Madam, - The trouble with Bob Geldof's commentary on world poverty, and Africa in particular (Opinion, July 9th) is that in spite of his pseudo-radical language (expletives and all), he actually presents a conservative and limited agenda. For all his iconoclastic rock star anger at the status quo, Geldof's depiction serves only to accommodate the root causes of poverty and suffering - increasing transnational corporate control of trade and finance aided and abetted by Western political leaders.
One of the various flaws in Geldof's pseudo-analysis is his rallying call to the British prime minister, Tony Blair, to lead the way in alleviating poverty and its "bitch cousin" war. This is asking a poacher to act as a gamekeeper. After the US, Britain is the world's biggest supplier of military weapons, much of this trade directed at warring African factions. Much of these countries' poverty results from British ministers and businessmen courting corrupt African leaders, knowing that spending on food, health and education will suffer. Also, as Mark Curtis points out in his excellent book Web of Deceit, Britain under Blair is bending over backwards to promote a global economy geared to the needs of transnational corporations rather than the poor. And disguising this awful reality is moralistic rhetoric about "healing the scar of Africa".
Like Mr Geldof, I'm tired of the bullshit, but it's a pity he has just helped propagate more of it. - Yours, etc.,
FINIAN CUNNINGHAM, Whitestown, Co Louth.
******
Madam, - Your Editorial of July 10th on President's Bush's current Africa tour criticises America's relatively low aid-giving, but this needs to be seen in context.
America's development aid of 0.11 per cent of GNP, compared to Ireland's 0.35 per cent and the 0.7 per cent agreed at the 1992 Earth summit at Rio de Janeiro, is indeed the lowest percentage in the developed world. But it amounts to $11 billion a year which is 21 per cent of the world total.
And this is only America's public sector contribution. Americans help others abroad - just as they do domestically - primarily through private donations, foundations, corporate and university giving, religious offerings, and direct help to needy family members, which has been estimated at another $34 billion a year.
Conversely, Europeans give abroad primarily as they do at home - through their governments (the socialist approach which is much less painful for individuals).
In addition, the US provides the bulk of the world's research and development, which saves millions of lives with improvements in food and medicines. And most significantly, the US continues, especially in the Balkans, to carry at enormous expense much of the burden of European defence, which allows the Europeans the luxury of making larger aid contributions.
Europeans also benefit disproportionately from America's war on terror. - Yours, etc.,
TONY ALLWRIGHT, Killiney, Co Dublin.