G8 Leaders agree to spend $60 billion towards helping Africa

[Chutney]

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Officials said half of that amount would come from the United States.

On the final day of their summit, G8 leaders also committed themselves to honour aid vows made at a previous meeting in 2005.

But anti-poverty campaigners said they were disappointed, with Oxfam saying only $3bn of the deal was new money....

....Mr Bush announced last month that the US would dedicate $30bn to the fight against Aids in Africa, and diplomats confirmed that would make up half of the funding announced on Friday.

But some aid agencies say they are unhappy with the deal. World Vision called it a sop for campaigners.

I am exasperated," Irish rock star and anti-poverty campaigner Bono told Reuters news agency.

"I think it is deliberately the language of obfuscation. It is deliberately misleading."

"While lives will be saved with more money for Aids, this represents a cap on ambition that will ultimately cost millions more lives," said Steve Cockburn of the Stop Aids Campaign.

Several aid agencies say member nations have not met the commitments they made at their 2005 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, and G8 leaders are acknowledging as much, says the BBC's James Robbins in Heiligendamm, Germany.

They have now agreed to a declaration stressing their firm resolve to implement those commitments, and to keep Africa at the top of the agenda in Japan next year.

Specifically, after much wrangling, the eight have agreed to make up the $500m shortfall in this year's spending for education in Africa, our correspondent says. </div>
<div align="center">Source: BBC News</div>

 

[Chutney]

Some other results from the meetings:

- It supported "further measures" against Iran if Tehran failed to stop its uranium enrichment programme

- It would back further action against Sudan if Khartoum failed to support international efforts to end the conflict in Darfur

- North Korea should stop testing nuclear-capable missiles and abandon all nuclear programmes

- It had failed to find a common position on the future status of Kosovo

- Thursday saw leaders agree a climate change deal. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the G8 would negotiate within a UN framework to seek a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol by the end of 2009. No mandatory target was set for the emissions cuts, but Mrs Merkel's preference for a 50% cut by 2050 was included in the statement.


Thoughts?

 

[I-Miss-MJ]

<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">- North Korea should stop testing nuclear-capable missiles and abandon all nuclear programmes </div>

oh well that'll stop em.

 

[Skiptomylue11]

Sad thing is, that the US has spent from 500-580 billion dollars a year on military the past 4 years (2003, 04, 05, 06).
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Ar...de/Spending.asp

If US said our focus has shifted from Iraq to Africa, and we are going to spend 400 billion dollars on:
1. Improving farms, water supply, food distribution
2. Creating work standards for sweatshops (establishing a minimum wage, health issues)
3. Encourage political stability among countries (reminds me of Iraq)

 

[Shapecity]

This is a power move to put more resources into controlling oil coming out of Africa. The US has a strong hold of Nigeria's oil, while China has relations with Sudan. Since the US has failed in the Middle East, to control their oil, they'll shift towards Africa.

 

[Shapecity]

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">This wasn't serious. This was a farce. A total farce.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said the G-8 agreed on a program worth more than US$60 billion (?44.5 billion) in aid but in its final communique, the amount pledged had no timeframe and did not specifically single out Africa as the beneficiary.

?The key words to look for here are 'Africa' and 'global' and how, within one paragraph, they switch from what looks like a promise to near universal access for Africa suddenly into a global promise,? Bono said.
?Obviously, I understand if they think that rock stars might not be able to add and subtract or spell and read, but there's some people around here who can,? he said.

An array of independent aid groups and African academics said the declaration fell short of the goals first unveiled two years ago in Gleneagles, Scotland, amid a wave of concern that saw social activists and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair urging immediate help for Africa.
?The promise of poverty reduction in Africa: It's a recurring declaration made each year by the heads of the G-8,? said Issa Keita, a professor of international economics at the University of Bamako, in the West African nation of Mali. ?Yet this mechanism of debt just makes more and more African nations become poor.

Keita argued that G-8 countries often prioritize issues such as immigration and environmental damage over economic development in Africa.</div>

Aid groups criticize G-8's US$60 billion aid package

 

[Chutney]

I agree with you guys, just wanted to hear everyone's opinion first.

Honestly, this whole idea that we can dump money in that continent and make it all better is fundamentally flawed. Its like pouring water into a bucket with holes. African governments are corrupt and their leaders hoard money for themselves. Charitable groups squander money with mismanagement. And with no real timetable, once again, we'll probably see none of these countries fullfill their promises (Italy, for example, is an absolute joke).

And shape' got it spot on. They promise $60 bill, but then lets factor in the loan debts that we control their governments with, the workforce that we exploit, and the natural resources we continue to raid, and tell me who really benefits from our current strategy. The G8 meetings are so frustrating: a publicity show where the leaders pretend like their mistakes never happened and pat each other on the back for promising to do it all over again.

 

[Sasha]

<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">This is a power move to put more resources into controlling oil coming out of Africa. The US has a strong hold of Nigeria's oil, while China has relations with Sudan. Since the US has failed in the Middle East, to control their oil, they'll shift towards Africa.</div>
Yup. I saw this coming years ago.

 

[Skiptomylue11]

<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I agree with you guys, just wanted to hear everyone's opinion first.

Honestly, this whole idea that we can dump money in that continent and make it all better is fundamentally flawed. Its like pouring water into a bucket with holes. African governments are corrupt and their leaders hoard money for themselves. Charitable groups squander money with mismanagement. And with no real timetable, once again, we'll probably see none of these countries fullfill their promises (Italy, for example, is an absolute joke).</div>How do you fix it though.

Lol, my idea was essentially to redirect 400 billion to Africa. Obviously its quite complicated to get it to work.