FRANCE 24: My first question today is: what is at stake, with a few weeks to go, for the G8 meeting in Japan? Do you feel the world is not keeping its promises to help Africa now that food prices are soaring around the planet –and especially in Africa? Is your top goal today to remind us that we have to do something about it?
Bob Geldof: I think it’s a question of credibility. In 2005, the wealthiest economies promised to double aid for Africa to 50 billion dollars by 2010. Remember that Europe, the wealthiest continent on the planet, is 12 km from the poorest continent in the planet. But, each year, Europe – again, the wealthiest continent – receives more aid than Africa – again, the poorest continent. 50 billion dollars is a small sum. The G8, the leaders of the wealthiest economies, have so far only delivered 14% of their promise.
We are all very sceptical about political promises. In fact, there is a great disconnection, I think, between populations and the political class today. Not just throughout Europe but on a national level as well. The same is happening in the G8. But the powerful breaking their promise to the weak is the worst possible thing they can do. If I’m a parent and I tell my kids I’ll take them to the movies on Saturday and, when Saturday comes around, tell them I’ll take them next week, you can see cynicism creep into a child’s eyes. If I’m a businessman and I break my contract with you, you’ll sue me. You’ll go to court. So why do politicians think that they can betray the poor – in our name? You don’t sign the name Jacques Chirac. You don’t sign in the name of your party. You don’t even sign in the name of your government. You sign in the name of the French people. I don’t understand this about political leaders. Why do they find it so easy to lie? To break their promise? Especially to the poor.
I will be in Tokyo, again, and I will be urging them to complete their promise. It’s an important year for France: you will be taking over the EU Presidency. You are looking at your budget for the next three years. So there is a moment here for President Sarkozy to take world leadership. And, because the world is suffering an economic crisis, put it in context. China and India are investing billions of dollars in Africa. The US private sector is investing billions of dollars in Africa. Their political influence, as a result, is huge. Where’s Europe? What are we doing? Our rhetoric is the rhetoric of the middle of the 20th century. We don’t seem to be able to negotiate with this continent and close neighbour. Forever we will be joined to Africa. French people are worried about immigration. They are worried about globalisation. It’s happening in Africa. If you want to prevent immigration, build up a society, build a State, and people won’t want to move. If you want to invest in 900 million producers and consumers – as China, India and America are doing – go to Africa. We’re not doing that.
F24: But Europeans have given a lot of money over the past decades, but can’t help noticing that Africa is as poor as it always has been. What do you say when people ask you where all that aid has gone? Where did all the money from Live Aid go? Can you say it was used properly and sensibly? Did it get lost? Did it get pilfered? What can you say to reassure people?
BG: The aid is very effective. Aid really works. Despite the sceptics. One of the great triumphs of France, indeed, is the invention of the Global Fund for AIDS. This is an empirical structure. I could take a euro from a French citizen and show you the trail from France right down to a person getting AIDS drugs for the first time. In 2002, only 50,000 people in Africa were getting AIDS drugs. And they had to pay for them. This year, a stable 2 million people receive AIDS drugs every year. And we can exactly see the money trail and the result.
It’s the same with education. There’s the Fast-Track Education Initiative. You can trace each dollar, euro, pound or yen from its source down to a school room in Africa. And, as a result of 1 million French people signing the petition –amongst others in the world– in the year 2000, because of Live 8 in Paris, where half-a-million children were on the street, 29 million children in Africa have gone to school thanks to debt cancellation. 29 million. That’s half the population of France.
F24: Sure, but other figures show that several tens of billions of aid have evaporated, or ended up in African dictators’ pockets. Do you have a way of keeping tabs on what African governments do with that money?
BG: During the Cold War, you are absolutely right. We spent our money helping our pet tyrants. We supported Mobutu, for example, in Zaire, and the Soviets supported Mengistu in Ethiopia. Because we couldn’t fight the Cold War. It was too expensive for us to fight. We’d lose too much. And the Soviets couldn’t fight it because they had no money. So we fought a Hot War in Latin America and Africa, and we paid for, as I say, our favourite tyrants. As soon as the Cold War was over, in 1989, we suddenly got rid of Mobutu, the Soviets got rid of Mengistu, and we could talk politics and economics. Before that, we could only really deal with charity. Now, we can deal with the underlying structure of poverty. Which is politics and economics. Now there’s a new compact. But the G8 is still talking in old Cold-War terms.
F24: We periodically hear talk about Africa rising from its slumber, and about the emerging middle class that might lead Africa to a brighter future. Do you think things are actually happening in Africa, that our negative image of it is overshadowing the fact that things are actually changing?
BG: Absolutely. In Sub-Saharan Africa, there are 23 more or less democratic States. And this continent is growing 6.2% annually. Compare that to European growth. Granted, it’s from a very low base. The countries where there is oil, cobalt, zinc, platinum, etc. are of course growing at a staggering pace. But even the landlocked countries, even countries that have no extractive industries, are growing 5% or possibly a little more. In the more democratic countries, you see 10% to 12% growth. And you’ll see the basic beginning of a middle class and specific structures. You’ll also see the amount of investment from China (which needs Africa’s resources), and the matching investment from the private sector in America. Now there’s a danger. Because, with Chinese mercantilism, you get an American response that is essentially militaristic. But, again, what’s Europe’s position? We had a tragic European-Union African-Union Summit in Lisbon. It was ridiculous. The Chinese now have a game to play. They can go to the Chinese, they can go to the Americans, but they come to the European Union and we lecture them. We need to engage with Africa because all our resources, our energy, will come from Africa. We need to engage with Africa because it will be our export market. As investment comes into the continent –as it is doing for the first time in centuries– the economy will grow.
I know people will laugh and think it’s ridiculous. But Africa will be an economic giant by 2040. Because it has to be. China will be overdeveloped and India will be very developed, leaving only one place that still has the resources and the capacity for growth.
F24: Assuming there is no ethnic strife in Kenya, assuming Zimbabwe restores democracy, assuming South Africa develops properly… There are many problems that need sorting out still…
BG: Absolutely. But what you are seeing is the murderous process of nation building. I hate relativism. But building nations is a bloody business. Look at Europe: we fought each other for 500 years. Constantly. Murderously. The 30 Years War, the 100 Years War, the First World War, the Franco-Prussian War, the Second World War… Until we realised that cooperation, and not competition, was the paradigm we needed for development. So the great triumph of Europe was that we understood 50 years ago that it made more sense to develop together. That’s the EU. And the great European civil war ended in 1989. The Africans have had 40 years to create their new States. And what you are seeing is rivalries play out. It’s disgusting for us to witness, especially on our televisions in our living rooms every night. It is a process. And, in the 21st century, we should be able to ameliorate that process. We should be able to negotiate without killing each other. But those things will be overcome. Developments helps to overcome.
F24: I have two questions about China. We have heard that China is in Africa to siphon its natural resources dry. Is there a chance it will end up pillaging Africa?
BG: That’s a good question. Because of communications and media, in the 19th century, we all pillaged Africa. The French, the English, the Germans… We did that. We don’t want to see a repeat of that. But I think that, in the first instance, the Chinese just came with a chequebook and said, “How much do you want for the platinum? ” and “How much do you want for the zinc?” They then gradually realised that normal international business standards would give them a better advantage. They didn’t come with a political agenda. They don’t want to be involved. But they have invested so massively that they are involved. They are engaged, politically.
I’ll give you an example. In Zambia, they refused to recognise the unions. So the workers went on strike. The opposition parties made a political noise. Two guards were shot. Within two weeks, there was international uproar. Within two weeks, the Chinese had recognised the unions and production has resumed. So I think – and this is true of China in general around the world – they understand, and they are learning very quickly, that engaging multilaterally is better than just pretending that they are isolated and on their own. I don’t think that a repeat of colonialism can happen. I don’t think so. I hope not.
F24: My other question about China is whether you personally think it is a good idea to boycott the Olympic Games or at least the opening ceremony in Beijing in a few weeks’ time to defend the Tibetan cause. Or does it make more sense to be in Beijing to talk to Chinese and Tibetan authorities?
BG: I’m not big on gesture politics. I do Rock and Roll, and Rock and Roll has a function in articulating and in making gestures, politically. With regard to Africa, Bono and I decided to engage in the instruments of change. And the instruments of power are politicians. They are the avatars of change. So you must engage. Those politicians, I think, have to make gestures of disapproval. And Chinese behaviour in Tibet is ridiculous. It is unbecoming of a power of the size of China. And there is no need for it. We dislike it. They don’t accept our view on rights. They will tell you, “We don’t accept that: we have a different way of thinking.” We insist on our version of rights. That’s an argument to have. But I think politicians who do have these values of democracy and human rights have to make a gesture. So it’s a fine judgement. Were I a world leader, I don’t think I’d attend the opening. But it seems silly, doesn’t it? But I would definitely negotiate with the Chinese. I would always talk with them. I would always try and do business with them. And I would make it clear that I believe in these things and that my electorate believes in them, but that we can talk about it.
F24: Getting back to Europe and the French Presidency, how do you feel about Ireland’s referendum? Was it a catastrophe for Europe, of was it just a reflection of the Irish people’s legitimate concern over what Europe might have in store for them?
BG: I think it would be a catastrophe if the leaders just ignored it and pretended nothing had happened. It’s not just Ireland. The French voted against the exact same structure. They just changed the name from Constitution to Treaty. The Dutch voted no. And the Irish were the only people allowed to vote. We don’t know what would happen if the other 26 were allowed to vote, but a good proportion of people would say no. Not to any national agenda. But because there is this belief that there is this democratic deficit. That Europe is a project of the political class. That there is a disconnection between what happens in Brussels and what people in Paris feel. What people in Dublin feel. And they don’t want to be told, in impenetrable language, what to do, say or think. And when Ireland’s political class – all the parties – all the churches, and all the unions say, “Vote yes”, being Irish, you say “No.” So for the elite to say, “Fine, we respect that, but it makes no difference,” is a catastrophic mistake. Individual items on the agenda – a President, a Foreign Minister, etc. – are no problem. But structures that limit our Parliament’s ability to change laws emanating from Brussels are a problem. Sarkozy has the mandate to address this in a coherent, intellectual way. The people of Europe are not stupid. They clearly see the benefits. They just want the voice that they fought for so long.
F24: So there are high expectations surrounding the French Presidency beyond Ireland and indeed across Europe…
BG: Yes. But I’m not trying to bring the conversation back to this DATA report that Bono and I are announcing. But here is a promise –a solemn promise, of very little money, to the poorest people of the world– that in five years we will go to help them with a certain amount. Then politicians just deliver 14% of that. Of course there’s scepticism. This is a great political project. It’s worth thinking about. It’s worth addressing the people of Europe and bringing them with us on the way. For Sarkozy it’s a fantastic opportunity to go to the Heads of State meeting in Europe, to go to the G8, to address the position of Africa, to deal with the Mediterranean Union concept. It’s a great moment for France to take leadership now. Stop being afraid of globalisation. Stop being afraid of these issues. The world is going through an economic moment. But remember that we are the most successful continent ever seen. We are the healthiest and we are the wealthiest. We don’t feel it. But it’s true. And we should now take a leadership role. So it’s up to France, really, to lead us.
