I remember Bob Geldof's effort well: it probably impacted on me more than anyone else in Australia!

Horrified by the dreadful African famine, I gave up my comfy job as a television newsman with the ABC to head up a tiny NGO housed above a shoe store in Dandenong, Victoria - Action AIDS Australia.

My idea was to get the Australian government to donate its unwanted and unsaleable hercules aircraft to ferry famine relief.Nationwide, pilots rushed to offer their help to fly them.

The Hawke government donated two Hercules and spent millions refurbishing them.But instead of letting us fly them the job was contracted to commercial operators despite my warning they'd become flying cash registers.

I wasn't even invited to wave 'em goodbye. I was in disgrace for being a critic!

Now retired, I head up my own non profit charity, The Australian AIDS Fund Incorporated, based in Melbourne.

Please visit us at www.aids.net.au

Once again, I'd been moved by pity over the appalling way Australia had treated a NSW pre-schooler, Eve van Grafhorst, the first Australian child to be HIV infected via a blood transfusion.

She and her family virtually hounded out of Oz, given sanctuary in New Zealand where she died as an 11 year old.

Now,I have just finished funding the building of a combined primary/secondary school that'll care for some 300 AIDS orphans and other impoverished children in Malawi, Africa.Story and photos are on the website.

Now I need ten thousand dollars to equip the school and buy the books the kids and their teachers need. Would you help me help?

Brian Haill

President,
The Australian AIDS Fund Incorporated,
PO Box 1347, Frankston, Victoria, 3199
Ph (03) 9 770 9210
Email: bhaill@bigpond.net.au

A betrayal of Africa is indeed happening. As you rightly mention, the corruption of some African leaders as well as the hypocricy of Western governments in donating aid but simultaneouly maintaining trade barriers which hurt poor nations' growth opportunities is appaling and costs the lives of many. But to argue against the donations of aid per se, or against the efforts by some, like Geldorf, to raise awareness of world poverty, does not bring about a solution. Rather, it should be a discussion about better ways to distribute, and invest, the millions of dollars so many of the rich world's population are generous enough to give. It should be a discussion about the deficiencies of development economics as practiced by the IMF and the World Bank. It should be a discussion about ways to encourage pharmaceutical companies to research malaria. It should be a discussion about how international companies involved in mining in Africa could behave more ethical. Your data on the inverse relationship of aid and growth may be correct, but what would the growth rates look like without aid? How much higher might the death toll be?

Meg
The point of the inverse relationship between growth and aid is not just the obvious one that countries that get aid are poor; it’s the counter-intuitive one that poor countries are worse off with aid than without it.

This is well-documented, but the reasons are the subject of debate. Some emphasise political factors (its easier for corrupt kleptocracies to stay in power when their social problems are ameliorated by donations) some institutional (over-regulation and lack of property rights). Aid may reduce domestic political and economic pressure to reform.

A recent IMF working paper suggests that the effect of aid is to raise the exchange rate and therefore undermine the competitiveness of the export and manufacturing industries, which have proven the surest route to development in very poor countries, leading to slower economic growth. This makes intuitive economic sense and is politically more palatable than other explanations that seem to blame the victim.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.cfm?sk=18380.0

I agree that Geldof has been effective in raising awareness of this issue, and that it is important for the west to address poverty. The key question is how. The academic research suggests strongly that the more aid/less debt route is far less effective than the more trade/less protectionism and regulation route. All may have a part to play, but throwing money at failed states, or forgiving their debts, is at least as likely to make things worse as make them better.

I agree with much of what Rhian has written.

The biggest problem Africa faces is the absence of democratic processes (despite - at least for the ex UK colonies - them being handed a complete set when they acquired nationhood) and the adoption of a tribal based preference system. Mugabe is but one of the despots who use such divisions to retain a corrupt hold on power. -

I was in Salisbury (now Harare) in 1980 - one week after Mugabe came to power - He inherited a wealthy and prosperous economy which, whilst managed by whites was benefitting blacks - now he presides over a charnel house of misery in which the whites have been forced to flee and the blacks starve or die from the diseases he has imposed upon them. Given the opportunity of hindesight - Rhodesia, for one was better off as a colony and so most other ex-colonies and protectorates - unless anyone here wants to mention the benefits of brought by Amin, Mubuto or any of the other tyrants and despots who crawl out from under stones whenever they get a chance - I find it strange that, say, Australia, Canada and New Zealand appear to have all managed to grow and flourish and resist the misery of tyrants, while so many other ex-colonies have, as far as the general population is concerned, failed and fallen into an abyss.

By the year 1900, European ownership and control by region was Africa 90.4%,Polynesia 98.9%, Asia 56.5%,Australia 100.0% ,Americas 27.2% .

Are you asking why the colonised have not been able to re-develop what they lost - in just over 100 years?

Or are you asking why those who have not been able to decolonise appear to be better off? (which they ain't)

In other circles it could be said that not all the worlds environments and atmospheric issues could sustain everyone becoming industrialised.

Currently there is a sustainable amount of countries moving to the next phase of being a developed country. Which requires a sustainable amount of energy for its industrialisation.

Energy cost money and with more competitors on the market, the more the price for the demand. It is a cruel method of survival.

We also must look at the Foods that are deliberately dumped so that the market is not glutted with the produce that drives the price down. To sustain the value of a product, food is left to rot.

Why is this food not shipped to where it could be needed to feed the starving?

I understand what the writer above is attempting to say. That 100 years is not along time in the evolution of a society.

The problem is that Africa cannot afford to make mistakes in choosing its leaders now it has its freedom. Time is of the essence.

Without breaking ground with regards to sex education and birth control we are seeing epidemics of Starvation and AIDS.

The only consolation to man could be the African establishing an immunity to disease.

For the generations of Africans who have died and mutated their genes, so will the antibodies pharmecutical company may find?

Has anyone thought about the effect of business taxation in the situation here?
(A business does not pay tax, just adds a margin to it and sends it on its compounding way, widening the gap between primary and tertiary pricing)

Business taxation is a compounding of taxes down to the lowest economic level, i.e. agriculture and the 3rd world countries.

They get to pay the tax as they can not pass it on.

The 3rd world hierarchy live as they are in a 1st world country with wages and benefits to match, but with out the wealth to match.

Result extreme poverty and debt (with corruption)

Helen, are you giving the whole picture in what you say about debt?

You highlight the debt-to-governments issue: "Almost all poor countries' official debt owed to Western governments had been forgiven in the years to 2000 and that remaining was then cancelled through the Paris Club of aid donors" and say that "forgiving debt that they are not servicing from African countries is much easier than reducing the subsidies..." as if there wasn't much debt and it wasn't being repaid anyway.

But on the makepovertyhistory website they say that, including the debt to the IMF, World Bank etc, "Only 10% of the total debt owed by low-income countries has been cancelled" and that "Despite these initiatives, in country after country governments are spending more on repaying debts than they are on health or education... In Malawi, for example, more is spent on servicing the country's debt than on health, despite nearly one in five Malawians being HIV positive. In Zambia, debt repayments to the IMF alone cost $25 million, more than the budget for education despite 40% of rural women being unable to read and write."
That website also has debt-relief good news stories: "In Benin, 54% of the money saved through debt relief has been spent on health including rural primary health care and HIV programmes.
In Tanzania, debt relief enabled the government to abolish primary school fees, leading to a 66% increase in attendance.
After Mozambique was granted debt relief, it was able to offer all children free immunisation.
In Uganda, debt relief led to 2.2 million people gaining access to clean water."

So, it seems that further, much bigger, properly handled, debt relief would be a good thing, and it certainly goes too far to claim that "The international NGOs, led by Geldof and his singers, are facilitating yet another betrayal of Africa".

Dunart – I am not sure what credentials you may or may not claim for understanding the dynamics of business taxes or the very nature of corporations, their responsibilities under law, the nature of their ownership or the problems we would face if they had not been invented. I can, however, assure you that without “businesses” your very existence would be very precarious – unable to find any organisation with sufficient resource as to produce anything beyond a sack of porridge – certainly not the PC from which you are posting nor the bandwidth you are utilising (actually Mugabe understands this and is consolidating his power by turning Zimbabwe back into a feudal society - supported by feudal economics).

Certainly changing the structure and nature of joint stock companies, the legislation which enshrines them and the taxation regime to which they subscribe a significant portion of their performance result is going to do nothing for Africa – except possibly turn the future of the developed world backward and into the mire in which Africans presently finds itself.

I appreciate your comments here Helen.
I hope I am not alone in feeling somewhat disturbed that rock stars are leading economic policy debates and being heeded more than people with qualifications.

Many of these people with qualifications, Noos, who are supposedly trained in helping the poor become rich and head institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, unfortunately have a pretty bad track record when it comes to eradicating poverty. The textbook economic models they apply and the remedies they accordingly force developing nations to employ are frequently totally inappropriate and have lead to disasterous results. These people also include many whose motives in assisting with development is questionable, given that they often come from Wall Street and head back to Wall Street when their tenure is over. The appointment of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank is only the latest demonstration of how much these institutions are only extensions of powerful interests of the developed North.
On the other hand you have people like Jeffrey Sachs, who also is a person with qualifications. A renouned economist, his tireless efforts show that he is dedicated to eradicating poverty, but critical of the simple neo-liberal approach to development. He, for example, has invited Bono, a rocker, to write an introduction to his new book, The End of Poverty. If rockers, given their celebrity, have a greater ability to create awareness of a problem than intelligent, but colourless economists, why not?

The opposition to aid that has emerged in response to the Make Poverty History campaign is sad and perhaps reflective of a general increase in apathy towards others. The $600 billion in aid over 40 years is not "throwing money" ($600 billion is the size of Australia's GDP of one year, with a population of less than 3 per cent of that of Africa) and, as Solomon mentioned, debt relief can do good. Yes, the negative effects of aid donation need to be addressed and alternative methods devised and implemented, but surely there must be more constructive actions than criticising the rockers.

It's always wonderful to hear people championing rich country agricultural sector reform, and enhanced trade opportunities for poor country producers - thanks Helen!

However, the tired old 'trade NOT aid - and CERTAINLY NOT more debt relief' line really needs to be put to bed. Aid, trade and debt relief are 3 key drivers for the reduction of poverty and we need further action on all of them.

Despite Helen Hughes' assertion that the evidence that 'aid flows are inversely related to growth and development is incontrovertible', the evidence for positive correlations of aid and growth is significantly stronger than the evidence for the aid-sceptics' position.

A recent Center For Global Development study http://www.cgdev.org/Publications/?PubID=130 demonstrates that well-targeted aid actually raised output (and incomes) by $1.64 for every $1 of aid spent in sub-Saharan Africa.

And Mark McGillivray, pulling together a mass of OECD data (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/39/34353462.pdf), finds "overwhelming evidence that aid increases growth and other poverty-relevant variables. By implication, therefore, it can be inferred that poverty would be higher in the absence of aid."

More and better aid!
More debt relief!
Fair trade!

The not outlandish calls of a movement seeking to Make Poverty History.

How about some secondary and tertiary industry reform?

This means removal of all govt subsidies and regulations to these industries till they match the market exposure of the primary sector to the world market

This is free trade,both domestically and internationally.

At the moment we have a primary sector that has a free trade income, but not free trade for their expenses.

This discriminates, and should not be tolerated in Australia.

Apply this to the world market and you would see a quite different world.

Just a thought, “if food growers need to receive a regulated greater share of the economic pie by regulation” then how did the food supplies of the centuries past get their regulated benefits from?

Maybe over regulation and taxation of business has blown out the cost increase from farm gate to retail price.

Facts are, the farmer is receiving a smaller share of the retail food $.
If the food chain “productivity is improving, why do they need a greater share?
I have seen the blame for a bread price increase blamed on the farmer, due to a small farm gate price increase, that was several times the total paid to the wheat grower for his contribution to a loaf of bread.

Dear Bob Geldolf,

thanks for the sugar coated western guilt trip and thanks for reminding me that l can 'save a life if l buy your CD.' Nice one mate.

Thanks for the lesson in glib rhetoric, sanctamonious 'history' lessons, empty slogans like 'make poverty history', misguided and propoganda infused quasi and pop economics.

Oh yeah, and the chance to see and hear you barrell out your one-hit wonder 'Dont Like Mondays' in front of a couple hundred thousand. And for reminding me what a bunch of self righteous, ineffectual blowhards you geriatric rockers can be. And for reminding me what a poor state pop/rock music is in when the icons of the industry are about 25 yrs past it.

Well said, Trade 215.

It is amusing that the pop music industry, which has now become the unofficial advertising arm of the illegal drug industry, pretends to act out the role of the far seeing social crusaders.

Any trendy, left wing agenda will do. Especially one that suggests to young people that their parents and political leaders are all hypocrites. Filthy rich, jet stting pop stars, many with private jets, limos, share portfolios, bodyguards, supermodel girlfriends, and cocaine habits, scramble for the spotlight to save the forests, save the farmers, save Africa, and save the world.

Nelson Mandela is praised, Aboriginal causes are promoted and G11 summits condemned. And all this from pop stars who do not even know how to behave on a jet airliner, prance around on TV nearly naked, and who sing songs praising the pleasures of drug abuse, raping women and violent criminal behaviour.

Now the Wealthy and Influential will take Bob to their Boob and give him another honoury title.

It is like keeping your Enemy close so you can influence them with pretige and kick backs for the honour. The last stitch to seal his lips.

Let us face it, if Bob did not think about himself, he would not be human.

And when you sort through all of the murky waters you find a world able to feed everyone and food resources controlled by a sharemarket.