The BBC apologizes to Sir Bob Geldof and Live Aid
The BBC yesterday issued an “unreserved” apology for broadcasting a series of reports earlier this year, implying that millions of pounds of aid funds raised by Band Aid and Live Aid in the 1980s to fight famine in Ethiopia had been diverted to arms purchases by opponents of the then military government. The allegations in particular had claimed that aid had been diverted by the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front to buy guns. The TPLF subsequently became part of the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front which overthrew the military regime in 1991 to take power in Ethiopia. The original story was followed up by other BBC programmes naming Sir Bob Geldof’s Live Aid and Band Aid charities as the source of diverted funds. An internal BBC investigation has now found that the story and subsequent summaries of the claims were unfair, and that these false accusations had been repeated, and exaggerated, by other reports around the world. Indeed, the London Times reported the next day that a BBC programme had alleged that “95 per cent of aid money donated to help victims of the 1985 Ethiopian famine were siphoned off.”
Sir Bob Geldof, the founder of Live Aid, said the whole episode had been an unusual lapse in standards by the BBC. The programme had failed to inform listeners of the unreliability of the witness who made the most dramatic claims, that 95% of aid was misappropriated. “He was a man of no credibility” said Sir Bob “but his claim, thanks to the BBC, was picked up all over the world as evidence that aid doesn’t work.” But, of course, it does, and, as he pointed out, thousands of lives are saved from AIDS, TB and malaria every day, the numbers of children dying from measles has fallen by 90%, and more than two million children a year now survive their firth birthday, and all because of aid. Sir Bob Geldof added: “The BBC’s misleading and unfair coverage on this story has done unknown damage to ordinary people’s willingness to donate their hard-earned cash…”. He said the public needed to be “confident that the money it donates in good faith gets to the people it is intended for….”. He therefore hoped the BBC’s apologies would “begin to repair some of the appalling damage done.”
Sir Bob Geldof deserved his apology, but as a number of commentators immediately pointed out the BBC made no effort to apologize to others affected by the BBC’s original report. It isn’t just Band Aid that is owed an apology but the British Government, other donors, many other charities, and the international public, and, we might add, Ethiopia and the Ethiopian Government. The main criticism of the programme, apart from the slur on Sir Bob Geldof, is that it gave almost everyone who heard it the strong impression that it was reporting credible allegations that up to 95% of the amounts of famine relief and aid given to Ethiopia in the 1980s was diverted to buy guns. Yet, as a former UK Ambassador to Ethiopia, Sir Brian Barder, noted the efforts of governments, NGOs, Ethiopians and other relief workers, supported by the generosity of private individuals around the world “was outstandingly successful” in saving millions of Ethiopians. “It was one of the most effective and uncorrupt operations in the annals of disaster relief.”
The original allegations, predictably perhaps, were also picked up by Ethiopian opposition groups, trying to equate the BBC allegations with recent Human Rights Watch’s claims of diversion of humanitarian aid for political purposes in Ethiopia, the alleged link being the fact that Prime Minister Meles was, of course, a leading member of the TPLF in the 1980s. In fact, as we have noted previously, Human Rights Watch allegations, like those of the BBC, have been convincingly repudiated. HRW first made these claims in March 2010 “A hundred ways of putting pressure”, apparently intending to try and influence the election in May. Then, following the EPRDF’s convincing win, in another report last month HRW claimed large-scale diversion of humanitarian aid for political aims. Even prior to this, the Donor Assistance Group (DAG), which issued a response disagreeing with the report’s conclusions, had carried out an independent investigation which found no evidence of widespread or systematic distortion of aid delivery in Ethiopia. Similarly, a US fact-finding mission late last year in southern Ethiopia found “no evidence that food aid is being denied to supporters of the opposition.” USAID’s Country Director, Thomas Staal, was quoted by VOA as saying that “to us, the important thing is to make sure the programmes are well managed, closely monitored with strict accountability systems, and you’re building institutions that can make sure programmes are meeting the goals, targets and beneficiaries intended.” A World Bank team analyzed data on aid distortion from the PSN Programme and found no widespread pattern of distortion. A number of embassies and other NGOs in Ethiopia have also responded dismissively to HRW’s claims.
HRW’s responses to these and criticisms of its methodology, its aims and intentions, continues to be highly disingenuous. It has, as usual, dismissed all criticisms, merely claiming, without producing any evidence, that “privately” some members of NGOs or diplomats in Addis Ababa support its allegations. Underlining her own political thinking, HRW’s Senior Researcher on the Horn of Africa in Washington, Leslie Lefkow, said that as the EPRDF had increased its membership to between four and five million people between 2005 and 2010, she did not think “it is an exaggeration to say the party has essentially infiltrated every layer of Ethiopian society.” The use of the word “infiltrate” rather than say “is represented in” is something of a give-away, suggesting a political agenda rather than a genuine commitment to human rights. HRW, having failed to influence the results of the election in May, now appears to be trying to limit, even bring an end to humanitarian aid to Ethiopia. We might, in conclusion, emphasize that the Government of Ethiopia has repeatedly made it clear that it has always investigated and responded appropriately to any credible reports of abuse brought to its attention by HRW or any other organization, including donor agencies. It will continue to do so. However, HRW clearly needs to be reminded that allegations need to be specific and detailed as well as credible, and to be based upon identifiable, reliable and accurate sources. All too often, HRW’s allegations, as we have pointed out before, are simply too vague and wild to investigate. Unfortunately, as US author, Mark Twain noted “a lie will fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its boots on”. Not for the first time, these regrettable efforts by the BBC and HRW unfortunately threaten to prove the point.