Live 8

[August1991]

The whole issue here is whose debt should be cancelled, and who should accept the loss.

It added that Bono would meet with all the 14 regional leaders attending the summit, called to discuss the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the political crisis in Zimbabwe.

Bono is well-known for campaigning against world debt for the world's poorest countries and for the improvement of trade relations between Africa and the rest of the world.

In 2000, he delivered a petition containing 21.2 million signatures to the UN Millennium Summit, asking them to cancel Third World debt, as part of the Jubilee 2000 Drop the Debt campaign.

BBC 2002

The idea that the Nigerian federal government, the biggest single African debtor, has seen its debt cancelled is Kafkaesque.

Nigeria's debt was $30bn, of which $18bn was written off - but they have to pay $1.7bn up front to clear the remaining $12bn.

BBC (Where else have I heard this pay-up-front idea to obtain a future benefit?)

Cancelling African government debt is arguably similar to cancelling Conrad Black's debt while leaving intact student loans. Neither Bono, nor Jeffrey Sachs for that matter, has ever made explicit whose debt will be cancelled.

And who should accept the loss on this debt? You , me or Sir Paul McCartney?

£138M - AMAZING FORTUNE LEFT BY LINDA MCCARTNEY GOES TO HER CHILDREN, ANIMAL CHARITIES AND CANCER RESEARCH

Some web site Well, not quite. Linda McCartney's estate went entirely to her husband. By having her estate probated in the US, McCartney avoided giving about US $70 million to the US government, possibly for African debt relief.

Linda McCartney has left her entire fortune to her husband Sir Paul in a trust fund that makes her estate virtually free from taxes.

....

British death duties on a will such as hers would be up to 40%. But by maintaining her US citizenship, Lady McCartney made sure her will would be filed in the States, thus exempting her husband from all federal, state and city taxes.

BBC

----

Jeffrey Sachs is a smart guy, a partisan Democrat who probably wants to embarass Bush but genuinely is trying to find a way to help poor people. Bono may be Irish but he's really just an American Limousine Liberal - a Jet Set Leftist. Paul McCartney is just a guy in the band, I guess, although he opened and closed the UK concert.

These guys may have their hearts in the right place but they deserved to be told some basic facts of life. Unless they are prepared to give up the Lear Jets and the First Class tickets, they are in no position to ask ordinary people to donate 20 quid for world poverty. Worse, they are in no position to advocate using other people's money to write off debts of the Nigerian or Zimbabwe governments.

Live8? How about common sense.

[Argus]

The idea that the Nigerian federal government, the biggest single African debtor, has seen its debt cancelled is Kafkaesque.

Nigeria's debt was $30bn, of which $18bn was written off - but they have to pay $1.7bn up front to clear the remaining $12bn.

BBC (Where else have I heard this pay-up-front idea to obtain a future benefit?)

It really would be hilarious if we took their money, then gave them a rubber cheque. Cancelling Nigeria's debt is obscene. Despite their oil they ran up a huge debt because they're the most corrupt people on the planet (though the Russians are certainly making a run for the crown). Raid the vaults of their leaders' Swiss and Bermuda bank accounts and they can pay off their own damned debt.

[Black Dog]

It really would be hilarious if we took their money, then gave them a rubber cheque. Cancelling Nigeria's debt is obscene. Despite their oil they ran up a huge debt because they're the most corrupt people on the planet (though the Russians are certainly making a run for the crown). Raid the vaults of their leaders' Swiss and Bermuda bank accounts and they can pay off their own damned debt.

Nigeria's a prime example of how western interests facilitate the continued oppression of African people and the corruption of their leadership. Nigeria collects millions of dollars a year in oil riches, yet seventy percent of Nigeria's population lives on less than $1 dollar a day, and the poorest fifth of the population received only four percent of the nation's wealth. However western oil companies like Shell and Chevron turn a blind eye and, in some cases, actively take part in the suppression of dissent. No discussion of Africa's endemic corruption can take place without mentioning western complicity, nor can any talk of refrom take place without aknowledging the barriers "our" interests present to real positive change.

[Muddyw67]

I have posted my response concerning Live8 from my own site "Bilaternal Notions"

Live 8 has met with some considerable criticism in Canada and I have already added my voice to that sentiment. As far as I know, not one African child has stopped working in a field for pennies a day probably orphaned because of HIV infection rates because Paul McCartney and Elton John sang Sargent Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. However I can guarantee that corrupt decadent leaders like Mugabe and his followers are continuing to live like princes. I would have got behind a concert called "Democracy 4 Africa"or "Rock Musicians 4 social justice in Africa-not as catchy or commercial but more likely to capture the real issues which is Western acquiescence of tyrants as along as they can extract resources and exploit the continent. Canada ties its aid to purchasing of Canadian products and services- this is hardly "aid" but forced trade by other means

I personally would like to see a Canadian concert that promotes awareness of the often brutal living conditions of our First Nations people which replicates Third World conditions in many areas. Our lack of appropriate "aid" to the founding peoples here is as big of scandal as Africa-Our first nations people live in squalor have the highest rate of HIV infections substance abuse lowest post secondary attendance highest suicide rates especially among the young. Like many African countries the First Nations peoples are often exploited by their own leaders.

I would love to see Canada's disgraceful record in terms of its own people paraded to the world and our disinterested politicians humiliated in front of the entire planet.

[I miss Reagan]

It really would be hilarious if we took their money, then gave them a rubber cheque. Cancelling Nigeria's debt is obscene. Despite their oil they ran up a huge debt because they're the most corrupt people on the planet (though the Russians are certainly making a run for the crown). Raid the vaults of their leaders' Swiss and Bermuda bank accounts and they can pay off their own damned debt.

Nigeria's a prime example of how western interests facilitate the continued oppression of African people and the corruption of their leadership. Nigeria collects millions of dollars a year in oil riches, yet seventy percent of Nigeria's population lives on less than $1 dollar a day, and the poorest fifth of the population received only four percent of the nation's wealth. However western oil companies like Shell and Chevron turn a blind eye and, in some cases, actively take part in the suppression of dissent. No discussion of Africa's endemic corruption can take place without mentioning western complicity, nor can any talk of refrom take place without aknowledging the barriers "our" interests present to real positive change.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BD, you have a pretty simplistic view of Africa, similar to the Live 8 bands. Shifting the personal responsibility from African leadership and placing it on western corporations is foolish and misguided. It's understandible why people think this way though. We grow up berated by lectures about how people are starving in Africa because of our wealth. Every other infomercial is some church organization showing starving Africans. The first time I went to Africa, I went with this attitude. But when I got there I was shocked to see how much money was going in but the people were still in rags. It soon became obvious where all the money was going, to the corrupt governments. I have seen first hand that there is plenty of wealth in Africa to feed the people. The problem is corruption that will never end. Aid shipments of medicine and technology are sold by the governments and end up in Europe. Many African governments put taxes on donated clothes and goods as a disincentive so people will send money instead which has to be funneled through the corrupt governments. Of course every once in a while you'll get a success story like Uganda right now, with a leadership that is headed in "the right direction". But history reminds us that this is short lived with a hundred corrupt guys ready to pounce at any sign of weekness to take their turn. Look at Zimbabawe or pre-massacre Rwanda, other countries that were once "headed in the right direction". Debt forgiveness is a good idea in an ideal world. Unfortunately in Africa, debt forgiveness just encourages more corruption and discourages self reliance. I agree with Argus regarding Nigeria. They have plenty of oil wealth to fix their problems. Isn't that your argument about Alberta all the time BD? That we are so successful because of our oil wealth? Then what's the problem with Nigeria. Hell even Nigera agreed with Gaddafi the other day when he said Africa needs to quit depending on the West.

[August1991]

Nigeria's a prime example of how western interests facilitate the continued oppression of African people and the corruption of their leadership. Nigeria collects millions of dollars a year in oil riches, yet seventy percent of Nigeria's population lives on less than $1 dollar a day, and the poorest fifth of the population received only four percent of the nation's wealth. However western oil companies like Shell and Chevron turn a blind eye and, in some cases, actively take part in the suppression of dissent. No discussion of Africa's endemic corruption can take place without mentioning western complicity, nor can any talk of refrom take place without aknowledging the barriers "our" interests present to real positive change.

Your post is misleading in the extreme, BD, and I suggest you approach this specific question with an open-mind. At the outset, don't blame the big, bad western corporations. Apply the scientific method.

The Nigerian federal government owns all the oil and gas in place in Nigeria, and it provides a series of leases to private corporations to explore and produce oil. Typically, there are production sharing agreements (PSAs) with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (which retains over 50% participation) and foreign companies, primarily Shell, Elf (Total), Agip, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco. See link. These PSAs typically mean that the producer consortium (joint venture) covers costs and gets a fair return on investment.

At present, Nigeria exports around 2 million barrels per day. With oil at $50 per barrel, the daily gross revenues are around $100 million. I have been unable to find data on Nigerian cost of production (or the agreed PSA cost) but I would imagine that it is around $15 per barrel. This means that the Nigerian federal government receives at least $60 million every day in pure profit (an economic rent) on oil. This rent is at least $20 billion every year, at current world oil prices.

[To contrast this, Alberta's oil sands alone produce almost 1 million barrels/per day at a cost of about $15 per barrel. Production data and cost data. This implies that the Albertan and Canadian federal governments currently earn about $10 billion (US) annually from the oil sands.]

Here is the problem BD: Whoever forms the Nigerian federal government wins a prize of $20 billion every year. This is not the fault of Shell, it is in the nature of the world oil market. OPEC creates a huge (admittedly variable) economic rent - the difference between the world oil price and the cost of production. Not surprisingly, Nigerian politics are a shambles as various people try to become the owner of the economic rent.

[To contrast, we in Canada are not immune from such political battles. Our federal-provincial disputes are arguably disputes about who gets the economic rents of our natural resources.]

BD, what is Shell to do in Nigeria? Texaco pulled out.

Security problems in Nigeria increased with the exit of its military dictatorship, which firmly controlled the various tribes within the country. Political and ethnic strife in the Niger Delta region, including violence, kidnapping, sabotage and the seizure of oil facilities, often disrupts Nigerian oil production. In December 2004, SPDC and ChevronTexaco suspended Nigerian oil exports of 134,000 bbl/d due to unrest in the Niger Delta. In January 2005, ChevronTexaco announced that it was losing 140,000 bbl/d of oil due to the closure of facilities in the Niger Delta.

US Energy Information Agency The same site also lists in great detail the activities of various foreign firms, and the problems they face.

----

What does all this have to with Live 8?

Poverty is not Africa's problem, despite what Stephen Lewis and Bob Geldof keep repeating. Africa is a very, very rich continent. Africa does not need more money. Sending money to Africa is almost like sending money to Alberta - or giving more money to rich spouses involved in a bitter divorce suit, hoping the money sent will be used for the children. But let's be realistic, a continent is not a family.

So, what is Africa's problem? I don't know. I am fairly certain colonialism did not help Africans, and the modern version of colonialism - do-gooder missionaries like Stephen Lewis and Bob Geldof - probably don't help either. If pressed for an answer, I would say that a few Africans seem to argue too much about who controls what.

Blaming Shell or Texaco for Nigeria's political mess is tantamount to blaming the Internet or cell phones for the stoning death of an adulteress in Saudi Arabia. Market relations are like a new technology, and modern corporations are just a conduit for market relations. Shell is simply an intermediary.

BD, I too am appalled by the abject poverty in Africa. (People nowhere else in the world suffer as much, with the possible exception of Haitians.) Blaming Shell, Texaco, rich westerners will not solve the problem. Giving African governments more money will not solve the problem.

A different approach is needed, and IMV, Live 8 ain't it.

[Black Dog]

Shifting the personal responsibility from African leadership and placing it on western corporations is foolish and misguided.

Re-read my post again: do I at any point absolve Africa's leadership? Nope. Africa is being run into the ground by greedy tyrants. Nobody disputes that. However, to read your posts and those of others, these thugs sprang from the earth fully formed to wreak havoc on the populace and plunder the land.

Neither have I endorsed aid or debt relief as a means to end the systemic problems Africa and the rest of the developing world faces.

Certainly the issue is complex and I'm the last person who would resort to simple explanations. But it would be nice to recognize the role we in the west play in maintaining the status quo, be it through unfair trade techniques (such as import tarriffs and commodity dumping), the damage wrought by IMF mandated structural adjustments in the 1980's and '90s, arms sales totalling billions each year (the UK is the leading arms dealer for many of Africa's genocide states), and other factors.

Blaming Shell or Texaco for Nigeria's political mess is tantamount to blaming the Internet or cell phones for the stoning death of an adulteress in Saudi Arabia. Market relations are like a new technology, and modern corporations are just a conduit for market relations. Shell is simply an intermediary.

Again, why so simplistic? They played a role (Shell, for example, contracted private mercanaries to deal with dissidents and indiginous populations in areas of oil exploration). I also reject your simplistic, quaint notions of the role of modern corporations (especially mega ones like Shell and other petro giants). Many of these corporations are national economies unto themselvve and weild considerable political and economic influence as a result. It's in their interests to maintain the relationships they've cultivated with strongmen and thugs. The governments and institutions that have taken a long time to establish control and exploitation of Africa will not quickly abandon their spoils.

[I miss Reagan]

Re-read my post again: do I at any point absolve Africa's leadership? Nope. Africa is being run into the ground by greedy tyrants. Nobody disputes that. However, to read your posts and those of others, these thugs sprang from the earth fully formed to wreak havoc on the populace and plunder the land.

Neither have I endorsed aid or debt relief as a means to end the systemic problems Africa and the rest of the developing world faces.

Certainly the issue is complex and I'm the last person who would resort to simple explanations. But it would be nice to recognize the role we in the west play in maintaining the status quo, be it through unfair trade techniques (such as import tarriffs and commodity dumping), the damage wrought by IMF mandated structural adjustments in the 1980's and '90s, arms sales totalling billions each year (the UK is the leading arms dealer for many of Africa's genocide states), and other factors.

I appreciate your thoughts BD. If we agree that throwing money at them isn't going to solve the problem, what is the solution? I don't think there is one. I think Africa will always be Africa because there is an endless supply of despots to take the place of the last one. With respect to western corps. and mercinaries, companies like Shell have to have protection against the ruthless criminal elements. You should see what these thugs do to people who have money. There are people who'll kill you for a buck and won't even give your dead corpse a second thought. As for the decent people, they are begging for western business to come to their villages and exploit their resources. Why? because the west has the knowledge, money and equipment to do it. But westerners aren't always eager to jump in because first they have to grease every cop and leader in town to assure that they aren't robbed, kidnapped or blown up. But then when a company like Shell comes in and actually spends their money, they are slammed for hiring protection and giving money to shady elements. It truly is a no win situation.

[Muddyw67]

With respect to western corps. and mercinaries, companies like Shell have to have protection against the ruthless criminal elements. You should see what these thugs do to people who have money. There are people who'll kill you for a buck and won't even give your dead corpse a second thought. As for the decent people, they are begging for western business to come to their villages and exploit their resources. Why? because the west has the knowledge, money and equipment to do it. But westerners aren't always eager to jump in because first they have to grease every cop and leader in town to assure that they aren't robbed, kidnapped or blown up. But then when a company like Shell comes in and actually spends their money, they are slammed for hiring protection and giving money to shady elements. It truly is a no win situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those poor put upon western corporations...just trying to make an honest living, playing by the rules, in shock and awe over the wondrous workings of the invisible hand of the market place, trying to raise all boats through the marvels of the free enterprise trickle down system. And what thanks to these tireless selfless entrepreneurs get? Why those heathen devils spit on the very hand that is trying to elevate their primitive conditions. It is really discouraging when all they are trying to do is God's work on earth and bear the white man's burden yet again. It must be something to do with their genes, their beliefs or their race....

[I miss Reagan]

Those poor put upon western corporations...just trying to make an honest living, playing by the rules, in shock and awe over the wondrous workings of the invisible hand of the market place, trying to raise all boats through the marvels of the free enterprise trickle down system. And what thanks to these tireless selfless entrepreneurs get? Why those heathen devils spit on the very hand that is trying to elevate their primitive conditions. It is really discouraging when all they are trying to do is God's work on earth and bear the white man's burden yet again. It must be something to do with their genes, their beliefs or their race....

Ah... what have here, an idealist. An anarchist perhaps? Hey shouldn't you be in Glen Eagles right now ripping sh*t up for peace?

Anyway, your type type really annoys me. Here you sit self righteously typing on that computer manufactured in Korea by some multi-national corporation useing raw materials from the Congo and mercury and lead that will eventually be shipped to Michigan landfills to pollute Canadian groundwater. Perhaps we should talk about the fossil fuels being used to run your computer. To fuel the bus/car that takes you to work. The fossil fuels produced by these "evil" companies which heat your house in this cold country. A country, which by the way, you live in because of the theft and genocide of aboriginal peoples. While you sit taking up the biggest ecological footprint in the world. So while you're up there on your high horse; tell me what percentage of your income do you give to Africa?

[Black Dog]

I appreciate your thoughts BD. If we agree that throwing money at them isn't going to solve the problem, what is the solution? I don't think there is one.

Sure there is.

Stop. Propping. Up. Dictators.

With respect to western corps. and mercinaries, companies like Shell have to have protection against the ruthless criminal elements. You should see what these thugs do to people who have money. There are people who'll kill you for a buck and won't even give your dead corpse a second thought. As for the decent people, they are begging for western business to come to their villages and exploit their resources. Why? because the west has the knowledge, money and equipment to do it. But westerners aren't always eager to jump in because first they have to grease every cop and leader in town to assure that they aren't robbed, kidnapped or blown up. But then when a company like Shell comes in and actually spends their money, they are slammed for hiring protection and giving money to shady elements. It truly is a no win situation.

Bullshit.

Was Ken Saro Wiwa a "thug" for standing up to the brutal dictatorship aided and abetted by the defenceless multinationals you're defending?

Anyway, your type type really annoys me. Here you sit self righteously typing on that computer manufactured in Korea by some multi-national corporation useing raw materials from the Congo and mercury and lead that will eventually be shipped to Michigan landfills to pollute Canadian groundwater. Perhaps we should talk about the fossil fuels being used to run your computer. To fuel the bus/car that takes you to work. The fossil fuels produced by these "evil" companies which heat your house in this cold country. A country, which by the way, you live in because of the theft and genocide of aboriginal peoples. While you sit taking up the biggest ecological footprint in the world. So while you're up there on your high horse; tell me what percentage of your income do you give to Africa?

Right, so the only people who have a right to talk about the gross imbalance of wealth and the wests actions with respect to the developing world are suppossed to be hermits and neo-Luddites? Again: bullshit. This is utterly specious reasoning and can easily be turned around. F'r instance, IMR, I know you personally supported the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror. So why aren't you carrying an M-16 in Baghdad right now?

The reality is we live in the society that others have built. Yes, we benefit from grave injustices committted upon others which is why its paramount we work to reduce or eliminate such injustices committed on our behalf and not, as you would have us, shut up and silently reap the rewards.

[Muddyw67]

Those poor put upon western corporations...just trying to make an honest living, playing by the rules, in shock and awe over the wondrous workings of the invisible hand of the market place, trying to raise all boats through the marvels of the free enterprise trickle down system. And what thanks to these tireless selfless entrepreneurs get? Why those heathen devils spit on the very hand that is trying to elevate their primitive conditions. It is really discouraging when all they are trying to do is God's work on earth and bear the white man's burden yet again. It must be something to do with their genes, their beliefs or their race....

Ah... what have here, an idealist. An anarchist perhaps? Hey shouldn't you be in Glen Eagles right now ripping sh*t up for peace?

Anyway, your type type really annoys me. Here you sit self righteously typing on that computer manufactured in Korea by some multi-national corporation useing raw materials from the Congo and mercury and lead that will eventually be shipped to Michigan landfills to pollute Canadian groundwater. Perhaps we should talk about the fossil fuels being used to run your computer. To fuel the bus/car that takes you to work. The fossil fuels produced by these "evil" companies which heat your house in this cold country. A country, which by the way, you live in because of the theft and genocide of aboriginal peoples. While you sit taking up the biggest ecological footprint in the world. So while you're up there on your high horse; tell me what percentage of your income do you give to Africa?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am of course delighted that "my type" annoys you-”your type”, whatever that means seems to really get worked up when their cherished fetishes, "The free market" is in any way challenged even if it's done somewhat playfully as I did. Since you have analyzed the corporate crimes in terms of their ecological and historical plunderings pretty well, my question to you is why doesn't the corporate system provide us with products that don't contribute to the destructive consequences that you have so elequently outlined for us? Has it got something to do with "externalities" perhaps? That wonderful enterprising practice of socializing all the costs associated with production so that stock holders and the corporations can maximize their profits at the expense of everyone else?

[I miss Reagan]

I appreciate your thoughts BD. If we agree that throwing money at them isn't going to solve the problem, what is the solution? I don't think there is one.

Sure there is.

Stop. Propping. Up. Dictators.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alright then stop holding rock concerts that send money to dictators. Stop wasting money on the UN which does nothing for places like Rwanda, Congo, and Sudan. Maybe you should hold countries like France, Germany, and Russia responsible when they trade with sanctioned countries. Most of all quit myopically blaming oil for all of the world's ills.

Bullshit.

What? What's BS. You say this whenever you're frustrated but you don't back it up or explain yourself.

Right, so the only people who have a right to talk about the gross imbalance of wealth and the wests actions with respect to the developing world are suppossed to be hermits and neo-Luddites? Again: bullshit. This is utterly specious reasoning and can easily be turned around. F'r instance, IMR, I know you personally supported the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror. So why aren't you carrying an M-16 in Baghdad right now?

Correct. If you are using gross amounts of oil, as we do in Canada, you shouldn't be lecturing the rest of us about oil. People who are benefitting by the exploitation of raw materials in Africa should be lecturing the rest of us about it. It's offensively hypocritical. Interestingly the radical people who condemn the rest of us and insist on instant alternatives are also the same people who are complaining about high costs of transit or education for example. They have little understanding of the limits of economics. They want us out of the middle east yet they're pissed that we're in Africa. They want us out of Africa but are irrate about ANWAR. Don't drill in ANWAR but forget about sensitive waters off California. Don't use oil use wind power... but don't put the wind mills near me or don't use wind power because it kills birds. Don't use hydro because it destroys rivers... Don't use nuclear... etc. etc. etc. You people are completely unrealistic.

[Black Dog]

Alright then stop holding rock concerts that send money to dictators. Stop wasting money on the UN which does nothing for places like Rwanda, Congo, and Sudan. Maybe you should hold countries like France, Germany, and Russia responsible when they trade with sanctioned countries. Most of all quit myopically blaming oil for all of the world's ills.

As usual, you miss the mark by a country mile. Individuals (rock musicians or just common folk) have little impact on policy. The United Nations is only as effective as its rulers want it to be. The UNSC (including those great defenders of human rights Canada, the UK and USA) had the power to intervene in Rwanda if they so desired. They did nothing. Also note your list of nations trading with sanctioned countries omitted a few such as Canada, the United States (who accounted for more than half of all sales under Iraq's oil for food program) and teh UK (aghain, teh leading supplier of arms to Nigeria and others).

As for blaming oil: oil is an inanimate substance, I'm not blaming it for anything. However, it is also the single most important commodity in the world. How is recognizing that fact (and the fact that nations and corporations will do just about anything to ensure their continued access to the stuff) "myopic"?

What? What's BS. You say this whenever you're frustrated but you don't back it up or explain yourself.

You stated that Shell hired mercanaries and enlisted the aid of the Nigerian dictatoship to protect itself from thugs. Ken Saro Wiwa's story tells a different tale, where indiginous people standing up against the pillage and destruction of their land were targeted by the government and Shell for being in the way.

Correct. If you are using gross amounts of oil, as we do in Canada, you shouldn't be lecturing the rest of us about oil. People who are benefitting by the exploitation of raw materials in Africa should be lecturing the rest of us about it. It's offensively hypocritical. Interestingly the radical people who condemn the rest of us and insist on instant alternatives are also the same people who are complaining about high costs of transit or education for example. They have little understanding of the limits of economics. They want us out of the middle east yet they're pissed that we're in Africa. They want us out of Africa but are irrate about ANWAR. Don't drill in ANWAR but forget about sensitive waters off California. Don't use oil use wind power... but don't put the wind mills near me or don't use wind power because it kills birds. Don't use hydro because it destroys rivers... Don't use nuclear... etc. etc. etc. You people are completely unrealistic.

To me, it's unrealistic think that the current path we're on is sustainable. It's unrealistic to think terrorism, poverty, corruption exist in vacums, independant of the actions of the wealthiest nations on earth. It's unrealistic to think we can continue doing business as usual and not face grave social, political, economic and environmental costs. It's more than unrealistic: it's stupid and short-sighted.

Frankly, its not the "radical people" who are the problem: it's people like you who accept no alternatives beyond the status quo. There's nothing unrealistic about recognizing that we're headed for a fall and that change is needed.

By the way: have you signed your enlistment papers yet? I'm sure the US Army would be happy to have you.

[I miss Reagan]

You stated that Shell hired mercanaries and enlisted the aid of the Nigerian dictatoship to protect itself from thugs. Ken Saro Wiwa's story tells a different tale, where indiginous people standing up against the pillage and destruction of their land were targeted by the government and Shell for being in the way.

I'm not familiar with the plight of Ken Saro Wiwa, I'll have to read about him. Nevertheless, one anecdote doesn't prove that all oil companies are out pilaging Africa at the expense of the people.

Frankly, its not the "radical people" who are the problem: it's people like you who accept no alternatives beyond the status quo. There's nothing unrealistic about recognizing that we're headed for a fall and that change is needed.

Well at least we're getting somewhere here rather than argueing in circles about Bush and the definition of "terrorism". I agree there needs to be change. And I would even admit that some times the Suzuki types play a benefitial role in instigating positive change. However, more often than not, these radicals do more harm than good with their unrealistic approaches to solving the worlds problems. Ya eliminating DDT saved a few species of birds but eliminating it now is the cause of 2 million people a year dying from, as Bono puts it, "a mosquito bite". It's the same with oil. The radical fringe never thinks of the consequences of their knee-jerk solutions. For example they cry out for the popular solution of the day like Hydrogen yet don't understand that creating hydrogen is an energy consuming process.

By the way: have you signed your enlistment papers yet? I'm sure the US Army would be happy to have you.

Since it seems this straw man of yours will not go away, allow me to oblige. I have met with US forces recruiters on more than a couple of occasions. For certain reasons I was unable to commission. As much as I like you BD, I'd prefer not to get into the personal details of it. All this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Argus]

It really would be hilarious if we took their money, then gave them a rubber cheque. Cancelling Nigeria's debt is obscene. Despite their oil they ran up a huge debt because they're the most corrupt people on the planet (though the Russians are certainly making a run for the crown). Raid the vaults of their leaders' Swiss and Bermuda bank accounts and they can pay off their own damned debt.

Nigeria's a prime example of how western interests facilitate the continued oppression of African people and the corruption of their leadership. Nigeria collects millions of dollars a year in oil riches, yet seventy percent of Nigeria's population lives on less than $1 dollar a day, and the poorest fifth of the population received only four percent of the nation's wealth. However western oil companies like Shell and Chevron turn a blind eye and, in some cases, actively take part in the suppression of dissent. No discussion of Africa's endemic corruption can take place without mentioning western complicity, nor can any talk of refrom take place without aknowledging the barriers "our" interests present to real positive change.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The job of a corporation is to make money. End of story. Period. They are ammoral entities which do what is in their own most profitable interest. It is not their responsibility to feed, clothe and shelter the African people. That is the task of their leaders. If Nigerians are poverty stricken while their leaders stash their oil billions in Swiss bank accounts that's up to the Nigerians to take care of, not us.

BTW, saw an interesting term in the paper today, probably not new, but cute nonetheless. It was Wa-Benzi, I believe, known as the African tribe of Mercedes Benz, the one all the African leaders belong to. People are starving in Zimbabwe, but old four-eyes Mugabe is busily spending tens of millions on palaces.

Aid for Zimbabwe anyone?

[Black Dog]

The job of a corporation is to make money. End of story. Period. They are ammoral entities which do what is in their own most profitable interest. It is not their responsibility to feed, clothe and shelter the African people. That is the task of their leaders. If Nigerians are poverty stricken while their leaders stash their oil billions in Swiss bank accounts that's up to the Nigerians to take care of, not us.

Garbage. If Shell or any other "amoral" corporation aids and abetts corrupt and despotic regimes like that of Nigeria, they bear a measure of responsiblity for the actions of that regime. Period.

Nevertheless, one anecdote doesn't prove that all oil companies are out pilaging Africa at the expense of the people.

Similar stories abound:

In Congo Brazzaville, the petro-state most closely associated with the dirty dealings of the former French state oil company Elf Aquitaine, the government is entering into ever more tortuous deals with the oil industry to avoid financial scrutiny from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and its own citizens.

In Angola, where a quarter of the country's oil revenues are still unaccounted for each year, the state oil company, Sonagol, continues to receive secret signature bonuses from western oil companies which are hidden in offshore bank accounts.

In Equatorial Guinea, one of the most criminalised states in the world, companies are lining up to do business with the brutal regime of President Obiang Nguema, who has hundreds of millions of dollars in a bank account just down the road from the headquarters of the IMF and World Bank in Washington.

It's the same with oil. The radical fringe never thinks of the consequences of their knee-jerk solutions. For example they cry out for the popular solution of the day like Hydrogen yet don't understand that creating hydrogen is an energy consuming process.

I don't think anyone who has considered the issue of energy from a global perspective considers hydrogen to be anything more than a pie-in-the-sky stopgap measure. The only solution to the oil issue is the one that no one wants to deal with: reducing use.

Which brings me to my main point: the left wing tries to offer solutions, some of which will fail. The alternative is the status quo, at leats based on the right-wingers here.

Since it seems this straw man of yours will not go away, allow me to oblige. I have met with US forces recruiters on more than a couple of occasions. For certain reasons I was unable to commission. As much as I like you BD, I'd prefer not to get into the personal details of it. All this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

If it is a straw man, it is one of your own creation. You were the one who stated that anyone who decrided, well, anything about our way of life and its affect on other people is a hypocrite for enjoying the benefits of living in this society . I simply pointed out that, by your own logic, you are a hypocrite for not living your beliefs. As for the military service thiong, I'll have to take your word for it. However, I should also point out there's plenty of jobs available with Blackwater, Kellogg Brown and Root and other civilian agencies working in Iraq. Anyway, I'll let this go.