Some More Understanding Of Bono's Position Between Iraq and Africa

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Michael Griffiths

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Jun 10, 2000
Messages
3,925
Location
Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Found at U2log.com:

March 14, 2003
Third world debt, AIDS, famine and Africa
From the Nouvel Observateur.

Bono: ?I?m declaring war on the forgotten war.?

The Irish rock star is battling tirelessly for the third world. He harasses the pope, George Bush, the IMF or the World Bank, and today Jacques Chirac to get rich countries to cancel the debt of poor countries. Meet this pragmatic utopian.


Bono is at war. At war against AIDS that is laying Africa to waste, at war against the debt that suffocates the third world. A few days ago, he and Jacques Chirac spoke for an hour and a half about world affairs. A unique summit meeting between a President of the French Republic and a rock star, both of whom are nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. The Irish singer from U2, who can lay claim to the title of ?biggest rock group in the world? (more than 60 million dollars earned last year, ahead of the Beatles, 4 Grammy awards, 100 million albums sold) was awarded the Legion of Honor for his work towards third world debt relief and his fight against AIDS in Africa.

Paul David Hewson, 42 in May (sic) ? nicknamed Bono Vox by his Dublin friends after the name of a store which sold hearing aids, today the spokesman of DATA (Debt, Aids and Trade for Africa in Return of Democracy, Accountability and Transparency in Africa) ? was arguing for an African Marshall Plan. He left the Elysee Palace with the promise that the forgotten continent will be the priority at the next G8 summit. Better, Chirac committed to do everything possible, they say, to bring an end to third world debt.

But if the gulf between western prosperity and the misery of the world were to be filled in tomorrow, that would also be thanks to Bono?s fight. Time ran the headline a few months ago: Can Bono Save the Third World? (sic). The self-educated singer hasn?t put his pilgrim?s staff down for 20 years. Spiritual like Lennon, human like Springsteen, a rebel like Manu Chao, Bono, the son of the divisive union of a Protestant mother and a Catholic father, has proclaimed his credo everywhere: Music can change the world. From Sunday Bloody Sunday, a pacifist hymn to the Londonderry dead, to the ?MLK? tribute to Martin Luther King, from Miss Sarajevo to Peace on Earth, Bono wields spirituality (with the Bible as his main inspiration) like a Kalashnikov. He preaches compassionate rage and responsibility.

Famine in Ethiopia, Live Aid, apartheid, Irish unemployment, Amnesty International, Nicaragua, AIDS, Rushdie (who joined him onstage), NetAid, etc. It wasn?t enough for Bono to sing for a good cause. He joined action to words, such as when he brought together David Trimble (the unionist head, Prostestant) and John Hume (the nationalist head, Catholic) onstage in Belfast in 1993 and got them to shake hands for the first time. Bono understands the weight of symbols and the price of his image: ?I?m very happy to use my celebrity, but it?s not cheap.? Trading off the modern showbiz game without a qualm, the rock star has put himself at the service of his ideals. ?I?m not a hippie. I think about moving things along piece by piece. I?m a pragmatist,? he says.

His real political work began in 1985 during the Ethiopian famine. With Bob Geldof, the musician who organized Live Aid, he spent a month in a refugee camp. It was an experience that changed his life and resonated instantly on the day in 1998 when a representative of Jubilee 2000, leaders of the campaign for third world debt forgiveness, explained to him that fine, Live Aid raised 200 million dollars, but Africa was paying that much in five days just to service their debts.

Bono jumped right in then, got allies, analysed, argued, put dossiers together, and visited all the planet?s big shots to convince them with his well-tested arguments. He got the ear of Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and John Paul II, spoke up at the UN and Davod. A relentless advocate, he pestered the IMF and the World Bank. And don?t forget the fieldwork, like last June when he took the American Secretary of the Treasury with him on a 12 day Africa tour to Uganda, South Africa, Ghana and Ethiopia, where he piled up visits to schools and hospitals to prove that ?canceling poor countries? debts is not a bad idea.?

At the present time, if he doesn?t approve of war in Iraq, Bono thinks that terrorism is also born of famine and AIDS, which kills 2.5 million Africans every year. And that that injustice is where the biggest threat to world peace is to be found.

Nouvel Observateur: What did you come to ask Chirac?
Bono: Next year 2.5 million Africans are going to die of AIDS because they don?t have access to drugs that are available in industrialized countries. I came to make sure he was going to put AIDS in Africa on the agenda of the next G8 summit in Evian. And he promised he would; he told me he wanted to make that one of the key points of the meeting. It?s urgent. It?s a real war unfolding in front of our eyes.

N.O.: The war on everyone?s mind now is the one against Iraq. Do you think this is a good time to kick off your campaign?
Bono: More than ever. The war on AIDS is the other war, the forgotten war. I?m very moved, seeing hundreds of millions of people demonstrating against war in Iraq and worrying about the loss of human life that could result. But what I can?t believe is that these same people aren?t demonstrating for the millions of Africans who will die, year after year. If this were going on anywhere but Africa, millions of people would be out in the streets.

N.O: People will accuse you of doing ?charity business.?
Bono: This isn?t charity. It isn?t philanthropy. It?s a question of justice and equality, that?s all. Africa already has to confront natural disasters, and it?s also confronted by the gangrene of corruption. But we?re supporting that corruption through unfair trade relationships. I?ll say it again, this isn?t about charity, it?s about equality. We?ve got drugs, we should make them available to everyone. An image comes to mind often for me about this epidemic. It?s the bubonic plague, which ravaged Europe in the middle ages. Imagine that the Chinese back then had discovered a cure, but they refused to help Europe because it was too expensive. How would we have judged China? How would history have judged China? That?s exactly what?s going on for the West. We?ve got to act, to react.

N.O. You did an African tour with Paul O?Neill who used to be the Treasury Secretary of the Bush administration. What were the results?
Bono: The results were very concrete, because a little later in his State of the Union address, George Bush devoted time to this question of AIDS in Africa. He discussed antiretroviral drugs. Six months earlier, it would have been unthinkable that a member of the Republican administration could say that kind of thing. Even more important, he put 16 million dollars (sic) on the table, in other words an increase of 10 million dollars over 5 years. That?s a doubling of what America spends on AIDS at home and abroad.

N. O. What do you say to the attitude of this same American administration, when they dangle assistance in front of African countries like Angola in exchange for their vote to support the US at the UN?
Bono: Engaging in that kind of tradeoff is just unacceptable.

N.O. You?ve met George Bush and Colin Powell before. What would you say to them today?
Bono: I?d say the enemy I dread the most in the world isn?t a military one, but the illness called AIDS. Not to stamp out this epidemic is playing into the hands of terrorism. It?s in that kind of distress that terrorism takes root. I?d also ask them: we know now what you?re against. Could you tell us what you?re for?

NO: What do you think of Tony Blair?s outlook?
Bono: He?s the greatest English Prime Minister in 50 years. He?s done extraordinary things for Great Britain. When my friends are amazed to hear me talk that way, I tell them: So did you already forget Margaret Thatcher? You?ve forgotten how awful life was under that government? I?ll say it again, Tony Blair?s a great leader. His convictions on Iraq are very sincere, but I think he?s sincerely wrong.

N.O You?ve fought, and you continue to fight, for third world debt cancellation. Does getting a Marshall Plan for Africa underway appear more urgent to you than war in Iraq?
Bono: Of course! It?s the only thing I?m fighting for. During the Cold War, the Marshall Plan wasn?t only designed to help with the reconstruction of Europe; it was also supposed to build a wall against communism. Africa needs to become the new front line. We should fight AIDS there, send the drugs we have here in rich countries. We need to invest in Africa, invest in people?s lives, in their future, in our future. We ought to end unfair trade. France has a lot to do on that score. The capitalist system can?t be satisfied with storing up profits, it also has to assume repsonsibilities. Anyway, that system isn?t working for the majority of people in the world. So it?ll collapse. There will be rebellion. There ought to be rebellion. These AIDS drugs are the best publicity we can do for our innovation, our creativity. And they?re a lot cheaper than bullets.

N.O. Your father is Catholic, your mother Protestant. Is religion a source of inspiration to you?
Bono: I?m a pragmatist. I confront the world the way it is, because I?m an activist. But it does happen that I use the Bible as a weapon. When I?m dealing with American fundamentalists, I keep telling them that there are 2103 verses in Scripture about the poor, and Jesus speaks of judgment only once. And it?s not judgment on sexuality or morals. It?s a judgment about poverty. I reminded George Bush of this passage in Matthew chapter 25 where it?s written: ?For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.? The people who are listening answer ?but when did we see you hungry and feed you?? And then Jesus tells them, ?Truly, every time you did it for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.? So there: that?s what remains for us to do.

(Translation kindly provided by Dre)
 
Michael Griffiths said:
I keep telling them that there are 2103 verses in Scripture about the poor, and Jesus speaks of judgment only once. And it?s not judgment on sexuality or morals. It?s a judgment about poverty. I reminded George Bush of this passage in Matthew chapter 25 where it?s written: ?For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.? The people who are listening answer ?but when did we see you hungry and feed you?? And then Jesus tells them, ?Truly, every time you did it for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.? So there: that?s what remains for us to do.

I love this part. :happy:

And LOL @ this
So did you already forget Margaret Thatcher? You?ve forgotten how awful life was under that government?
It's always good to hear people criticising Maggie :wink:

Thanks for posting the article :happy:
 
I was watching Comic relief last night on TV showing the starving and dying in Africa and I thought as Bono, If the people who are for and against this with Iraq war put as much time and effort into the african problems it would create a huge difference.

One could only hope,

Great article Michael
 
There are so many more thing we (US) could be spending our money on. Poverty. homlessness, and education in our own country to name a few. If 1/3 of our military buget were changed to humanitarian needs, the entire world could be changed.

We need to get rid of the old men that think might is only way to change the world. And "I'm no Bleeping hippy with flowers in my hair" either.
The real cause is the military/coroporate industrial complex that demands it money.
 
Scarletwine said:
There are so many more thing we (US) could be spending our money on. Poverty. homlessness, and education in our own country to name a few. If 1/3 of our military buget were changed to humanitarian needs, the entire world could be changed.

Argh, no kidding-our money could be put to such better uses.

Great article!

This is why I love Bono so much, why I respect and admire him.

Angela
 
follower said:
That?s a great interview. He?s such an extraordinay man.

Indeed. I particularly appreciate people like Bono during times like these. It's during the tough times that we really need good people. Thank God we've got them.
 
It astounds me that a thread is moved as soon as there appears the keyword "Iraq".

And "Declaring war on the forgotten war" is the right thing to do.

In another thread, sometime ago, there was a discussion why Bono doesn?t speak out on the upcoming war. In that article you may as well find an answer.

Way to go.

It?s a long way...
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
In another thread, sometime ago, there was a discussion why Bono doesn?t speak out on the upcoming war. In that article you may as well find an answer.

Way to go.

It?s a long way...

Absolutely. Bravo!!
 
What else need's to be said....Nothing changes on New Years day... without enough voices.. he can't do it alone..maybe the time is right, maybe we can do it tonight....:yes:
 
Last edited:
sue4u2 said:
What else need's to be said....Nothing changes on New Years day... without enough voices.. he can't do it alone..maybe the time is right, maybe we can do it tonight....:yes:

We can't change things by ourselves, but we can change some things together.
 
uh, i agree with most - but blair being the best prime minister in the last 50 years? tell me - just how awful have the brits been in electing their heads of state to make him the best of the bunch?
 
The Brits are usually rather awful at electing leaders - Margaret Thatcher winning three times in a row is a fine example of that.

Tony Blair started off very well, in my opinion. The work he oversaw under his first term was highly commendable. No, he was never true Labour, and no I never did like 'him' - though I do support Labour - but I did see him orchestrating a lot of good. Despite the removal of the student grants, I do believe his government has helped the lower middle-classes, and I STILL believe they are doing far more than the Tories would have ever done. Also, he did more for the IRA peace process than Margaret Thatcher OR John Major (who I am rather indifferent to) ever did. Whereas the IRA tried to kill Margaret Thatcher repeatedly, Blair's participation in the peace process has proved effective.

The Iron Lady was truly the most destructive, irresponsible and politically vindictive leader this country has seen in a very very long time, and it is sad to see the Falklands episode all over again with Tony Blair's second term. His second term has truly been, well, awful. A Labour government not being sympathetic to the Unions, the Firemen and, due to the lack of proper economic policy implementation, seeing far too many public services failing. We have a Labour government introducing the most absurd economic policies (Congestion charging? Higher council taxes? Top-up fees?) that only exacerbate the middle classes. What have they done over the last few years that has helped Britain?

But Blair's worst crime was to be led by foreign powers against the credance of his own party. No, neither America nor Bush is the devil - but a leader, a supposedly democratic leader, has a responsibility to listen to his own people who have been repeating incessantly for months now that 'no, no, NO!'. This is his crime, he has turned his back not just on his people, but on his very own party. It is NOT for a Labour government to support war, anyway, much less one that is pre-emptive in nature.

Blair is far from being the best English Primeminister, and I do believe Bono is 'sincerely wrong' in that assesment, but he is, unfortunately, far from being the worst. I would choose Tony Blair over Margaret Thatcher anyday.

Ant.
 
Anthony said:
The Brits are usually rather awful at electing leaders - Margaret Thatcher winning three times in a row is a fine example of that.


Yes, and then, apparently having missed the fact that the country was falling apart at the seams, we elected John Major for a fourth Tory term in office. Go Brits! :(

Despite the removal of the student grants, I do believe his government has helped the lower middle-classes, and I STILL believe they are doing far more than the Tories would have ever done. Also, he did more for the IRA peace process than Margaret Thatcher OR John Major (who I am rather indifferent to) ever did. Whereas the IRA tried to kill Margaret Thatcher repeatedly, Blair's participation in the peace process has proved effective.


Very true. I think that's why it's so sad to see Blair throwing away his Prime Ministership (is that even a word?) on the issue of Iraq. And to be honest, he's not only throwing away his own leadership of the party, he's opening the door of number ten to a hopelessly fragmented Tory Party :(

I think removing the student grant was one of the worst decisions of Blair's first term. He sets targets of 50% participation in HE and yet he introduced tuition fees and took away grants. These new proposals for top-up fees are a huge attack on working class participation in university, they'll benefit the red brick universities and middle class students at the expense of children from working class backgrounds.

And I agree about the peace process too. Particularly his involvement in the talks prior to the Good Friday Agreement. I still think that agreement provides essentially the only opportunity for progress in the North of Ireland and I wish Blair would be stronger in standing up to Unionists who are trying to destroy the peace process.


The Iron Lady was truly the most destructive, irresponsible and politically vindictive leader this country has seen in a very very long time
[/b]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

His second term has truly been, well, awful. A Labour government not being sympathetic to the Unions, the Firemen and, due to the lack of proper economic policy implementation, seeing far too many public services failing. We have a Labour government introducing the most absurd economic policies (Congestion charging? Higher council taxes? Top-up fees?) that only exacerbate the middle classes. What have they done over the last few years that has helped Britain?


They've handled the FBU strike incredibly badly. When you've even got the most moderate sections of the trade union movement criticising the government, you know they've made a serious mistake. And it's turning the rest of the trades unions against Labour because the attacks on unions, you only have to look at the series of left-wing general secretaries who've been elected in the last few years to see that. It's not even in the traditionally left unions either, it's in PCS, AMICUS etc.

Although to be fair, I thought congestion charging was the right idea, and it had nothing to do with the Labour government - it was Livingstone's policy.

But Blair's worst crime was to be led by foreign powers against the credance of his own party. No, neither America nor Bush is the devil - but a leader, a supposedly democratic leader, has a responsibility to listen to his own people who have been repeating incessantly for months now that 'no, no, NO!'. This is his crime, he has turned his back not just on his people, but on his very own party. It is NOT for a Labour government to support war, anyway, much less one that is pre-emptive in nature.

What do you think is going to happen to Blair if he supports this war? I've heard some people predicting he'll lose the leadership over it, while others think he'll just be so weakened by this that the next time a serious fight comes up he won't be able to keep his job. It's interesting to see how many Labour MPs are voting against him for the first time on this, so maybe now that they've disagreed with him once, they'll be more willing to do it again.
 
FizzingWhizzbees;

Yes, congestion charging was indeed 'Red Ken's' policy, but as always, the government should get credit for the thints that go well and get blamed for things that don't go so well - they are, after all, the government. Also, if I'm not mistaken, I do believe Livingstone had support from the government, if anything.

However, from experience, congestion charging, though a good idea, has been implemented absurdly. Yes, the 'C' zone starts at Bond street, but it should start WAY before that anyway; congestion doesn't happen suddenly in Oxford Street, it accumulates from the very end of Paddington and the start of Edgware Road - that is where it should have been implemented. As a result, not only has the charge not done anything to improve the problem of congestion (because the central line has been down I have had to use the bus, and my two-hour journey for what should be a half-hour journey still remains the same), but the only thing it's doing is punishing those who need to move around in rush hour. The most who are being affected adversely are parents who are merely trying to get their children picked up from school - ordinary people trying to get from A to B to C. YES, you should charge, but you should NOT charge when the problem isn't being addressed properly at all. All this is doing, because of its disappointing implementation, is charging people for a phenomenom that is not their fault. They have no real incentive to do anything, since the problem starts way before the 'C' zone.

I do wonder what will become of Blair's political career. What a waste, and for what? For the betrayal of his very own principles, or, principles he should have. Quite clearly, Tony Blair went to the wrong party, his efforts would have been appreciated by a Pro-Euro Thatcherite culture. The only thing working in his favour is that the Tories are divided, near extinction, disorganised, and have a truly awful leader. Had they chosen Michael Portillo, they would have had a far better chance.

So; maybe Tony Blair will be dismissed. As much as I hate saying this, he doesn't have some of the endearing qualities Margaret Thatcher had, and neither does he have her balls. For lack of a better expression, his leadership seems weak, and, although we can criticise the horrors of Thatcher, we can also say that she was never considered 'weak'. I am making the comparisons between the two because I truly find it hard to believe that Tony Blair will be voted a third time. What could have been beneficial is the Labour party getting rid of him and electing a new leader, unfortunately, there is no such leader in the party.

What a dire future awaits the political landscape of our nation.
What do you think will happen?

Ant.
 
Last edited:
On the congestion charging, I'm sure the implementation is far fom perfect, but I think in priciple it's a good idea.

I dread to think what would have happened if the Tories had picked Portillo as leader (or even Ken Clarke, to a lesser extent). I think they'd be in a far stronger position to challenge Blair. Thankfully IDS is such a weak leader that even though Blair has made a huge mess of the Iraq situation, hopefully the situation is still salvageable and Labour won't lose the next election.

What do I think will happen? Worst case scenario, Blair keeps the leadership and continues to push through extremely unpopular policies (eg top-up fees, maybe foundation hospitals to a lesser extent) and the Tories win the next election :( Possibly, Blair keeps the leadership but is kept in check by the rest of the party and so manages to win the next election. Or else Blair goes, but who would replace him? I've heard lots of talk of it being Blunkett, but I find that quite hard to believe, I think the only seroius contender would be Gordon Brown. Perhaps if Blair were to go within the next year or so then a new leader would have chance to redeem himself in the eyes of the electorate and Labour could stay in office in 2006.

I think that last paragraph was actually my (very long) way of saying I don't have a clue what's going to happen. :wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom