Charm offensives more effective if you want to change the world

THE great personages of the world hold people’s lives in their hands.

Yesterday, at least 100 civilians were killed in the West African state of Liberia, when rebel forces penetrated the capital Monrovia and rained down mortar bombs on its citizens. Angry residents dragged a headless corpse to the steps of the American embassy, pleading with George Bush to intervene with troops.

Bush is reluctant. He wants Liberia’s neighbouring countries to act first. And he will only consider sending troops to Liberia if its leader, Charles Taylor, leaves the country. This leaves Liberia, a country founded by freed American slaves, in a bind. Its Government cannot get arms because Taylor is under UN sanctions for fomenting conflict in neighbouring countries Sierra Leone and Guinea. But now rebels control two-thirds of Liberia and are engaging in bloody attacks on civilians.

American reluctance is understandable, especially in the light of its unsuccessful intervention in Somalia a decade ago and the hostility of other countries to American unilateralism. Nonetheless, the decisiveness of the US administration’s approach to the war on terrorism should be applied to the problems of instability, poverty and corruption in Africa. In some cases that may mean military intervention, but in order to have credibility this needs to be matched by radically increased injections of aid as well.

Bono’s recent appearance on RTE’s Prime Time suggests he has more faith in America than in Europe at the moment. The rock star castigated the European Union, which he dubbed a ‘bureaucratic mess’, for its failure to provide matching funds to secure a US promise to provide €15 billion to fight Aids. But he is rightly impatient with all the great personages of the western world because, so far, they have let Africa down. Each year, the African continent is forced to fork out $15 billion in debt repayments, more than is spent on healthcare and education combined. And while western governments pay $52 billion in aid to the third world each year, six times that amount is paid in agricultural subsidies to Western farmers. These subsidies deny African farmers access to our markets, even as we insist on access to theirs.

It’s not just the big countries that are to blame. Bishop John Kirby of Trócaire recently criticised the Irish Government’s failure to meet its target of giving 0.7% of gross domestic product to third world countries. He got little change from the Taoiseach. “I have no problem with someone pointing out where we are,” retorted Mr Ahern, “but they should also point out that we are seventh largest donor in statistical terms in the OECD. We are right there at the highest level.”

Yet a recent report by the Centre for Global Development suggests that Bishop Kirby’s criticism is justified and the Taoiseach’s defensiveness isn’t. The report rates Ireland a poor joint 15th among the world’s 21 richest states in terms of our commitment to development. On foreign aid, we rank joint eighth but we have a score which is a third that of Denmark and less than half that of Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands.

In an even more significant area, the promotion of free trade, we do worse. “Our strong support for unfair tariffs and subsidies that prevent African farmers from accessing European markets is a central reason for our poor performance,” said Tom Wright, a doctoral fellow in international relations at Washington’s Georgetown University. “This is particularly ironic given that we traded our way out of poverty and now export well over 80% of what we produce.”

In recent times the Irish Government has cut its development aid contributions (instead of increasing them, as promised) and tightened migration laws to link foreign aid with the repatriation of immigrants.

Aid agencies are understandably frustrated by this meanness. But perhaps they should note that harsh criticism isn’t as effective as it used to be getting what you want from government. For one thing, politicians and voters tire quickly of the high moral tone which aid agencies are quick to adopt. Also, ever since partnership agreements replaced industrial action in the late 1980s, governments have become less afraid of criticism.

BERTIE AHERN’S response to the recent marches against the war was not to go all nervous and indecisive, but to say that he agreed with the marchers and then do his own thing anyway. Diplomacy, not derision, is the way to get what you want, it seems.

On Prime Time, Bono had no enemies. Only friends. He praised George W Bush for the money to fight Aids, while paying tribute to the previous administration for canceling some of Africa’s debts. He declined repeated invitations from Miriam O’Callaghan to get cynical about American motivations. Was this the Bono who said recently he was going to become ‘a pain in the arse’ for the sake of the third world? Who said he was ready to march with his activist friends and to begin campaigns of civil disobedience? Yes it was. But it was also the Bono who believes that grandstanding for the sake of great causes is of limited value.

“We need people out on the streets getting angry but at the same time we need to whisper coherent, rigorous arguments when we get in the room,” he told Prime Time. “I’m in the room. Celebrity is ridiculous, as we all know, but it is currency. I’ve used mine to get in to the room with these people. I don’t see them as the enemy. The enemy starts to turn out to be your own indifference, not bad guys but busy guys and bureaucracy itself.” Like Bob Geldof, Bono is eager to press home the point that western self-interest is bound up with relief for Africa.

Geldof wants a Marshall Plan-type arrangement from America and Europe because “it is directly in our interests to have a healthy, vibrant people who are free to build a vast, viable continent.” Bono links the issue with immigration. “If we do not sort out what is happening on the continent of Africa there is no wall high enough we can build to keep the trouble out from our own countries.”

He is right. A few years ago, a couple of teenage boys from Liberia’s neighbour, Guinea, crept into the wheel well of an aeroplane bound for Europe. Yaguine Koita, 14, and Fode Tounkara, 15, didn’t survive. They froze to death at 35,000 feet where the temperature reached minus 55 degrees at the base of the aeroplane. But the two boys knew the risk they were taking. They had a letter, stuffed beneath their clothes, for the world to read in the event of their deaths. “If you see that we have sacrificed and risked our lives,” the boys wrote, “it is because there is too much suffering in Africa and we need you to struggle against poverty and put an end to war.” Their letter concluded: “We appeal to you to excuse us very, very much for daring to write this letter to the great personages to whom we owe much respect.”

Let’s hope Bono’s charm offensive succeeds with the great personages.