{Article} Bob geldof praises Bushes Africa policy

The full article is here

"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy," Geldof told the Guardian.

Apparently, there is some good, in the guy, even though I can hear the cynics already:rolleyes:

Geldof, however, lauded the US and Britain for supplying the bulk of the 1.15m tonnes of food aid that has been pledged to Ethiopia to plug a food shortage that threatens 15 million people

Geldof does temper his praise with some critisism, and the but on the whole seems much happier with, Bushes policies towards Africa than the E.U.

"The EU have been pathetic and appalling, and I thought we had dealt with that 20 years ago when the electorate of our countries said never again," he said. Warning that the "horror of the 80s" could return, he added: "The last time I spoke to the EU's aid people, they didn't even know where their own ships were. The food is there, get it here."

mm

The Saint

Is he talking about the GM foods that Africa wont take becuse Europe wont take? Did he mention the action taken in the last few days by the EU to sell reduced price drugs to Africa a move that the Bush administration has been unwilling to take due to the lobbying of drug companies. Its easy for Bush to be open hearted about sending GM foods to Africa as the poor people there will have to buy the growing agents from American agro-business companies. God bless Geldoff though, he did marry Paula Yeats for Christ's sake.

Originally posted by The Saint
Did he mention the action taken in the last few days by the EU to sell reduced price drugs to Africa a move that the Bush administration has been unwilling to take due to the lobbying of drug companies.

Well now in fairness he did sign legislation worth $15 billion yesterday and in his own words:

We will purchase low-cost anti-retroviral medications and other drugs that are needed to save lives. We will set up a broad and efficient network to deliver drugs to the farthest reaches of Africa. Even by motorcycle, or bicycle. We will train doctors and nurses and other health care professionals so they can treat HIV/AIDS patients. We will renovate and, where necessary, build and equip clinics and laboratories. We will support the care of AIDS orphans by training and hiring child care workers. We'll provide home-based care to ease the suffering of people living with AIDS.

His speech hints at what he will be telling "old europe" when he arrives at Evian:

I will remind them that time is not on our side. Every day of delay means 8,000 more AIDS deaths in Africa and 14,000 more infections -- every day, 14,000 more people will be infected. I'll urge our European partners and Japan and Canada to join this great mission of rescue, to match their good intentions with real resources.

A sense of fair play, means associating credit , where credit is due,amongst critisism in areas one disagrees with.
mm

Hobbes

Intresting wording on his speech though.

We will purchase low-cost anti-retroviral medications and other drugs that are needed to save lives.

I believe the whole issue is that the US won't drop it's prices on aids drugs.

Urge Cananda? Didn't Canada want to break Patents to offer cheaper drugs, but the US companies gave out?

The Saint

We will purchase low-cost anti-retroviral medications and other drugs that are needed to save lives.

Is the "We" everyone else but American companies?

Yeah, it tends to suggest, that U.S funds will be used to pay for these drugs to be given to agencies in Africa.
It would , read to me like a work around opposition by U.S companies.
I wonder if he is talking about urging Canada and other countries to buy the drugs as well and distribute them in Africa as Aid?
I'd agree with Hobbes, the U.S companies don't want to drop the prices, probably because in some kind of twisted morality, they reckon, the price suits the market in Western countries and don't want this undermined by a world wide drop in the price.
That might set a dangerous precedent for them with other drugs.

I won't argue with Bush though, if he's willing to pay drugs companies for medication and provide it to people in africa for free.
mm

Cork

Originally posted by Man


I won't argue with Bush though, if he's willing to pay drugs companies for medication and provide it to people in africa for free.
mm

I think the EU has also a role to play. Looking accross the Athlantic pointing our fingers at Bush is fine - if the EU were pretty active on aid to combat third world poverty & aids.

Sparks

Well now in fairness he did sign legislation worth $15 billion yesterday and in his own words:

In fairness, you also have to note that most of that money isn't his responsibility - ie. most of it comes from prior and future administrations - and his leglislation attaches interesting strings relating to religious beliefs. Most significantly, many AIDS programs in Africa promote prevention through contraception. To qualify for Bush's funding, you cannot promote or distribute contraceptives in the same building or program that hands out anything paid for by US funding.

In other words, we don't have a cure, but we'll give you these new drugs (and remember the record of US companies and human experimentation in Africa with new drugs) - but in return, you have to stop handing out condoms, the only proven realistic preventative measure.

I'll admit it - when I heard the state of the union, I actually thought the guy was doing something good for a change. It's the details that cause the problem.
Oh, and don't forget that by the time that funding gets to Africa, the AIDS epidemic will have grown by a very large amount, because that $15 billion isn't due to show up for a year or two, according to campaigners working on the problem.

Originally posted by Sparks
To qualify for Bush's funding, you cannot promote or distribute contraceptives in the same building or program that hands out anything paid for by US funding.

In other words, we don't have a cure, but we'll give you these new drugs (and remember the record of US companies and human experimentation in Africa with new drugs) - but in return, you have to stop handing out condoms, the only proven realistic preventative measure.

sparks,
where do the T's and c's specifically state that?
also wouldn't a catholic agency, qualify as a "faith" based agency, of which there are many in africa.
They are highly unlikely to be handing out condoms...,and if you can't get them there, they can be got elsewhere.
I mean Catholic agencies do an awful lot of good work, but are specifically not supposed to be handing out or indeed are supposed to be actively discouraging the use of condoms-that doesn't mean obviously that Catholics don't free'ly use/encourage or otherwise make them available.
mm

bonkey

There is undoubtedly an element of this being an indirect subsidisation of US drug-producers by the US government. This also valls into question the statements about it being time for Europe and the Far East to jump aboard with funding if what he really means is "its about time you guys paid the US companies for full-price drugs to give to Africa".

There are also some rather strange breakdowns...IIRC, 1/3 of the money (i.e. $5 billion) is to be spent preaching extra-marital sexual abstinence as the solution. You can look at that from a number of ways - both in favour of and against these conditions, so I wont go into that for now.

Ultimately, this is a case of the US helping itself while helping others. Yes, it could be more altruistic about its expenditure, but it could also be doing a hell of a lot less, or a hell of a lot worse.

jc

Sparks

Man,

where do the T's and c's specifically state that?

T's and C's? I don't understand the term.

Here are the articles showing what I mean.
http://www.westernfrontonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/02/28/3e5fe56ca1e6b
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13429
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13421
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13637
http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,51947.jsp

also wouldn't a catholic agency, qualify as a "faith" based agency, of which there are many in africa.
They are highly unlikely to be handing out condoms...,and if you can't get them there, they can be got elsewhere.

Specifically, I was referring to the UN population fund, which distributes them - and which Bush was withholding funding from...

I mean Catholic agencies do an awful lot of good work, but are specifically not supposed to be handing out or indeed are supposed to be actively discouraging the use of condoms

Ooooh, whole other theme right there, and a personal bugbear of mine, so I'm not even going there....

bonkey,

There is undoubtedly an element of this being an indirect subsidisation of US drug-producers by the US government.

Agreed.
http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,51947.jsp

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

T's and C's? I don't understand the term.

Terms and conditions.
You see I was looking at the legislation ( number s.1009 in the search facility will take you there ) and I couldn't find any specific references to , the aid not being for agencies that might hand out condoms.
Now I can't find any reference to a bar on aid to countries where abortion is legal either.
So what I meant by the question was had you any links to any specific terms and coditions.
The legislation does provide for Bush to set out terms and conditions though.
If he was to deny this aid to African countries that promote condom use, the money will be staying on deposit, and i doubt that will happen.
Abortion is illegal in Ethiopia but still happen in awful circumstances so that doesn't rule out aid there from Bush and God knows it's needed.
I did find a section in the act though relating to Business practices in the countries for which the aid will be designated,it reads very like fair employment legislation and includes the gem:

(8) An offer to all employees of access to culturally appropriate preventive education programs and services to support those programs.

So it does specify that, the programmes paid for by the aid must be appropriate to the countries culture.

Sparks,the first four of the articles quoted by you in your post above are from a year ago and give out about the narrowness of the focus of Bushes anti HIV programme back then , those are not now relevant to the very widely focused programme he has just signed.

I'd tend to agree with Bonkeys view as I said in an earlier post that, what bush is doing here is good or at least could be worse or better.
It certainly isn't bad.
mm

Sparks

Took a while to track it down, but here is the original article that I read on this.

Interesting.
I suppose ones take on it would depend on whether one was pro choice on abortion or not.
As abortion is illegal in Ethiopia, methinks, the money is safe there.
Condom hand outs don't need to be in a medical facility so theres no worries there either.
That article is of course biased in the sense that its tone is driven by comments about aid to Africa from a spokesperson of a "pro-Choice" "pro abortion" organisation who may care more about that agenda than one that might provide aid to countries ravished by HIV.
mm