of
all let-downs."
Kenyan journalist John Kamau wrote: "The African story
must be given to those who can report it from within
and without. We need desperately to know their
perspective on the connection between terrorism,
poverty, democracy and rule of law."
The anti-poverty campaigns expressed deep
disappointment and disgust because while more aid is
being pledged, it is far less than what all the
experts insist is needed. The UN Millennium goal for
Africa demands $50 billion a year; the G8 pledged
$10B.
BBC explains: "Campaigners say, the modest increases
to be delivered by 2010 will be too little too late...
Thanks to pressure from Germany and France, it looks
like Gordon Brown's International Finance Facility may
be financed through air ticket taxes rather than aid
budgets."
A lack of progress on trade and climate-control issues
was widely condemned. Activist Peter Hardstaff said:
"The G8's approach on trade seems to be 'Ask not what
we can do for the poor, but what the poor can do for
us.'"
Concluded the World Development Movement: "A historic
breakthrough was promised, instead we saw a tiny step.
The deals on debt and aid fall way short of what is
needed to achieve global poverty reduction targets,
and on trade it's business as usual as the G8 attempt
to bulldoze more liberalization out of the poor. These
tiny sums of money are nothing more than a sticking
plaster over the deep wounds the G8 are inflicting by
forcing failed economic policies such as
privatization, free trade and corporate deregulation
on Africa."
Writing in The Guardian, George Monbiot revealed how
the U.S. and multi-national corporations shaped the
outcome from the shadows in lobbying that much of the
press missed:
"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.
"In the United States, they have already been given
control of the primary instrument of U.S. 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
U.S.
'foreign policy interests.' In return, they will be
allowed 'preferential treatment' for some of their
products in U.S. markets.
"The important word is 'some.' ...It goes without
saying that all this is classified as foreign aid. The
act instructs the U.S. 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 another
agency, the Corporate Council on Africa."
Alas, that's where we ended up, after Live 8, after
the marches, and, in the UK at least, after a massive
media campaign about Africa's urgent problems.
The people spoke, and so did their "leaders." The
powerful have now drawn their line in the sand (trap)
at the Gleneagles golf course.
The G8 globalizers and the goniffs they represent all
play lip service to Africa's needs. They know the
life-and-death problems. They know the urgency. They
like having their picture taken with Bono and Brad
Pitt. And they want change, too -- if they don't have
to pay for it.
They are not in a hurry. They can wait.
The passionate protests of the rock stars have now
become a product to be downloaded from AOL. The
activist army has gone home. Conservatives insist
George Bush has done more for Africa than any
president in history. (And so, presumably, did the
Belgians in the Congo and the Afrikaaners in South
Africa.)
That's the media-sanitized white western version of
history they want remembered. They want the history
of poverty in Africa to remain history, especially the
part about the role the west played in exploiting the
continent. Are our media exposing the charade, or have
they become part of it?
Back to that simple and most difficult of questions:
"What now?"
— News Dissector Danny Schechter is the "blogger in
chief" of MediaChannel. org. His latest film, WMD
(Weapons of Mass Deception), dissects the media
coverage of the Iraq War. (See: www.wmdthefilm.com)
