World outraged at claims Saint Bob didn't solve all Africa's problems

Sir Bob shows his radical credentials

The world has watched in horror as the outrageously corrupt BBC and Channel 4 has attempted to make the ludicrous claim that there are still problems in Africa.

Sensible people everywhere know that Africa is now a paradise thanks to the efforts of their saviour, multi-millionaire Saint Sir Bob Geldof the Wonderful.

Sir Bob has been on the defensive over the last few weeks, after several different investigations attacked his legacy of work against poverty.

First of all, a BBC World Service investigation received information from several former rebel leaders in Ethiopia that a portion of aid money raised by the Band Aid charity in the 80s was in fact diverted by rebels to buy weapons.

Now, Channel 4 is to screen a documentary next week that attacks His Holiness for distracting attention from the Make Poverty History campaign in 2005.

During the 80s, at the time of Band Aid, the Ethiopian national government was at war with a number of rebel forces in the countryside. Leaders of those rebels are now in power in Ethiopia. However, some former rebel leaders have since fallen out with their former comrade and current Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. They told the BBC that the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) tricked aid workers into giving them money, by disguising themselves as merchants, as well as covering sacks of sand with sacks of food when taking aid cash.

Former TPLF leaders claim that they got $100 million this way, which was spent on weapons to overthrow the government. They also claim that they used front groups, such as the Relief Society of Tigray, to get cash. Band Aid’s own records show they gave $11 million to the society.

His Excellency Sir Geldof has been outraged by the claims, and has threatened to sue the BBC, demanding that the reporters who filed the story and their bosses should get the sack.

“Martin Plaut, [the World Service news and current affairs editor] Andrew Whitehead and Peter Horrocks should be fired. There should be an immediate investigation into what went wrong, steps should be taken to rectify the identified faults and the World Service must work very, very hard to re-establish its trust and hard-won reputation as the world broadcaster of excellence.”

It seems that, according, the His Most Generous Wonderous-ness Geldof, Band Aid should be completely above criticism. How

"Why don't people get that I'm fantastic?!"

dare anyone suggest that a major aid effort in a starving country beset by civil war could ever be affected by corruption?! As BBC journalist Rageh Omaar pointed out in the Guardian, the journalists behind this story were in Ethiopia in the 80s, received serious and credible information, and were right to go ahead with it. There should now be a full investigation. The Most Marvellous Geldof’s response? Omaar is “ridiculous.”

Geldof went on to make the laughable claim that:

“Not a single penny went on armaments. Not one. Not a pound; not a penny. Let me be clear on that. And I’ve also spoken to some of the others, including the Red Cross, who say it is absolute rubbish that any of their money could have possibly gone on arms.”

At this point he really does sound desperate. He could have argued that corruption wasn’t on the scale the story claimed. But to claim that “not a single penny” went astray? As this article on Pambazuka points out, every single aid effort to Africa suffers from corruption. In a continent afflicted by poverty, undemocratic governments and the interference of imperialism in their affairs, it’s impossible to have a completely clean and transparent aid process. In fact, much of the way that aid is given by the western capitalist powers makes things worse.

The vehemence of Geldof’s denial has the opposite effect from the one he intended: it leaves you wondering what it is he’s so desperate to hide.

Meanwhile, in a separate programme, More 4 are screening a documentary called Starsuckers next week which will attack Geldof’s role in the G8 protests in 2005.

At the time, a major coalition of charities, campaign groups and churches came together in the Make Poverty History coalition. This demanded debt relief for third world countries and more aid from rich ones. It organised a mass march through the centre of Edinburgh, all dressed in white. At the time the SSP and SSY took part, but instead of white, we dressed in red, to symbolise our desire to Make Capitalism History. We argued that the structure of the international economy was geared to do nothing else but increase inequality and keep poor countries poor. An appeal to the G8 leaders meeting in Scotland was useless, they must be attacked and defeated.

SSP marching against the G8

However, even this charity campaign was too radical for the All Knowing Genius Geldof, who organised Live Aid, a massive celebrity mutual masturbation fest, were stars both young and has-been got together for a concert where they told the world how great they were.

Starsuckers claims that Geldof hijacked the Make Poverty History campaign for his own ends. After the summit, it became clear that G8 leaders were going to do sweet FA to help third world countries, and that all the talk of progress had just been rhetoric for the cameras. But Geldof said he gave the global political elite “10 out of 10″ for commitments on aid, and “8 out of 10″ for debt relief. He later said the 8 score should be upgraded to 10 out of 10. In the process he showed just how much he himself was part of the PR machine defending the corrupt imperialist governments of the west.

The ever furious Geldof has penned a 6,000 word letter attacking Starsuckers and attempting to defend his rapidly-vanishing legacy. The theme underlying all this outrage is that clearly Geldof is pretty sensitive to allegations that show him up for what he is: a completely useless celebrity attention seeker. A man who wanted to do good, but has been completely compromised by working hand-in-glove with the powerful forces actually responsible for third world poverty.

He attacked anti-poverty campaigners as “wankers dressed as clowns”, and said Make Poverty History was “a bit lame and almost entirely ineffectual. . .boring, futile and adolescent.” Again, he says he’s contacted his lawyers.

On the other hand, according to his letter, Live Aid had an acute political vision of the world economic situation and the realistic prospect of ending under-development throughout the global south. Just listen to this piece of stunning analysis from Geldof:

“Richard [Curtis] and Bono came to me and said do another gig. I said you fucking do it if you’re so eager. Bono said he’d play with McCartney and they’d open the gig with “It was 20 years ago today” – a reference to Live Aid. I wanted to see that. Precisely that rock n roll moment I wanted to see, so I said ok. That’s why I did it. Pathetic but y’know …”

Yes Bob, we do know.

The fact of the matter is, the protests against the G8 weren’t as successful as some of the previous mobilisations against international capitalist summits, like the Battle of Seattle. A lot of this was to do with the political confusion-were we against the summit, or asking the leaders to do something for us? Despite the best efforts of the SSP and others, Make Poverty History’s campaign contributed a lot towards stopping a more radical, anti-capitalist approach.

But Geldof knows exactly what side of the power divide he comes down on. In his letter he writes:

“Like it or not the agents of change in our world are the politicians. Otherwise you’re always outside the tent pissing in. They stay inside their tent pissing back out at you. This is futile. My solution is to get inside the tent and piss in there.”

"When we get inside the tent can we piss on each other again?"

Whilst Geldof and the G8 leaders engage in bizarre watersports, those of us who actually know what they’re talking about can unpick what he’s said here. The only way to get any change is to rely on the same global elite who are responsible for creating the situation as it stands, claims Geldof. But rich countries are rich precisely because they have looted Africa and the rest of the third world for centuries now, and it’s still going on. Those people and movements who’ve tried to stand up to this have faced ferocious attacks from the west and their corrupt allies. The G8 leaders will NEVER solve poverty in Africa, because they are responsible for it.

The way forward for poor countries is demonstrated by the handful of examples where the people have won and the government stands up to the rich world. Today, Venezuela and Cuba, which have revolutionary governments supported by the mass of the people, are able to provide world class health and education to their people, and do not suffer from famine as countries like Ethiopia do. The people of these countries, and their allies here, are the real agents of change, not rich politicians.

As for us in Scotland, it’s clear that sitting around watching wanker celebrities on telly is going to change nothing. We have a responsibility to help people in the third world. The best way we can do that is by fighting for socialism here, and trying to take down our own corrupt governments responsible for so much suffering across the globe.

5 Comments

  1. Michael says:

    Very good, up until:

    “Today, Venezuela and Cuba, which have revolutionary governments supported by the mass of the people, are able to provide world class health and education to their people, and do not suffer from famine as countries like Ethiopia do. The people of these countries, and their allies here, are the real agents of change, not rich politicians.”

    Wha’? The working class people of Venezuela and Cuba have agency: not granted by their governments, but gained through their own efforts in the class struggle. To rip the pish out of Geldoff (for totally good reasons) and then gush with admiration for ‘revolutionaries’ like Chavez, a guy in the paper’s just now for his bromance with Vladimir PUTIN, is baws to say the least.

  2. Jack says:

    Hi Michael,

    I feel like this has the potential to turn into a big debate about stuff tangentially related to the article, but. . .

    If you re-read the bit that you quoted, you’ll notice there isn’t any “gushing with admiration for Chavez.” Since we’re talking about agency, I specifically pointed out that the governments of Venezuela and Cuba are in power, despite all kinds of assaults and pressures from imperialism, because they are supported by the people. In Venezuela in particular, there has been mass mobilisation of the people in favour of popular power and transformation of the state. As I said, the peoples of the countries in the third world are the agents for changing the poverty and inequality of the global economy, not G8 leaders etc.

    I suspect you and I have different views about the nature of the Venezuelan and Cuban governments, but I don’t see how you could disagree with the actual content of what I said. These countries are radically different places to live than somewhere like Ethiopia-there is zero illiteracy, access to free healthcare and education, subsidised cheap food etc. etc. I agree with you completely that these things were won by the efforts of the mass of the working class in struggle. The point was to show that even in poor and underdeveloped countries, there are alternatives, if you have a mobilised working class that is prepared to fight for power.

    I do also happen to think that having revolutionaries actually in power at a national level makes a decisive difference, but that’s not what I was talking about here, and I never even mentioned Chavez’ name!

  3. Michael says:

    I think we can measure countries in quite a number of ways. These places might be preferable in some respects but this doesn’t mean that there aren’t serious flaws socialists should acknowledge. But tbh this is really surprising. Is it SSP policy to back places like Cuba and Venezuela as the radical alternative?

  4. Jack says:

    The SSP has policies of solidarity with Cuba and Venezuela, yes, which have been backed up with SSP members going to these places to see what’s going on for themselves.

    I’m still not sure what your problem with my point is-that even under existing global conditions, the idea that developing world states are unable to do anything for the people isn’t true. Obviously it’s not how I’d see the ultimate global solution to international poverty and imperialism, but it’s a start, certainly qualitatively better than what folk have in Ethiopia.

  5. TheWorstWitch says:

    Hey, Michael!

    Check this out, I’m about to BLOW YOUR MIND!!!

    Cuba and Venezuela. They do some good stuff. They do some bad stuff. We support the things that are good, and criticise the things that are bad.