G8, Live 8 and Making Poverty History

The problem I have with Live 8 is that it hasn't gripped me as I expected it might do. Somehow the event seemed to overshadow the cause. Maybe it was all the talk about tickets and the lack of them, scramble for them, selling of them on Ebay. Perhaps it was the rumblings of criticism surrounding the event that has targeted the egos and pockets of those involved.

Please understand that I agree in principle with controlled debt cancellation, fair trade laws and increased aid - I just don't think that Live 8 has quite worked how I hoped it might. What we really needed was to capture the hearts and minds of everyday people as happened after the tsunami disaster. Then it was celebrities that were running to catch up with the immense generosity expressed by the public. Looking back at the tsunami appeal there seems to be no individual that stands out that we the public rallied around, perhaps no individual could keep up or perhaps no individual can ever wear the shoes.

So where does this leave the Live 8 crew? I see no point in doubting the sincerity of the celebrities involved with Live 8 - what does it achieve? Sincerity can not be proved and we are in danger of damning our celebrities if they do and damning them if they don't!

"He's rich and famous why doesn't he help? "
"He's only helping because he's so rich and wants to boost his ego /career."

I'd rather be seeing the rich and famous helping and I honestly applaud the Live 8 crew. I believe they are doing all that they can but this is not enough.

So what is different between the Tsunami Appeal and Live 8. Well, the name for a start. Live 8 is a mix of the names G8 and Live Aid. But why mix those two names up when the real catch phrase is 'Make Poverty History'? The algebra doesn't quite work:

G8 + Live Aid = Live 8 = Make Poverty History

Trying to add 'Live Aid' into the title of this event is unnecessary when most people are familiar with 'Make Poverty History'.

I'm not really into marketing but surely there was a better way of mixing 'G8' and 'Make Poverty History'? Because that is the message – the men in suits at the G8 have the power to help make poverty history. Or do they?

I think they can play a major part but it is really only the public that can make it happen. But to achieve this we need to harness that public flow of generosity and compassion for those that are in more pain than we are in this world.

But how?

The Tsumani Appeal worked and I think it worked because we saw the pain from many angles and it was obvious what we had to do so we responded. The media reported the tsunami disaster honestly and nobody could dispute what we needed to do. Making poverty history is a little more complicated and here lies the problem – on a large scale we do not fully understand or agree as to what we need to do to achieve and sustain ‘no poverty’.

Many people fear that cancelling debt and increasing aid will only make corrupt leaders wealthier. But then making sovereign states jump though hoops seems patronising. I’m not saying this is not a solution but it is a solution that seems a little complicated, and that normally says to me that it is less likely to work.

So what if a micro model was used instead or together with debt cancellation etc. A micro model whereby impoverished communities were linked with wealthier communities – the twinning concept. Surely as individuals identified with another community then generosity would follow. The main issue with twinning is that it needs an effective mechanism that sets up the communication and helps each community understand its twin.

I’m not saying this is the solution but I do think we need to think of a believable and effective model that the majority of the public will buy into. Perhaps a little more imagination might give us the formula that will truly make poverty history.

But in the short term, on the eve of the G8 let’s not get caught up with the rights and wrongs of Live 8 but …

Back debt cancellation
Increased aid
Create fair trade laws
…
and freeze the assets of leaders that squander and plunder.

If we lose some money along the way then it is better than doing nothing at all.

What do you think?