G8 double aid to Africa

[Axls Locomotive]

GLENEAGLES (Reuters) - World leaders agreed on Friday to more than double aid for Africa to $50 billion (29 billion pounds), presenting the deal as a message of hope that countered the hatred behind the London bomb attacks.

The announcement was the culmination of a Group of Eight summit of rich nations hosted by Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had been determined to focus on African poverty despite Thursday's attacks, which killed more than 50 people.

leaders
Click to enlarge photo

"We speak today in the shadow of terrorism but it will not obscure what we came here to achieve," Blair declared, flanked by fellow leaders of the G8 and seven of their African counterparts on the steps of the Gleneagles hotel in Scotland.

"It isn't the end of poverty in Africa -- but it is the hope that it can be ended," he said.

statement
Click to enlarge photo

The deal was broadly welcomed by African leaders and some high-profile activists including singer Bob Geldof, who organised the massive Live 8 rock concerts around the world to pressure the G8. They said it could save countless lives.

"I see there are encouraging signs that the continent's problems are going to be addressed realistically and acceptably by the G8 and Prime Minister Tony Blair," said Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, the chairman of the African Union.

bubbles
Click to enlarge photo

But others said the deal fell far short of the hopes of millions inspired by the global Make Poverty History campaign and the concerts.

CHIRAC DEFENDS CLIMATE DEAL

ape
Click to enlarge photo

The G8 leaders also agreed to start talks on global warming with major emerging economies such as India and China, whose rapid development is propelling them into the front rank of fossil fuel users.

Environmentalists said the declaration was a missed opportunity to take concrete action on climate change.

But French President Jacques Chirac agreed with Blair that the deal was a step forward as it brought the United States, which refuses to sign up to cuts in heat-trapping greenhouse gases backed by other G8 nations, back into the quest for an international consensus.

"The deal we reached does not go as far as we would have wished but it re-establishes indispensable dialogue and cooperation," he said.

On the world economy, the leaders called for more investment in refining as well as greater access for foreign investors to oil-rich states to tackle record high oil prices.

They pledged to end farm export subsidies -- a major demand of African nations who complain that rich countries are forcing their farmers out of business. But they did not set a date.

They also called for renewed efforts to conclude a new phase of world trade liberalisation by the end of next year.

On the foreign policy front, they agreed a package of aid worth up to $3 billion to help the Palestinian Authority and foster peace in the Middle East.

ACTIVISTS DIVIDED ON AFRICA

The main focus on the summit was Africa, where campaigners say a child dies due to poverty every 10 seconds. Blair has called the state of the continent a "scar on the conscience of the world".

The G8 said annual development aid to Africa would increase by $25 billion by 2010, more than doubling the 2004 level.

They also said overall annual development aid -- currently around $50 billion -- would increase by $50 billion by 2010.

"A great justice has been done," Geldof said at a news conference with fellow campaigner Bono, the U2 lead singer.

"The world spoke out and the politicians listened," Bono said. "Now, if the world keeps an eye out, they will keep their promises."

But other campaigners said the money was needed now if the world was meet its goal of halving extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. They also accused the G8 of only pretending to want to give farmers from poor countries more access to their markets.

"More aid is a good thing, but it is still too little too late, and much of it is not new money," said Amanda Sserumaga, Uganda country director for the charity ActionAid.

Not all development specialists are convinced that a massive aid boost is the answer to Africa's problems. Some question whether African states can absorb such a large increase in a short time.

Russia, the G8 odd man out because of its comparatively low living standards and Western criticism of its democratic record, takes over the presidency of the group for the first time from next January and will host the annual summit in St Petersburg.

President Vladimir Putin said Russia's key themes would be energy and education. He struck a conciliatory note over the prospect of anti-globalisation protesters.

"The problems that they raise deserve attention and discussions. I do not rule out working with anti-globalisation activists," he said.

[Jamie]

I'm glad that aid will be increased to Africa. And export subsidys will be ended, but there doesn't seem to be much news regarding the end to world debt, as of yet, I have heard very little, but I am hoing I will hear more news on this soon.

[GnRNightrain]

Lets hope our money doesnt get pissed down the drain as usual. ?While it is a great cause, I doubt the actual people will see much of that money. ?Most likley it will go to the leaders of these countries so they can buy more hookers and party in New York City with Kofi Anan and other bums that do nothing but waste our money. ?I cant believe that Africa is in the state that it is in considering we spend 50 billion per years there. ?Answer: none of the money goes to the people. ?Until these governments change, we will continue to piss our money down the drain. ?Of course, we cant do anything to help change the governments, otherwise we will be compared to Hitler of Osama Bin Laden (See London attacks thread).

By the way, since when can Bush unilaterally spend money with out the approval by Congress?


Finally, Chirac needs to get over Kyoto. ?Just because they could pull a fast one on fucking Al Gore doesnt mean that the Bush administration will fall for it. ?Dont get me wrong, I want progress on client change, but Kyoto is a joke that basically allows most of Europe pollute according to the early 90's levels when their economy was booming, but forces the US to pollute according the early 90's levels when our economy was hurting.

[GnRNightrain]

I'm glad that aid will be increased to Africa. And export subsidys will be ended, but there doesn't seem to be much news regarding the end to world debt, as of yet, I have heard very little, but I am hoing I will hear more news on this soon.

And tell me exactly why we should relieve the debt of these countries whose leaders do nothing for their people?  In order to allows them to waste more money on themselves?  By excusing their bad behavior, you put your stamp of approval on it.  We need to give these people food, not money nor relief from debt.

[Jamie]

And then by giving them food, how's that gonna help either? They're eventually gonna run out of that food, and more will continue to have to be shipped over. If their debt is cancelled, they can work their own way out of severe poverty. And if their governments are really as bad as they're meant to be, with debt out of the way, they'll have no excuse to claim their people are poor because of debt, there will be no debt. Once debt is no longer a problem, the world's eyes will be on Africa, to begin to improve and continue to improve throughout the years. If that does not happen these governments will be proven to be corrupt.
Also with no debts to worry about, instead of spending every single penny these people earn on enough food to survive another day, they will have the funds and equipment, to have a proper diet, way of life, and also, perhaps to establish a democracy.

[GnRNightrain]

And then by giving them food, how's that gonna help either? They're eventually gonna run out of that food, and more will continue to have to be shipped over. If their debt is cancelled, they can work their own way out of severe poverty. And if their governments are really as bad as they're meant to be, with debt out of the way, they'll have no excuse to claim their people are poor because of debt, there will be no debt. Once debt is no longer a problem, the world's eyes will be on Africa, to begin to improve and continue to improve throughout the years. If that does not happen these governments will be proven to be corrupt.
Also with no debts to worry about, instead of spending every single penny these people earn on enough food to survive another day, they will have the funds and equipment, to have a proper diet, way of life, and also, perhaps to establish a democracy.

There is no reason to cancel the debts of these governments nor give them any money, until we assured they will not waste it.

Food does feed people, and it certainly can go to the people if you drop it to them.  Money to the government however . . .

The fact is that these governments need to change, but I dont see any country putting the resources to do it anytime soon.  Instead we can just throw money at them and act like we are helping them.

[Axls Locomotive]

Lets hope our money doesnt get pissed down the drain as usual.  While it is a great cause, I doubt the actual people will see much of that money.  Most likley it will go to the leaders of these countries so they can buy more hookers and party in New York City with Kofi Anan and other bums that do nothing but waste our money.  I cant believe that Africa is in the state that it is in considering we spend 50 billion per years there.  Answer: none of the money goes to the people.  Until these governments change, we will continue to piss our money down the drain. 

thats an extremely cynical response...the first Live Aid probably helped to cut the death toll of the ethiopian famine by half, plenty of money got to the people abd built everything from schools to sewerage systems...sure some money did go astray because of naivety of geldof et al but noone had ever done that before...in fact despite warning signs for that famine for almost a decade, everybody ignored it...i doubt the money from this deal will go astray like the previous concert money...but there is always a chance of it happening...but would you rather do nothing?...the hookers comment is in extremely bad taste, even for you...but im sure plenty of your tax money is funding american politicians in the same way hmmm...

you also assume that all governments are corrupt in Africa which is a pathetic suggestion...only 3 or 4 countries in Africa have dictators as far as im aware, thats out of over 50 countries...

[GnRNightrain]

Lets hope our money doesnt get pissed down the drain as usual.? While it is a great cause, I doubt the actual people will see much of that money.? Most likley it will go to the leaders of these countries so they can buy more hookers and party in New York City with Kofi Anan and other bums that do nothing but waste our money.? I cant believe that Africa is in the state that it is in considering we spend 50 billion per years there.? Answer: none of the money goes to the people.? Until these governments change, we will continue to piss our money down the drain.?

thats an extremely cynical response...the first Live Aid probably helped to cut the death toll of the ethiopian famine by half, plenty of money got to the people abd built everything from schools to sewerage systems...sure some money did go astray because of naivety of geldof et al but noone had ever done that before...in fact despite warning signs for that famine for almost a decade, everybody ignored it...i doubt the money from this deal will go astray like the previous concert money...

In fact most of it went astray.  I stand by my opinion money will not solve the problems in Africa.  It either has to be direct medicine, food, or change the governments.

but there is always a chance of it happening...but would you rather do nothing?...

No, if you had read my comments you will see that I said give them food or help change their governments.  Giving the governments money does nothing.

the hookers comment is in extremely bad taste, even for you...but im sure plenty of your tax money is funding american politicians in the same way hmmm...

I am sure I am.  Everytime I hear of it I will be the first to condemn it, and call for the person to be arrested.

you also assume that all governments are corrupt in Africa which is a pathetic suggestion...only 3 or 4 countries in Africa have dictators as far as im aware, thats out of over 50 countries...

Well there are certainly more than 3 to 4 with bad governments, but certainly it is not all of them.  However, those that need the most help are in those countries with the most corrupt governments.  I know not all of the governments are corrupt I have been to South Africa, and I think they have a pretty good thing going there.

[Axls Locomotive]

In fact most of it went astray.  I stand by my opinion money will not solve the problems in Africa.  It either has to be direct medicine, food, or change the governments.

if it saved a quarter of a million lives, then id say it was a success...no matter how over critical you can get

and all the money these countries owe, much of it was for loans to dodgy governments to buy weapons decades ago...and now many of these dictators are gone, the people who suffered are still suffering because of these loans...isnt it cruel to expect the peoples of these countries to pay back the loans of their suppressors?...and wasnt it naive of these governments many years ago to give out these loans in the first place when they knew most of the governments they were giving it to were corrupt

No, if you had read my comments you will see that I said give them food or help change their governments.  Giving the governments money does nothing.

if you actually watched the london show you would have heard that much of the money will go to charitable organisations and other groups so that the money can be distributed more fairly...i believe that was midge ure who said that

I am sure I am.  Everytime I hear of it I will be the first to condemn it, and call for the person to be arrested.

there are plenty of people making junket trips with the money you pay in tax at this very moment...believe me...not to mention money thats wasted on unneeded bureaucracy...plenty of wasted money in western countries...not to mention higher prices

[GnRNightrain]

In fact most of it went astray.? I stand by my opinion money will not solve the problems in Africa.? It either has to be direct medicine, food, or change the governments.

if it saved a quarter of a million lives, then id say it was a success...no matter how over critical you can get

and all the money these countries owe, much of it was for loans to dodgy governments to buy weapons decades ago...and now many of these dictators are gone, the people who suffered are still suffering because of these loans...isnt it cruel to expect the peoples of these countries to pay back the loans of their suppressors?...and wasnt it naive of these governments many years ago to give out these loans in the first place when they knew most of the governments they were giving it to were corrupt

Then I am for debt reduction for those countries.  Too bad most of the countries with such debt dont fall under that category.

No, if you had read my comments you will see that I said give them food or help change their governments.? Giving the governments money does nothing.

if you actually watched the london show you would have heard that much of the money will go to charitable organisations and other groups so that the money can be distributed more fairly...i believe that was midge ure who said that

What money?  That which is being proposed by the governments?  I thought the purpose of Live 8 was to get the government to act.  I think the governments will waste the money.  If it goes directly to organizations that get the money and goods the people, then I am all for it.  But considering the past, Im skeptical.

I am sure I am.? Everytime I hear of it I will be the first to condemn it, and call for the person to be arrested.

there are plenty of people making junket trips with the money you pay in tax at this very moment...believe me...not to mention money thats wasted on unneeded bureaucracy...plenty of wasted money in western countries...not to mention higher prices

Actually, most of it is corporate money, not my tax money.  Nonetheless, it has an effect on where my tax money goes.  I agree, tons of wasted money, however all I can do is condemn one at a time.  If it was my choice I wouldnt allow them to waste my money that way.  That is basically what the UN is, a waste of money.  We spend so much money on that organization for what?  What does the UN actually do that is useful?  To me, it is just a bunch of elites from all of the countries bleeding the average person dry while they sit and chat with expenses paid from our money.

[Axls Locomotive]

i have to go, 5 words to say

optimism, humanity, faith, unselfishness and charity

adios

[August 18th]

this is great news! FINALLY after decades with serious neglection, one small step is taken in the right direction. i applaud the world leaders involved for this, this is a milestone that should've been set decades and decades ago. it's not gonna help in the long run if this isn't continued, and it's about damn time it is.

[N.I.B]

funding these smaller countries is a plus, and a step in the right direction. however, as odd as it may sound, i think the real way to solve these problems is through colonization. look at it this way. most of the former colonies of great britain and france have become very succesful countries, both in millitary and economicly. if africa was colonized with the majority fo the people still being the natives with a smaller ammount of new arrivals than the possibiblity of a flourishing nation could occur.

[August 18th]

funding these smaller countries is a plus, and a step in the right direction. however, as odd as it may sound, i think the real way to solve these problems is through colonization. look at it this way. most of the former colonies of great britain and france have become very succesful countries, both in millitary and economicly. if africa was colonized with the majority fo the people still being the natives with a smaller ammount of new arrivals than the possibiblity of a flourishing nation could occur.

so going back to the era of slavery is a step in the right direction?

[N.I.B]

funding these smaller countries is a plus, and a step in the right direction. however, as odd as it may sound, i think the real way to solve these problems is through colonization. look at it this way. most of the former colonies of great britain and france have become very succesful countries, both in millitary and economicly. if africa was colonized with the majority fo the people still being the natives with a smaller ammount of new arrivals than the possibiblity of a flourishing nation could occur.

so going back to the era of slavery is a step in the right direction?

your putting words in my mouth i never said slavery
i said colonization. theres a difference.

[August 18th]

in theory, yes, in practice, no. you're going in a direction i think you don't really want to go.

[N.I.B]

in theory, yes, in practice, no. you're going in a direction i think you don't really want to go.

ill use great brittain as an example. the now king, makes and agreement with southern africa to not onlt donate money but to send more citizens there to set up businesses and colonies and agrees to keep the africans as the majority. its all agreed and 5000 english people go to south africa to set up colonies. in 50 years, the poulation jumps a little bit and there a more and more colonies. no war, all agreements are done witht he monarch and the south african ruler. think of it as a mini-canada, minus all the conflict. in a centery or two, the colonies are large cities iwth businesses and the economy is much stronger. if the devolping african countries are divided up and are colonized lime this, then their economy will be strengthened, and the population mix might contribute to a future race les adept to prejudice and racism.

[Axls Locomotive]

funding these smaller countries is a plus, and a step in the right direction. however, as odd as it may sound, i think the real way to solve these problems is through colonization. look at it this way. most of the former colonies of great britain and france have become very succesful countries, both in millitary and economicly. if africa was colonized with the majority fo the people still being the natives with a smaller ammount of new arrivals than the possibiblity of a flourishing nation could occur.

colonisation? where have you been??? most of Africa was colonised by European countries trying to make a quick buck hundreds of years ago...Spain, France, Holland, Portugal, Italy, Germany and England had just about ever African country under their control...many of their problems stem from thes colonisations...

also youre implying that people outside the African countries can make their economy grow but those inside it cannot...

[N.I.B]

funding these smaller countries is a plus, and a step in the right direction. however, as odd as it may sound, i think the real way to solve these problems is through colonization. look at it this way. most of the former colonies of great britain and france have become very succesful countries, both in millitary and economicly. if africa was colonized with the majority fo the people still being the natives with a smaller ammount of new arrivals than the possibiblity of a flourishing nation could occur.

colonisation? where have you been??? most of Africa was colonised by European countries trying to make a quick buck hundreds of years ago...Spain, France, Holland, Portugal, Italy, Germany and England had just about ever African country under their control...many of their problems stem from thes colonisations...

also youre implying that people outside the African countries can make their economy grow but those inside it cannot...

ya i know colonization was already attempted, what im saying is they should try again by sending money and increasing population to build buisinesses and increase the economy.

and to make economies grow you have to begin with a somewhat strong economy in the first place. if richer countries bagan to colonize it to a degree, than a possibility for a stronger economy can come out of it.

[August 18th]

in theory, yes, in practice, no. you're going in a direction i think you don't really want to go.

ill use great brittain as an example. the now king, makes and agreement with southern africa to not onlt donate money but to send more citizens there to set up businesses and colonies and agrees to keep the africans as the majority. its all agreed and 5000 english people go to south africa to set up colonies. in 50 years, the poulation jumps a little bit and there a more and more colonies. no war, all agreements are done witht he monarch and the south african ruler. think of it as a mini-canada, minus all the conflict. in a centery or two, the colonies are large cities iwth businesses and the economy is much stronger. if the devolping african countries are divided up and are colonized lime this, then their economy will be strengthened, and the population mix might contribute to a future race les adept to prejudice and racism.

i'm sorry but statements like this one just piss me off. do you even know what you're suggesting? freedom is one of the basic human needs, and for some foreign country to come in and take over and repeat history all over again would crush their sense of freedom and pride. what's even worse is that you seem to want to water out their national identities and cultural identities and the feelings surrounding that. you should think about this again, because you're going in a very controversial direction here, and i don't think you fully understand the consequences of what you're suggesting.