A review of last Wednesday's thoughtful discussion http://www.wednesday-night.com/Wed1217page2.asp reminds us that almost any topic can be reduced to the question of rights, whether it is Karla Homolka's right to privacy versus the community's right to know where she is and what she is doing, the right of a government to impose stringent requirements on its citizens in the name of security, or the right of a single (powerful) nation to distort or usurp the rights and responsibilities of the community of nations.

Julius Grey's eloquent Opinion piece in Sunday's Gazette The paradox of rules and deregulation: While governments remove market regulations to make us freer, they slap on new social rules to restrict liberties http://www.wednesday-night.com/jgreyDeregl.asp illustrates the dangers of one-rule-for-all.

President Bush's speech at Fort Bragg underlined the conviction of the Administration that the war in Iraq is a just war and that the sacrifice of thousands of American and Iraqi lives "is vital to the future security of our country". Even if he were right, does the future security of one country override all other considerations on the world scene?

What of the future security of the world in the face of devastating climate change? In the final days before the G-8 meeting, the American Administration remained steadfastly obstructionist. Mr Bush has adopted an intransigent position. It is reported that "US President George Bush is now ready to concede that climate change has scientific basis, and that collective action is required over global warming." [Does this mean that the White House will now re-revise the scientific reports it previously edited?]
[see:http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/free/story/0,6418,326869,00.html?]

While applauding the concern of the aging rockers for African poverty and their desire to inspire similar enthusiasm for action, we submit that mob rule demanding Debt Relief and increase in aid inspired by the Live8 is not a solution to the fundamental problems of the continent.

Nor is the term Africa particularly helpful. It is a vast continent of some 55 different countries, with enormous disparities. Nonetheless, most of Sub-Saharan Africa is in the World Bank's lowest per capita income category. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/africa/05/africa_economy/html/poverty.stm

As the National Post points out: it is corruption that has hurt the (African) poor most, diverting funds from development, undermining governments, fuelling injustice and inequality, discouraging foreign investment, and breeding cynicism and violence ... Africa contains the richest concentration of precious metals and minerals on Earth, 90% of the world's cobalt, 90% of its platinum, 50% of its gold, 98% of its chromium, 64% of its manganese and one- third of its uranium. It is rich in diamonds, has more oil reserves than North America, and has been estimated to hold 40% of the world's potential hydroelectric power.

But, by the African Union's own estimate, Africa loses as much as US$148-billion a year to corruption. A startling suggestion comes from Professor George Ayittey, of American University in Washington who insists African leaders could pick up part of the proposed foreign aid bill themselves just by curbing their own corruption. It's a novel proposal, but even were it to be accepted, what is to be done about all of those individuals and organizations from the developed world who enable corruption by paying the bribes?

Bearing in mind one observer's comments regarding Live 8 "'it is exhaustion of political vision' that has allowed these petty celebrities with their banal and limited arguments to take centre stage" - We offer this challenge to Wednesday Night, never known for banality:

If you were at the G-8 meeting what would you propose? How would you address the question of the rights of the African peoples to a chance at living a decent life? Have the governments of some countries forfeited their sovereignty and, if so, what kind of world community intervention on behalf of good governance and transparency is acceptable and practical, while not further punishing the long-suffering populations? If accepting the proposal to only give aid to countries that espouse good government, how to by-pass the corrupt and reach their populations?

We apologize. Summer should be a time when the Livin' is easy and the Thinkin' laidback, but we are no longer afforded that luxury. Let us therefore try at least to maintain the traditions of civility and respect in debate that are so sadly lacking in public (and more importantly, private) discourse today.

More at: http://www.wednesday-night.com/Wed1218.asp