Band Aid and COP29

Band Aid’s Do They Know It’s Christmas? is a certified Christmas classic, a Christmas bop that continues to top the charts even decades after its release. It was an exciting and defining moment in pop culture, but it has now come under scrutiny. The newly released Band Aid 40 commemorates the original and its subsequent versions. Personally, I believe the buzz around it is more notable than the song itself, and I wouldn't recommend giving it a listen.

Spurred on by Ed Sheeran, who has expressed dissatisfaction with his vocals being included in the latest version, there is an ongoing conversation about its relevance and appropriateness in today’s era. So, has Band Aid perpetuated a "White Saviour" rhetoric and contributed to a damaging perception of Africa?

The song was undoubtedly a product of its time—something that, in hindsight, could have been done better. However, that doesn't mean we should cancel it or erase it from music history. The original version featured a small handful of female artists, and almost all the Black artists included were from Kool & the Gang. This lack of diversity would not be accepted today, and later versions of the song made efforts to rectify this. Even Bob Geldof himself acknowledged that opinions and sentiments change over time; the concept has drawn criticism over the years, and we can’t remain static in our evaluation of it.

In its first year, the original single raised a staggering $40 million (equivalent to about $120 million today) for famine relief in Ethiopia. It brought global attention to a crisis affecting millions and defined an era of charity activism, with the iconic Live Aid following just a year later. Raising millions of pounds for a worthy cause is commendable, but this initiative also set the stage for the celebrity-driven charity sector that emerged in its wake.

The celebrity aspect became especially notable, with stars using their influence to raise funds and start their own charitable foundations. Without the phenomenon of Band Aid and Live Aid, celebrity charity work might not have gained the same prominence. However, it would be unfair to compare Bob Geldof's admirable efforts to the actions of others, like Naomi Campbell, who after joining the charity bandwagon, was just handed a five-year ban from running a charity after it was revealed that funds were misused on the likes of spa treatments.

The problem with Band Aid, however, is that it reinforced stereotypes portraying Africa as a barren wasteland that needs Western intervention. By using the blanket term "Africa," it suggested that all African countries and cultures were the same, overlooking the continent’s rich diversity. While the initiative began with good intentions, over time, it may have fuelled a sense of superiority in the West and contributed to a dismissive attitude toward the continent.

Some African artists and Ethiopians have shared their concerns, noting that the image of Ethiopia as a “basket case” continues to harm the country’s ability to expand its tourism industry and economic outlook. The narrative perpetuated by Band Aid still lingers, and many argue that it has hindered African countries' progress on the global stage.

However, let’s not forget—it’s still just a pop song. While it sparked a movement, it is unreasonable to blame a catchy tune that featured Spandau Ballet for poor international relations. We shouldn’t take it too seriously.

Yet, it’s hard to ignore the irony. In the same week that Band Aid faced renewed criticism, we had COP29 in Baku. The latest climate conference was, to put it mildly, a disaster. Did we expect landmark climate agreements? No. But few could have predicted the near-collapse of the event.

Environmental injustice was at the heart of the conference’s failures. Some of the poorest nations walked out of negotiations when the funds being offered to help them adapt to climate change were shockingly low. A deal was eventually reached at $300 billion per year, far below the proposed $1.2 trillion.

It’s no secret that the poorest nations are bearing the brunt of climate change, despite having contributed little to the problem. Ten of the poorest nations contribute less than 1% of global carbon emissions, while the wealthiest 10% produce half of the world’s emissions. These nations lack the financial resources and power to tackle the crisis, while the wealthiest countries continue to dominate the conversation.

Scotland also plays a part in this. We offered to pay a mere £24 million over the course of three years, this doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the money that we should be paying.

However, I found it all a little ironic. Here we have a Christmas pop song from the 80’s getting some push-back for representing a rhetoric that Africa, and in particular the poorest African nations, are complete charity cases not to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile at COP 29 the poorest nations are struggling to be taken seriously. They’re fighting for what they are rightfully owed but at the same time this isn’t charity. They’re not looking for a handout. First-off it isn’t charity when you’ve created the damage and secondly this is about adapting and improving. So simply throwing cash at the problem isn’t the endgame for this issue.

I just found the mix of the headlines notable. Finally, a little pushback to the narrative that the West can create a happy little celebrity campaign, or chuck in some money and walk away feeling good about ourselves. The imbalance of power and dismissive attitude is hampering any attempt to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis.  

The Ethiopia that experienced famine in the 1980s is now facing even greater risks due to the climate crisis. It needs not just aid but real investment, proper negotiations, and policies that can accelerate the country’s technological advancements to cope with climate change.

Organisations like Common Weal and many more have long said that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are crucial to this debate. Green innovation is one of the key elements of stopping the climate crisis, yet the richest nations have a monopoly.

Those that are poorest, and most vulnerable, have a huge barrier to access green technologies even though they are the most in need of it. Technology transfers have long been included in the Paris agreement, yet the obstacle to IPR makes it hard to enact. There is a willingness to prioritise green energise among the majority of African nations but the barrier to benefit from new breakthroughs is rendering some nations helpless.

India asked richer nations to remove barriers to IPR technologies at COP29, but we are yet to see what measures could be set-out.