Posted by SPun2U
closeAuthor: SPun2U
Name: Kevin
Email: feedback@u2feedback.com
Site: http://www.u2exit.com
About: A little about me, I was bitten with the U2 obsession in 1991 with the release of Achtung Baby. Although I’ve known about U2 since the mid 80’s it wasn’t until the AB album that I was hooked. AB was the very first (and only) album that I had ever owned that I played straight through without hating a single song. I truly love every song on that album. Even today that album seems so fresh.
My online activities, I'm curator of several U2 related sites: U2exit.com, U2torrents.com, U2fansites.com, and U2radio.com. I've maintained a U2 fan site in some form since the late 1990's.See Authors Posts (2587) on Feb 25, 2002 in News & Rumors | Comments Off
When a celebrity finds a cause, cynicism is the first reaction. There are
exceptions, of course, like the work of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills on
land mines. But often, we suspect that we’re being conned–that film stars
and musicians have calculated that supporting some benighted group is a way
of redoubling our reverence for them. And we know that some causes–Tibet,
HIV/AIDS–are frankly more fashionable than others. Offhand, I can’t think
of one celebrity who has dedicated time and money to reducing the number of
deaths from diarrhea, a killer throughout the developing world and one
easily treated by simple, low-technology interventions.
Call me a fan, but Bono stands out. In the past three years, in talking to
politicians, aid workers, activists and United Nations and development-bank
officials, I have never heard a single suggestion that the U2 singer was
involved with the plight of the world’s poor for anything other than genuine
concern. In part that’s because he has convinced the professionals that he
does his homework. It’s one thing to hear celebrities talk about “doing
something” for a cause. It’s quite another to hear a rock star give a
lecture on “hip conditionality,” the terms under which the most highly
indebted countries of the world are forgiven their loans.
Bono also wins plaudits because he’s not easily typecast. Asking for more
government funding for the developing world is a quick way to get applause
from liberal constituencies. But Bono stresses a more subtle point, and one
that often raises opposition on the political left. For many nations,
exporting agricultural commodities and cheap T shirts is the best way to
raise standards of living, yet as soon as they try to do so, protectionist
lobbies in the First World–French farmers, American textile firms–scream
bloody murder. Bono isn’t swayed. “There is no justification,” he says, “for
denying the very poorest countries market access.”
More important, Bono has given a public face to the agenda of the developing
world at an important moment. Within the next six months, crucial decisions
will be made on the shape of the rich world’s policies for poverty
reduction. Next month in Monterrey, Mexico, President Bush and other leaders
will gather to hash out the scale and terms of a new and expanded program of
financial assistance to the poorest countries. In the fall a conference in
Johannesburg will take stock of the progress toward the U.N.’s “millennium
goals” to eliminate extreme poverty and increase access to education and
health care.
But if these initiatives are to get anywhere and overcome the suspicions of
those in Washington who are convinced there are no votes in foreign aid,
they need a constituency. The poor of the world can’t just rely on “the
usual ‘poverty is bad’ liberals,” notes Lucy Matthew, who works for DATA,
the policy network that Bono founded.
The model for a new approach is Jubilee 2000, which campaigned with great
success to reduce developing-world debt. Jubilee 2000 was based in Europe,
not the U.S., and its foot soldiers were not liberal activists but
churchgoers. I remember covering a huge demonstration at the 1999 G-8 summit
in Cologne, Germany, that was led not by black-clad anarchists but by nuns
singing hymns. Bono’s support for the campaign was critical; he gave a
patina of glamour to people who would otherwise have been dismissed as nice
but deeply unfashionable.
Now he is convinced that the same coalition can be built in the U.S. In the
past few months, Bono has consistently stressed the need for campaigners to
work with church groups. Last week he told me of his determination to reach
out to “grassroots conservative Republicans.” The pitch to the Bush
Administration for more foreign aid is deliberately aimed to appeal to both
self-interest and idealism. The war against terrorism, Bono argues, needs to
be accompanied by “the pursuit of a less dangerous world for Americans, one
where ‘America’ is once again a great idea, contagious and inclusive.”
Will that appeal work? I think it might. If my experience talking to people
around the country in the past few months is a guide, Sept. 11 changed the
way Americans think about international affairs. Far from Washington, issues
of global health care, education and poverty are being discussed–at church
coffees and student discussion groups–with a new urgency. The days when
professionals were considered to have a monopoly on wisdom are ending, thank
God. And Bono’s advocacy is an important part of that change. “He
understands,” says Trevor Neilson of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
“that the battle for development is going to be won at the backyard
barbecue, not at the Council on Foreign Relations.” Fire up the grill.
Copyright ? 2002 Time Inc.
