September 7, 2007
Bono - an appeal for evidence
As well as all the numerous and dauntingly learned contributions on American empire, provoked by my post earlier this week, various people have asked me - "What have you got against Bono?"
This is a tricky question for two reasons. First, if I start explaining in too much detail, I will use all the material I am planning to save up for my column. (This is an inherent problem with this "crowdsourcing" exercise, that I’ll have to think my way around.) The second reason is even less creditable. Thinking about it, my objections to Bono are largely incoherent, and possibly indefensible.
It all dates back to a particularly terrible U2 concert that I went to at the Camden Electric Ballroom in (I think) 1978. I took an instant dislike to Bono. And I must say it never occurred to me that the man would emerge as a global rock star and much lauded anti-poverty campaigner.
I know it is hard to object to someone campaigning to relieve poverty in Africa - but I intend to try. My impression is that Bono is a grand-standing poseur - who has intimidated otherwise blameless bankers and politicians into taking him seriously, through sheer force of celebrity. Sitting on my desk is a depressing pile of material that I intend to work my way through at some point: a guest edition of "Vanity Fair" edited by Bono, a book called "Bono on Bono" (reason enough to bridle, surely); another called "On the Move", also by Bono; various tomes on development.
I am sure that there will be no shortage of ammunition in these books. But the bigger question that I need to think about is whether my objections to Bono are purely stylistic - or whether there is a broader critique of the Bono view of the world.
My impression is that Bono has basically adopted the mainstream NGO view of poverty in the developing world. He sees the key to relieving poverty as more aid, more trade and more debt relief. And that some of what he says is true, and some of it is grossly over-simplified. This all sounds a bit ho-hum.
So let me break it down into a series of questions, and issue the usual appeal for evidence and views:
1) Should we even bother to listen to celebrities like Bono on big political and social questions? Do they play a useful role?
2) Is Bono insufferably pleased with himself? (Actually, I think I can answer this one for myself.)
3) Has Bono had any real influence? Evidence?
4) Is there a Bono world view? And if so does it make sense?
All views welcome - particularly those that support my initial prejudices.
Surely you are onto it with your “mainstream NGO view of poverty” point.
The view is very peculiar: it is a sort of corporatised or perhaps collectivised version of the moral argument that sacrifice is required. It says that, yes, the vice president of a London bank is the neighbour of the starving herdsman in Darfur, and that neighbours must love each other as themselves. However, as a solution to bridging the gap in power and means between such neighbours, it proposes neither the immediate lowering of the banker nor the immediate ascent of the herdsman. Instead, it proposes a systemic fix, with governments and corporations acting as proxies for the morally compromised banker. The proposed fix is paradoxical. It implies guilt on the part of the fortunate individual but mitigates the need for reaction by the individual, since reaction is ultimately worked out through taxation or adjustments in sales prices. It also implies that material/circumstantial equality (or at least similarity) is morally required of all people; in other words its content is at very least neo-Marxian even if its form is globalist and pro-market. These paradoxes grate.
However, they grate much more coming from Bono, who embodies corporate bohemianism. He has sung many songs well and communicated important messages through them. But in his political role he sells a brand of moral imperative which is paradoxical — and yet he sells it as the real thing.
But it gets worse. Bono escapes criticism, because he is neither stupid nor naive. Pressed, I expect he would acknowledge that his branded morality is not the real thing. However, it may be the best try that existing systems of corporate and collective power can manage, in terms of effectiveness and popular marketability. His personal defense would be that politics is the art of the possible, and that terrible suffering and need in much of the world are real — an effective defense.
All this frustrates the critic. The quarry has got away, and the problem remains unsolved. The problem is that the critic is struggling to reckon with his own failure, perhaps like Bono’s, to differenciate and correspond between the mechanics of collective responsibility and the imperatives of individual morality. It is a frustrating position. But don’t blame Bono for it. He only appears to be the personification of a problem we all share. Moreover, he is trying to do something about it.
That he falls short is unextraordinary.
Posted by: EJ | September 7th, 2007 at 5:12 pm | Report this commentAnyone who call themselves “Bono”, “Boner” - or for that matter, “Sting” - are obviously insufferably vain. Gone are the times when celebrities merited their celebrity status, or when ‘musicians’ produced great music. In fact, rock reached its apogee almost from the start, through the heavenly art of Jimi Hendrix - since then, its been all downhill. (English-only readers do not know this, but Hendrix had a contemporaneous mirror genius in the field of literature - the Finnish writer Timo K. Mukka - whose work, except for a few short stories, has amazingly never been translated into English!)
Posted by: PL | September 7th, 2007 at 5:12 pm | Report this commentMy responses to the four questions: (1) Rarely, if ever, should we listen to celebrities’ views on political and social questions; (2) Yes, he’s obviously a preening narcissist; (3) I doubt that he’s had much influence, (4) Oh, boy. Since people like Bono profess “world views” mainly to impress others and reinforce their self-esteem, those views are unlikely to be worth much. I might add that U2 has to be the most overrated band of the past 25 years.
Posted by: Mike Phillips | September 7th, 2007 at 5:17 pm | Report this commentWell, the first response was a pleasure to follow. Perhaps we can move away from the ad hominem attacks and back toward a reasoned discussion… then again, the first response kind of killed it.
Just the same, I’d like to hear what sorts of approaches to this difficult and frustrating conundrum people think Bono might yet consider?
Posted by: JCE | September 7th, 2007 at 5:52 pm | Report this commentI am in no position to judge Bono the musician. (I have trouble telling the difference between renditions of Nessun Dorma by Pavarotti and Paul Potts and get shivers running down my spine whenever I hear Bono and Pavarotti in a recording together.) But it is difficult to underestimate the influence of Bono as a public campaigner.
Sure, if you want to read a measured view of solutions to global poverty, read Paul Collier’s The Bottom Billion instead of listening to Bono. But if not for celebrities like Bono — and to a large extent Bono himself — nobody would be reading Collier’s analysis. When was the last time a World Bank researcher was asked to edit an edition of Vanity Fair? Would Jeff Sachs be the poor world’s economist without Bono (or Angelina)? Would former US treasury secretary Paul O’Neill have visited Africa while in office without Bono on his side?
The larger question, of course, is whether Bono is right to emphasize aid and debt relief as solutions to Africa’s misery. This chimes with most mainstream NGOs. As Collier points out, it may also be a bit simplistic. But even Collier stresses aid as the most important instrument and cites its influence in raising annual GDP growth in the countries of the bottom billion by one percentage point.
Criticize Bono the musician and Bono the author of Bono on Bono. But don’t underestimate his influence in putting poverty and Africa on the global agenda.
Posted by: Gernot Wagner | September 8th, 2007 at 1:11 am | Report this commentyou will find plenty of material to point out his hypocrisy in his support for the extension of (millionaire) artists’ copyrights and in the absurd legal cases he brought to reclaim a hat and, I believe, a pair of trousers, both lost many years previously.
Posted by: kenny | September 8th, 2007 at 3:26 am | Report this comment… the fact that U2 is financially decamping to Holland has raised some eyebrows. …Jeff Swystun, a global director at Interbrand, a brand consulting firm based in New York, said that “the Stones will always be credible because of a very simple proposition: we want to have a great party.” But U2, he said, “almost project themselves as a nonprofit, so the tax move doesn’t really fit with the brand values that they’re trying to communicate.”
Not so, says U2.
“U2 is a global business and it pays taxes globally,” said Mr. McGuinness, the band’s business manager…
“Ethically in my opinion, Bono’s tax arrangements are entirely inconsistent with his calls upon government to support anti-poverty drives,” said Richard Murphy, who runs Tax Research LLC, a research institute based in Norfolk, England, and was one of three co-authors of the SOMO report on Dutch tax shelters. “You cannot be demanding that resources be allocated to anti-poverty drives and then deny those resources to government.”
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/business/yourmoney/04amster.html?pagewanted=4&ei=5088&en=1da0d7016c77df26&ex=1328245200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
So there you have it Gideon, U2 is a global business and Bono is a brandname; the brand will cobrand with others such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates who, burdened as his company is with repeated convictions and record breaking fines for monopolism, has a tendency to try to pimp up his image as visionary and humanitarian and happily accepts the Bono cobranding. I find the desire to end poverty laudable but I loathe that such hypocrites are trying to gain the moral high ground.
As a musician one has to be ethically extremely clean to enter the political arena because one such as Bono can easily sway the emotions and opinions of a great mass of (mostly young) people. So such people should practise what they preach for the full 100% or their decadence may lead to political demagoguery and populism and that might be the source of our dislike and alarm.
I would like to see “grumpy old men 2″ starring Bob Geldolf though.
Posted by: Felix Drost (Amsterdam, NL) | September 8th, 2007 at 4:48 pm | Report this commentWhether or not we *should* be listening to people like Bono isn’t a helpful question: the fact is that lots of people do, and that people like Bono, Geldof et al are capable of influencing “a great mass of (mostly young) people”, as Felix says.
I’m sure that celebrities who undertake political causes always have a mix of self-promotion with genuine moral and political concern. The proportions of the mix vary, no doubt. Personally, I’d prefer to consider how the genuine political concern can best be channeled than to engage in criticism of the self-promotion that will inevitably be tinged with a healthy dose of envy of the rich and famous.
A more helpful question, therefore, is how those who have more complex, nuanced views of the world could and should influence Bono and his ilk in order to get those more nuanced views into the public domain. I don’t have a good answer to this.
Posted by: David Karlin | September 8th, 2007 at 10:20 pm | Report this commenti always thought it funny that someone that spends a lot of time avoiding paying tax, through advanced tax avoidance schemes, never or very seldom gives away any of his own money, can we with a straight face ask others to give money away. and that goes to whether it is corporate or personal money, where he isnt a role model or tax payers money, where he clearly isnt contributing his part….
Posted by: peter | September 10th, 2007 at 1:14 am | Report this commentYou have a point. The campaign for indiscriminate debt relief has let to crowding out in foreign aid. Aid resources has shifted from the very poor, often not indebted countries, to the Nigerias and Indonesias. Such mid-income countries, who have been able to accumulate debt because of rich natural resources, should not be granted the benefit of debt relief at the expense of regular aid to the least developed contries. Poverty is serious business, and Bono should limit himself to campaigning to fight it — and leave the policy choices to professionals, whether they are NGOs or national and multilateral aid agencies.
Posted by: Kristian Schmidt | September 10th, 2007 at 9:55 am | Report this commentI agree 100%. U2 and Bono ceased being interesting after The Joshua Tree album. They became mainstream and commercial. Bono has exploited this and the “cult of celebrity” and not satisfied with fame and fortune is trying to win himself a seat at the right hand of God in Heaven. He is a member of a once original pop band and nothing more. Like supermodels who think they have something interesting to say and think we are interested should just shut up and be thankful that fame and fortune have found them. Perhaps Bono would be better to engage in some anonymous philanthropy.
Posted by: Stephen Martin | September 10th, 2007 at 11:25 am | Report this commentOne spends 10 years to get a PhD in Economics, and another 10 years working as an economist, only to scratch the surface of what are the real causes of poverty. Bono can obviously convince the world that he can do better. Perhaps it is the rock star lifestyle that gives genuine insights. I love the contrast between the NGO angel and the private equity entrepreneur, not to mention the rent-seeker who expects his grandchildren to make millions out of 5 good songs, written 20 years ago. Gideon, I don’t think you need to explain why you don’t like Bono.
Posted by: Ted | September 10th, 2007 at 11:36 am | Report this commentDear Gideon,
Outspoken multi-millionaire rock stars are a soft target, and you are perfectly entitled to hate U2 because they were involved in a disappointing adolescent experience back in 1978.
Frankly, if I was called Gideon I wouldn’t sneer at Bono’s nickname (which was given to him by others), but that’s a matter for you.
It also seems to me that it’s a bit much to criticise the front man of a stadium rock band for being “a grand-standing poser”.
However, let’s put personal taste to one side. You ask; “has Bono any real influence, and has he a world view?” Having bumped into him while working as a Political Correspondent, I can certainly attest that he has influence, dedication and incite on the causes he espouses.
It was important in 1998 when he, as the son of a “mixed” Catholic and Protestant marriage, hailed John Hume and David Trimble for their contribution to the peace process. Of course, this was gesture politics, but a gesture from one of the island of Ireland’s most popular figures.
Likewise, on Africa he managed to engage George W. Bush and then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, taking the latter on a tour of the country. Sure they may have been sad old dead-beats, anxious to rub shoulders with celebrity, but Bono was prepared to compromise himself in pursuit of his goals.
I seem to remember that the Financial Times praised both the Jubilee Debt Agreement and the Gleneagles Summit. Bono was amongst the leading figures who gave ‘Make Poverty History’ momentum.
You sneer at his NGO DATA for taking “a mainstream NGO view of poverty”, but as its title suggests, it was one of the first campaigns to stress trade along with debt and aid.
Bono has recognised that there are micro as well as institutional solutions. Hence his current ‘Red’ campaigns focussed on disease.
He may have a free-wheeling approach to causes, but he is able to raise the significance of debate about them, as was shown by using his concerts to support Salman Rushdie against the Fatwa.
His latest involvement with interface dialogue also contributes to an intractable problem, troubling most global leaders.
I would have thought that your paper might also be impressed by the way Bono and U2 have managed their finances, pooling royalties and being early investors in the reconstruction of Dublin.
But of course the real point about Bono is that he is a genuine mega rock star. Tens of millions of people want to hear from him and his band. I believe he is using that constructively.
He may look insufferably pleased with himself, but I have never seen him take up any issue without wondering aloud whether it is appropriate for him to dabble in such matters, because he’s a mere pop musician.
His jowly embrace last week with Cherie Blair was undoubtedly not a thing of beauty, but it must have gladdened the hearts of millions with schadenfreude. Bono is prepared to risk the public mockery.
I am no rock critic, but I would say what’s interesting about his stage persona is that he is more like Mickey Mouse, an everyman struggling against the tides, than a cool masterful star.
There are a lot more worthy objects of your hate.
Yours sincerely,
Adam Boulton
Posted by: Adam Boulton | September 10th, 2007 at 11:39 am | Report this commentMy greatest difficulty with Bono and his cohorts such as Sir Bob, is trying to reconcile the enormous wealth and the life styles which they enjoy, with their condemnation of the populations of the developed world (who have enabled them to amass their wealth) for failing to give more aid, fair trade and debt relief to the poorer nations. They also now harahgue us about our misuse of the environment while continuing to enjoy lavish life styles, flying and driving around in the most expensive cars and private planes themselves, and criticising the hard working and stressed out working folk for trying to take their annual family vacation flying or driving to foreign parts blessed with fairer and safer environments and climates. Often these destinations are on the edge of the developed world and such vacations provide useful employment and income for people who would otherwise be condemned to a life of near poverty.
I personally support both financially and with some of my time, Dr Jack Preger who in 1964 when he was farming in Pembrokeshire, surrendered this lifestyle and after qualifying as a Doctor of Medicine moved directly to Bangladesh where from 1972 until 1979 he worked in various refugee camps and hospitals for the sick poor and destitute, after which he moved to Calcutta (renamed Kolkata) and started the pavement/street clinics which gave birth to the medical and education charity now known as “Calcutta Rescue”. By living out his destiny in Calcutta and working endlessly with the destitutes who crowd the pavements, disused railway lines, shacks gutters the spaces under bridges and flyovers in that “city of dreadful night”, he has sacrificed his life of comparative health and wealth in Pembrokeshire, to give personal and material help to those who otherwise receive no medical treatment or education from an increasingly polarised and financially divided society in the sub-continent.
When, ot if, I have confirmation that any of Bono, Sir Bob or their cohorts are making any meaningful sacfrices of their own, then I would be prepared to reconsider the criticisms which Gideon has made and with which I sadly have to agree! often the monies which have been raised by them (Bono, Sir Bob etc) or are contributed by the governments of the developed world, go astray, either ending up in the private offshore bank a/cs of the African leaders,dictators and their supporters, or enables those governments to increase their armaments to either terrorise their own populations or those of a neighbouring country.
For myself I shall continue to support Dr Jack Preger and his “Calcutta Rescue” charity (registered no:290917 www.calcuttarescue.org.uk)where my contributions are entirely used for the benefit of those in most need in the city which has now renamed itself “city of Joy”, somewhat a misnomer I am afraid!
Robin James.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 10th, 2007 at 12:41 pm | Report this commentI nearly stood up and cheered when I read the extract from this blog in this morning’s FT. Unlike some contributors to this discussion, I do have some respect for Bono’s talents as a musician and songwriter. However, I am appalled by the way he mixes simplistic campaigning with aggressive tax planning (the move to the Netherlands is mentioned above an documented in some detail on http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/ - just search on “Bono” if interested).
His argument seems to be something like this - you ordinary people who work hard and pay a lot of tax should be donating more to end poverty, and governments should be using your tax money to relieve debt. However, because I am a multi-millionaire I can afford to take advantage of tax shelters and so can pay less tax, especially in my home country. Someone else can fund schools and hospitals.
It is perfectly legal and perhaps not even that uncommon among “global brands” but, given his high-profile stance on relieving poverty, it must at very least bring his moral authority into question…
Posted by: Daniel Clark | September 10th, 2007 at 1:38 pm | Report this commentI can sympathise with your feelings towards Bono and others celebrities like him.
Posted by: Brian Keaveney | September 10th, 2007 at 2:08 pm | Report this commentOne can’t help feeling that their anti-poverty activities are largely an exercise in self promotion. Millions of dollars have been showered on them for prancing around on stage giving performances of dubious artistic merit. Maybe I missed something but I haven’t noticed any celebrities actually rolling up their sleeves and dirtying their hands in places such as Africa. If Bono and company actually tried to run farming enterprises or hospitals in the third world which were financed at least partly with their own money instead of the fly in, fly out for the cameras type of approach, then maybe they could speak with more authority about the problems they claim to be trying to solve.
Your general sentiment about Bono, and the others like him, are sound, but I think your questions are off the mark.
What I find particularly gawling about Bono is what seems to be his starting point or world view, that third world poverty is the fault of the Western world whether it be just because we are prosperous and hard working, inflict debts on these countries, or that we simply just don’t care (presumably because thay are mostly black and brown)and that even if its not our fault that we have a moral higher duty to put it right. Mostly by giving more and more money.
Much of his argument does not seem to embrace though, the responsibilities of many the Government’s of these countries that do not take there responsibilities for their own suffering people seriously (and mostly through greed and prejudice are not likely to either). These Governemnt’s are able rely on the apologists such as Bono for those free cheques that keep coming in, and to never to answer for these own failures and crimes. It bugs me even more that the mainstream media and politicians of the West are so suckered in by Bono. Perhaps they too like sucking up to rock stars as it keeps them in the limelight.
Perhaps that’s the point - media attention versus the truth.
Posted by: Paul Bannister | September 10th, 2007 at 2:17 pm | Report this commentDear Gideon
I’m not sure whether I have a worse problem with Bono, Sting, Geldof, Anita Roddick etc pushing their opinions, or with the fact that most of the media has been completely duped by them and doesn’t present the competing lines of argument. I can’t stand the guy’s music so I don’t buy it; but it is impossible to escape his influence and that of his growing coterie - even in the august pages of the FT.
Jeff Sachs is not “the poor world’s economist” any more than I am: there is no doubt he has a brilliant mind, but there are many people within the development policy arena who disagree strongly with his recommendations. A focus on neglected disease is long overdue, but it’s not the only way to demonstrate how caring all these people are. Far less camera-worthy is the hard graft of making policy that allows, for example, small developing country businesses to compete on equal terms in world markets.
Your problem with Bono is as much a creation of your colleagues as it is his own doing: Adam Boulton should be aware of the criticism of the Red campaign in the papers last year, Paul Collier’s is not the only intelligent book on the bottom billion, the Brandt Commission stressed the importance of trade in 1982, and why has nobody asked me to edit Vanity Fair? Was Bono using Paul O’Neill or was Paul O’Neill using him? Read Paul O’Neill’s book In an Uncertain World, and then see if you still agree that Drop the Debt is a good thing.
So I don’t really care what Bono or Sting or Anita Roddick think; or, for that matter, Bill Nighy, who was on R4 recently making fatuous and patronising remarks about poverty on behalf of Oxfam. What I do resent is the airtime that is given them, the organisations that use them to make partisan points, and journalists who confuse opinion with reportage. There are plenty of competing arguments out there - if only the media would bother to seek them out and present them with as much razzamatazz as Bono does his.
It is all too easy to comment from the outside: if Bono or Sting or whoever really wanted to make a difference, they should take two years off and sit a small un-airconditioned office in Lusaka or Guyana or Dhaka, negotiating the details of light-bulb and other product policies with smart-arse international consultants who have a particular model they work with and don’t listen to competing arguments. Then I might think they have something worth singing about.
Posted by: Louise | September 10th, 2007 at 3:20 pm | Report this commentDear Mr Boulton, Mr Rachman never did sneer at Mr Bono’s nickname - read carefully, the sneer was in one of the replies to his post (I hope the news you present is researched more diligently than your own reply.) Apart from making mistaken accusations, you yourself indulge, quite un-Britishly, in the same - sneering at a coleague’s name.
As for Bono, even if that is his “given” nickname, he certainly adopted it ( a usual ruse of these marketing expert: claiming that their nicknames were foisted on them, as if they didn’t have a choice but accept…).
Posted by: PL | September 10th, 2007 at 4:51 pm | Report this commentDear Gideon,
must say, I am vey pleased that someone finally questions the actions, the effects and the attitude of show biz celebrities like Bono.
It is no charity at all, it is business. What can you expect from someone who wants us to buy his “Red” products and claims taht some proceeds go to charity. And as posted by Robin James earlier, accepts all the pleasant upsides from a luxury lifestyle while telling other people what to do.
Yes, they have influence and do put the topic on the agenda. That is good.
And at the same time, they distort it, make it look like the solution would be just more money from the hardworking people who don’t skip paying taxes to their governments, instead of commiting time and resources to one or two concrete projects and make them work out.
In contrast, I admire Karl-Heinz Böhm, who used his popularity during the german TV-show “Wetten dass..” to raise money for an Ethopian village, as has since devoted time and money to fight poverty there. Succesfully. If Bono can match his words with action, then he would be a man of charity.
Thanks so much for the blog
Posted by: Christoph Riekert | September 10th, 2007 at 4:56 pm | Report this commentWell before I began to study for my PhD in Ecoomics I was forewarned: many people think they know economics and will freely offer their opinions. Call them “armchair economists.” Hence, when pressed at a cocktail party I will admit that I am an economist, but only if I am prepared to listen to digressions about policy that have more to do with conspiracy theory than actual economic reasoning. Even many PhD Economists know little about the institutional and political factors behind trade, development, and aid (although such shortcomings will often not prevent them from freely offering their own opinions). Discussions with trained economists who specialize in the field are reasoned debates rather than cocksure statements of single-minded ideals. Bono is nothing more than another hanger-on. I would rather discuss such matters with Mick Jagger — at least he was trained at LSE! But Jagger is smart enough to stick with what he knows best: music.
Posted by: Joe | September 10th, 2007 at 6:43 pm | Report this commentHow refreshing, a journalist who is able to publish an epidermic reaction with no arguments -My reactions never make it past the Letters to the Editor.
Posted by: Pierre Heisbourg | September 10th, 2007 at 6:46 pm | Report this commentWell, you have all my sympathy, yes sir, and you are proof that my Bonophobia can no longer be hung on just my gray hair.
I wish I could bring concrete arguments, but no, I have none. I just hate this wide smirk under the wrap-around yellow welder’s goggles.
As for the questions:
1. One should listen, but at one’s own peril. They serve no useful role except in their own self-agrandisement. They make a living off misery. One may sympathize, but only when they fail totally in their efforts, or when they really give more than take.
2. For himself, yes. For the general good, I do not know.
3. Bono world view: can’t help you there.
4. Yes.
Surely the real problem with Bono is that he makes the NGO-led critique of the current situation all too easy to dismiss.
Many NGOs can draw on real grassroots support and project work and bring this experience to bear on the powerful through their campaigns.
Bono has little, apart from a few flying visits.
The likes of Bono and Geldof are a dual-edged sword, they both give publicity to and draw attention away from campaigns like Make Poverty History and fuel the myth that ordinary people cannot change thigs, only global figures like politicians and rock stars. Their Live8 concert overshadowed the demonstrations that ordinary people had organised for themselves.
He is a convenient figurehead for a lazy media to latch on to instead of spending more time analysing the real problems of people all over the world.
He makes it easy to dismiss the ‘mainstream NGO’ view as liberal guilt, but in fact many NGOs focus on the rights of the world’s poor to lead a better life.
It’s not about sacrifice. It’s not about you. It’s not about Bono. It’s not about guilt.
It’s just about justice.
Posted by: David | September 10th, 2007 at 7:29 pm | Report this commentI completely agree with Gideon. I can’t stand seeing celebrity pundits get airtime to trivialise serious problems and smugly berate the rest of us.
The peculiar thing is that they really seem to believe that their rock and roll antics (which I’m a big fan of) give them credibility and automatic insight that they need to impart to the less enlightened.
There’s no reconciling the self-ness of youth culture (a persona they cultivate) with their supposed involvement in saving the world.
Posted by: Justin Mencher | September 11th, 2007 at 12:22 am | Report this commentTry to be a bit more original; dozens of people have already critiqued Bono’s woefully inadequate understanding of the causes he has espoused.
Posted by: Rich. Jackson | September 11th, 2007 at 1:58 am | Report this commentHaving shed a cursory glance at the comments above, I doubt that my point of view cuts the pedantic mustard.
But the question really should be: What have you done about it lately Gideon?
I understand constructive criticism takes a bit more effort on your part, but if this is the calibre of your output, you should have your crayon confiscated.
Can’t wait for your next entry, because this FT reader really wants to know who else you hate!
Posted by: GW | September 11th, 2007 at 4:52 am | Report this commentI agree with you Gideon. OK, I have always had a gripe with Bono, as far as I’ve heard U2 were literally forced into playing Live aid, and since it had such a great effect on their career, Bono has continued this anti-poverty stance which has only bolstered it further. But the guy could give 99% of his wealth away and still be a millionaire, yet he bleats on about poverty as if he is not one of the major contributing factors behind it…….
Posted by: James | September 11th, 2007 at 7:18 am | Report this commentHello Gideon
Could it be that you are jealous of Bono? Could it be that you are trying to increase your blog traffic with provocative headlines about hating Bono?
If yes, this is low-level thinking and will not lead you to where you truly want to be.
I am very grateful that there are people like Bono who work for the benefit of others. He could easily just sit back and do nothing. Bono has a strong faith in God and in doing good and this is reflected in his amazing lyrics and music, as well as his compassionate and tireless efforts to make the world a better place.
What have you done to make the world a better place?
Posted by: Allen Holland | September 11th, 2007 at 8:20 am | Report this commentDear readers,
Posted by: BD | September 11th, 2007 at 10:07 am | Report this commentI find many of the comments on here quite absurd. Bono is not interested in how he can benefit from being an anti-poverty campaigner. He is simply a guy who sees the need to make a difference in the world and is fortunate enough to be in a position to do so. He might not have a deep understanding of economics and development issues but at least he is bringing the subject to public attention (as some readers have rightly pointed out) and hopefully he will inspire many others to make a difference and take some action. We can sit on sites like this and hypothesise until the cows come home but the fact is that billions of people around the world are still living in poverty. Maybe it would be more interesting to ask these people if they like Bono or not.
So what actions are Mr. Rachman and his bevy of Bono Critics taking to help ease the suffering of billions of people living on less than a dollar a day? Anyone who calls himself a human being has an obligation to help his fellow man, yet most don’t make it a high priority in their life. They like to judge, rather than participate. “Poseurs” like Bono set an example for the rest of us to get off our butts and do something. In stark contrast are Rachman’s critiques which help feed apathy and sanction the narcissistic perspective that most Westerners hold today. “Not our problem” , or “celebrities should stop trying to solve problems, they’re really not qualified”.
Rather than bash anti-poverty crusader, critics like Rachman might consider promoting alternative solutions they find appealing. If debt relief is off putting, then take a look at organizations like Acumen Fund, for example, www.acumenfund.org, already provide market-based venture solutions in developing countries.
Time for everyone to get off the couch and do their part. To quote Jesus, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own?”
Posted by: Scott McDonald | September 11th, 2007 at 11:44 am | Report this commentFinally someone prints what I have been ranting about to anyone who wants to hear it (or more often: who doesn’t). As it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, simply more aid (as opposed to targeted aid) and more debt relief does more harm than good. Yet, thousands of people run to the Live8 concerts and think that they are saving the world! (A singer of a German band actually said on live television a couple of years ago that Bob Geldof (excuse me…Sir Bob Geldof) has single-handedly ensured that everyone with HIV/Aids in Africa is now getting the drugs they need… WHAT??). The consequence is that politicians end up bowing to that pressure because hey: they want to be elected, even if they are aware that they may not acting in the best interest of developing countries.
Posted by: PH | September 11th, 2007 at 1:12 pm | Report this commentBut I am holding on to my hope that Bono has a bit of a “Michael Moore” effect: you may not think he is right or approve of his methods but he does make people think.
There are many types of currency in this world, all of them bankable. Money, celebrity, beauty come to mind and certainly there are more. I think what many of you object to is the fact that celebrities seems to accrue a spendable, unearned currency that allows their views to be heard. Let them have their money and shut up. As to how Bono is spending his celebrity, an argument can be made that he has wrong headed views; that there is a positive correlation between aid and povety, aid and corruption. But how many of us have been to Africa as he has, viewed the situation first hand? Once you see someone suffering it is hard not to want to give a mosquito net or water or whatever. All in all Bono is relevant, he is loved by the world and he has had an impact. Frankly, if the world has to love someone, Bono isn’t such a bad choice.
Posted by: Victoria | September 11th, 2007 at 2:01 pm | Report this commentI’m truly delighted Gideon Rachman asked for evidence of Bono’s achievements.
We founded a group called DATA (www.data.org) precisely because Bono and the rest of us are obsessed by facts, and by what works and what doesn’t. We also know that some commentators too often miss the facts and sink into prejudice. Interestingly that is exactly the gist of this intentionally provocative bit of blogging.
Along with a number of key partners, DATA and Bono deserve some real credit for a lot of what has been achieved on the Africa agenda in the last few years. Don’t just take my word for it. The Daily Telegraph says Bono and Bob Geldof have “arguably become the most successful political lobbyists in recent history.” (9 June 2007)
And here are some more specific examples: As a result of our work on and support for the Jubilee movement, Bono helped bring about bilateral and multilateral debt cancellation of $70 billion for African countries. Along with foreign assistance, debt cancellation has helped put 20 million more children in Africa in school.
As a result of his helpful work on HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB, campaigners won an increase of $15bn from the US Congress for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief as well as $2.7 bn to date for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS TB and malaria, which has been more than matched by billions from European and other OECD nations. The money means that the number of Africans on lifesaving antiretroviral AIDS treatment has spiralled from 50,000 to 2 million in the last three years, 30 million anti-malarial bednets have been distributed resulting in dramatic declines in infant deaths in parts of Kenya and elsewhere, and 2.8 million people have been treated for TB.
The combination of these efforts along with increased sums from the World Bank’s International Development Association and the Millennium Challenge Account (which Bono in part helped devise) and the African Growth and Opportunity Act (a decent piece of U.S. legislation we wish Europe would take some lessons from), along with other anti-corruption and transparency policies we have backed, has helped African nations with good enough governance to strengthen economic growth and democracy.
These are decent results and Bono deserves more credit than most, but he achieved none of this alone. Above all he didn’t just do this with NGOs but with a growing movement that stretches way beyond the usual suspects. You are as likely to hear Bono quote 4 star General Jim Jones or Warren Buffet as our great colleagues at Oxfam or the UN. And for obvious reasons: as we broaden the coalition of support for beating extreme poverty, that breadth strengthens our case.
The only decent question Mr Rachman asks is the one asking for evidence. Because if you know the facts about Bono’s work and what he along with many partners has achieved, the other questions are easily answered. He’s not a “poseur”. He has worked incredibly hard to master the subject matter and the politics of how to make change happen: he’s the real thing.
Posted by: Jamie Drummond, DATA | September 11th, 2007 at 4:44 pm | Report this commentWe are closing this thread down to comments now. Thanks to everyone for your contributions. You can contact us at the email address above if you have questions.
Posted by: FT.com moderators | September 11th, 2007 at 6:27 pm | Report this commentJCE has a valid point: Bono the public relations man has raised awareness about African problems - and he has a solid knowledge of the issues.
Posted by: Hans-Werner Wabnitz | September 12th, 2007 at 10:16 pm | Report this commentMaybe this also raises his own marketing, nevertheless, he had, still has influence on the development crowd.
Is that a good idea ? Basically yes. But the solutions proposed, even though advocated by Jeffrey Sachs also, are wrong.
Debt relief and more aid is the wrong track: it will never guide African leaders,and their people, to responsible self reliance. Not money is missing, but determined effort for home grown creative solutions. Only African women associations are beginning to go this way - not the governments.
Victoria chalked up to Bono’s great achievement the funding increases by the governments.
Posted by: Losoria | September 16th, 2007 at 10:22 am | Report this commentWell, this is my achievement, and achievement of all tax- and ratepayers. It is our money. Bono and Saint Bob are laundering their income through low-tax havens.
sorry, it was jamie drummond thus expostulating, not victoria.
and
1. yes, we should listen to bono as much as to any other voter. not more, not less. even though he has no higher education or experience in the real world, he is entitled to have a say.
2. sure, he is insufferable. a yobbo teaching PhD’s to do their jobs. you have to have a big ego to pull it off.
3. there is no data (yours is conjecture, Jamie, not data) that it was Bono who made a difference. might have been sir Bob, or Al Gore or Bill Clinton. good news fodder though.
4. there is a Bono world view. It is called hesychasm, or navelgazing.
Posted by: Losoria | September 16th, 2007 at 10:29 am | Report this commentNever a fan of celebrity intrusions into politics, I must admit it is better to see Bono, Madonna and Brangelina using their fame to raise awareness about real problems than it is to see Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan raising their skirts as a result of their own psychological problems!
Posted by: Terry Everett Brown | September 18th, 2007 at 7:26 pm | Report this commentBono has actually spelled his name wrongly. Originally he was self-styled as ‘Bono Vox’ (’Good Voice’), but as any Latin scholar will know, ‘vox’ is a feminine noun, so it should be ‘Bona Vox’. ‘Bona’ sounds a bit girly I suppose, but hey, that’s rock ‘n’ roll.
Posted by: Clive Simmonds | November 1st, 2007 at 10:12 am | Report this comment‘White Man’s Burden’ by William Easterly does a good job of debunking Bono.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 25th, 2007 at 12:00 pm | Report this comment