It had all the hallmarks of a publicity-generating pseudo-spat, when Justin Hawkins of the Darkness slagged off Bono and claimed that his version of a line from Do They Know It's Christmas? was better than the "old man's", writes Breda O'Brien.
Whatever about celebrity handbags designed to generate stories, Bono has always claimed to hate that line, "Well, tonight, thank God, it's them, instead of you." One can see why. There is something deeply crass about apparently thanking God, not just for being preserved from harm, but for the fact that others are in harm's way, instead.
For some of us, it is a shock that 20 years have passed since the first recording. Remember how awful people felt, 20 years ago, looking at those harrowing pictures from Ethiopia? Remember how Geldof's honest anger made it possible for us all to feel a little less badly, just by buying a single or a video? We wanted to make a difference. Being young, we felt it was possible to make a difference.
Twenty years later we are a little less naïve. Charity alone does not work. The developing world deserves justice, not just our spare cash. We can pour as much emergency aid as we like into a country, but it is like a bottomless pit unless people are given an opportunity to reclaim their dignity, which means being given aid for development, and opportunity for fair trade.
For example, the governments of the developed world give aid, but play hardball when it comes to trade agreements. Many indigenous farmers have been ruined by cynical dumping of cheap foodstuffs from the developed world on their markets.
The foodstuffs are cheap, because farmers receive such enormous subsidies from their governments. No developing country can compete. Until the question of trade, debt relief, and the devastation caused by war and HIV/AIDS are tackled, emergency aid will continue to be, well, a Band-Aid.
Yes, 20 years later, we are a little less naïve. I hope, however, that we retain the capacity to be shocked by the fact that in the estimates for the "caring and sharing" budget, the Government revealed it was no longer pursuing the goal of giving 0.7 per cent of GNP in Overseas Development Aid (ODA) to poorer countries by 2007.
The Government committed itself to meeting that target only in 2000 and in doing so generated a great deal of political capital.
There is no doubt that Ireland's seat on the Security Council at the UN was due in part to its promise to represent the voices of less-developed countries. Reneging on this commitment diminishes our ability to give significant leadership on the issue internationally.
In fairness, the Government has had an honourable record in relation to ODA. Other countries often give aid with strings attached. For example, an aid worker in Liberia recalls that, when vehicles were needed, the US government agency, Usaid, provided the funding, but only if American vehicles were bought. This is known as "tied aid" and Ireland has never stooped to such tactics. The work of Development Co-operation Ireland, formerly Ireland Aid, is in many ways exemplary. In Ethiopia, for example, it is involved, in partnership with local people and other agencies, in many different projects that are making a real difference, ranging from clean water to provision of education.
The Government also deserves credit for increasing its ODA dramatically.
Why did it then fail to go the extra mile? As a country which allegedly has the highest quality of life in the world, if only according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, it has been decided on our behalf that saving lives in the world's poorest countries should not be a core value. Instead, it will be subject to the fluctuations of political expediency.
The only way to have a genuine commitment to the achievement of the 0.7 per cent target is to take it outside the Estimates entirely, in the way that other things, like servicing our own debt, are not contingent on the estimates. This would require legislation, but there is significant cross-party support for reaching the 0.7 per cent target. After all, it was the Progressive Democrats, in the form of Liz O'Donnell, who first made significant running in relation to ODA, although it might not be considered in line with their right-wing views on economics.
Justice for the developing world surmounts the rhetoric of both right- and left-wing politics. It touches us on a deeper, more visceral level, to see mothers cradling emaciated children, or fathers surveying crops ruined by locusts.
Yet we are very fickle. Ethiopia faded from our sights, although it remains in a perilous condition, and life expectancy is still only 43 years.
We are currently riddled with guilt over Darfur, but where are the huge street protests demanding action, as there were against the war in Iraq?
As someone who protested against the war, I have to ask myself: is it easier to do something essentially negative, that is, protest against something, rather than engage in the slow, tedious but positive work needed to come to terms with the vast problems facing the developing world? Are there fashions in the world of protests?
At the moment, the UN's World Food Programme is appealing without a great deal of success for €350 million to prevent famine in Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland and Zambia.
They want to save the lives of 5.5 million people, but we do not see governments falling over themselves to donate. Nor, as I say, do we see vast street protests demanding basic human rights for the developing world.
Perhaps it is because I can protest against a war in Iraq, and then go home and have to do nothing further. If I take the plight of the real people who are dying every day from hunger and preventable illness seriously, I have to look at my own wasteful lifestyle, at the resources which I consume heedlessly, at how my shopping basket reflects my commitment to justice.
I would have to make it plain to the Government that there are votes to be lost by breaking promises to help the most needy. Sadly, perhaps it is true, no matter how much Bono hated singing the line, that for many of us it is easier to thank God it's them, instead of us.