g8
I've been wanting to write something about the G8 for a couple of weeks now, but not quite been able to formulate anything coherent enough, or really worthwhile. Finally having to concede that this is no kind of barrier to posting drivel on this particular blog, I can only share with you my basic thoughts on these matters.
1) Bob Geldof poses are more significant threat to the ability of the trade justice movement to express their demands clearly in public than the politicians or the media. This might sound rather unremarkable to those of you less cynical than I about politics and the media, but the contrast with Seattle, Genoa and Cancun in terms of coverage is really striking. It makes sense I suppose. Far easier simply to say "Bob Geldof is an idiot" (journalist seem to have no qualms about taking home a hefty pay packet for stating the complete obvious) than to suggest that the middle-aged protestors drinking tea from flasks are actually "anarchists" who want to start riots with police for a laugh.
2) Too much of the discourse on this matter is focussed on debt relief. The debt relief being proposed is like offering someone an elastoplast having chopped their limbs off. Trade justice means an end to protectionism, and needs to mean an end to the commitments of the rich countries to privatize public services on a global scale (the only successes here have been resistance on the part of those in poor countries - Bolivia the most recent example).
3) Because the whole discussion is focussed on debt relief, there is a danger of G8 governments (Blair in particular) hijacking this movement and "spinning" his meagre concessions on debt to look like he really was the voice in the wilderness determined to save Africa, and achieved it. This is what happened with the Jubilee 2000 campaign, ultimately killing it with triumphalism although almost none of its original demands had been met. Whatever action is taken is likely to be presented as pro-active vision, not simple reaction (just like elections in Iraq - actually forced on the occupying authorities, who tried to avoid them, as occasionally, quietly, conceded).
If the protestors in Edinburgh are to achieve anything of substance, they really need to make their demands clear and their voices heard. This is a particular problem for the Trade Justice movement, because the way the global economy actually works is so widely misunderstood, so making clear demands about reforms is difficult, beyond slogans. The shady world of IMF structural adjustment programmes and WTO agreements (shrouded by legal language, hard to penetrate for the uninitiated) is hard to talk about in soundbites, making Trade Justice a not-very-media-friendly issue. I have a feeling the support of pop stars will not make it any easier to articulate the core demands.
1) Bob Geldof poses are more significant threat to the ability of the trade justice movement to express their demands clearly in public than the politicians or the media. This might sound rather unremarkable to those of you less cynical than I about politics and the media, but the contrast with Seattle, Genoa and Cancun in terms of coverage is really striking. It makes sense I suppose. Far easier simply to say "Bob Geldof is an idiot" (journalist seem to have no qualms about taking home a hefty pay packet for stating the complete obvious) than to suggest that the middle-aged protestors drinking tea from flasks are actually "anarchists" who want to start riots with police for a laugh.
2) Too much of the discourse on this matter is focussed on debt relief. The debt relief being proposed is like offering someone an elastoplast having chopped their limbs off. Trade justice means an end to protectionism, and needs to mean an end to the commitments of the rich countries to privatize public services on a global scale (the only successes here have been resistance on the part of those in poor countries - Bolivia the most recent example).
3) Because the whole discussion is focussed on debt relief, there is a danger of G8 governments (Blair in particular) hijacking this movement and "spinning" his meagre concessions on debt to look like he really was the voice in the wilderness determined to save Africa, and achieved it. This is what happened with the Jubilee 2000 campaign, ultimately killing it with triumphalism although almost none of its original demands had been met. Whatever action is taken is likely to be presented as pro-active vision, not simple reaction (just like elections in Iraq - actually forced on the occupying authorities, who tried to avoid them, as occasionally, quietly, conceded).
If the protestors in Edinburgh are to achieve anything of substance, they really need to make their demands clear and their voices heard. This is a particular problem for the Trade Justice movement, because the way the global economy actually works is so widely misunderstood, so making clear demands about reforms is difficult, beyond slogans. The shady world of IMF structural adjustment programmes and WTO agreements (shrouded by legal language, hard to penetrate for the uninitiated) is hard to talk about in soundbites, making Trade Justice a not-very-media-friendly issue. I have a feeling the support of pop stars will not make it any easier to articulate the core demands.
posted by UK plc at 8:06 PM
2 Comments:
Will ending protectionism really help? Should we not be allowing developing countries to protect themselves? On a truly free market, won't corporations spend aggressively for a short term loss to kill third world competition and maintain long term profit?
As for St. Bob, he has at least done more to popularise the issue (in however embryonic a way), and got people thinking about it. There is at least the possibility of more people being engaged.
Finally, Monbiot's challenge for somebody to improve upon his relatively patchy vision for the future seems to me still n ot to have been met.
Ending protectionism seems to me to be a big part of it. This is a much bigger issue than the CAP, or steel tarriffs. The sector where it's really important, where most lives could be saved with the greatest ease, is pharmaceuticals. Limited provisions for the production of "generic" versions of essential drugs for AIDS, malaria etc. have been loudly trumpeted, but a lot more needs to be done. Thousands of lives could be saved daily with the most trivial amendments to TRIPS agreements, but these threaten the monopoly power of the big pharmaceutical corporations, so there's a lot of resistance. Most developed governments would far rather subsidise these firms than take the economically sensible initiatives (and this would in no way stifle innovation, whose costs are largely socialised - who pays for chemistry degrees?)
So, this is the sense in which the debate really misses the point.
As for Geldof, I agree he's done a lot to raise awareness, as has Bono, and others. I'm saying these people are easy targets for a sceptical media; they make it much easier for the Trade Justice movement to be portrayed in a way that suggests its members do not know what they're talking about, and can only mindlessly chant "Make Poverty History," while the important people decide among themselves what's actually going to happen.
Post a Comment
<< Home