Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, kill the nomenklaturas

Great Debates
1

As a spinoff from the Should we feed the starving?" thread, I suggest that the following statement be made by the next president of the United States (exact wording may vary):

“We do not hold lines drawn on a map by 19th century European colonialists as sacred. Therefore, whilst we will gladly work with those styling themselves legitimate foreign governments in dealing with such problems as food maldistribution, the scourges of AIDS, malaria, hepatitis, and other contagious diseases, and the failure of economies to have grown to a point where they can be self-sustaining, we will not allow them to impede our efforts. Rather, we will take any steps that we perceive as necessary – including the use of such force as seems necessary and expedient, even to killing the entire ruling class of a self-styled ‘nation’ – to prevent such an impediment, and to carry those tasks that are moral and necessary.

“We offer to undertake these tasks with no illusion that we will not make mistakes, great and small, gross and subtle, in theory and in practice. We do not pretend to be paragons or demigods; we will only offer the assurance that we will offer what seems good in our eyes; that when mistakes are made, we will acknowledge them, correct their results to the extent possible, and see to it that they are not repeated. We do not, thank Heaven, blindly accept as Absolute Truth the scribblings of Marx, Hitler, or Carson, and turn ruthlessly on everyone who does not accept them as such.

“One more thing. I am aware that there will be great opposition to this undertaking, both foreign and domestic. Those who offer such opposition must in turn be aware that our goodwill and our resources are theirs to command. Those who criticize us whilst we stagger under burdens they are not willing to help carry will find that they will not be allowed to direct us. We will not open our hands only to have a mob of carrion crows drive off the truly needy and gorge themselves on our offerings. The alternative to this is not to give the half-smart, the half-educated, and the half-legitimate the opportunity to use us to their little hearts’ content and demand more; it is for us to cut off our assistance entirely.”

Discussion?

2

Whilst I appreciate the sentiments…

  1. This doen’t seem to have worked too well in Haiti.

  2. I doubt the US would regard this in a favorable light coming from another nation.

  3. As a start, stopping intervening on the other side would help:

  • arming and training the minions of despots

  • subsidising inefficient farmers in a way that depresses world agricultural prices

  • disallowing funding for aid programmes which involve voluntary family planning

picmr

3

I’ve read it through twice and it still sounds like “imperialism”, bordering on “fascism”. Did I miss something? Or is it meant to be sarcastic?

:confused:

Especially this part:

And this:

And this:

4

Akatsukami wrote:

I assume by “Carson” here, you mean Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring.

If the next president of the United States ends up being Al Gore, there is no way in Hades he’s going to say that about Carson.

5

picmr wrote:

Um, wait a minute. The whole point of farm subsidies is to keep agricultural prices artificially high. How could subsidising farmers – particularly inefficient farmers – cause agricultural prices to fall?

6

I was assuming Johnny Carson.

7

What, exactly, are you proposing? Revolutions and counter-revolutions springing up around the world, while our army gets kicked around in a hundred different Somalia-Haiti-Vietnam-type fiascos that are micromanaged and mismanaged by ‘well-meaning’ politicians? Sorry. The time for that has long passed. You can get your ass shot at by some Federales with an AK-47. I’m staying out of what does not concern me.

8

Subsidies to US and European farmers keep prices to them high, but depress prices on the world market.

Since demand does not change, the extra production generated by the subsidies drives down world prices.

In the event that this is accompanied by protection (tariffs/ quotas etc) the US price to consumers may also rise. The world price is necessarily lower due to subsidies.

picmr

9

I think an interesting question is being raised here, if I’m reading the OP correctly.

Firstly there is the proposition that most of the world’s problems, poverty, famine, war, disease, injustice and the inability or unwillingness to cope with disasters are solvable. They are solvable now, with what we have, if the human race got its act together.

Second is the proposition that the problems are still here because of bad governments. Not just “bad” as “incompetent” or “corrupt”, but “bad” as in “evil”. The sort of governments which deal with their critics by making them dissapear. The sort of government which has ten years of bumper harvests, spends all its GDP on weapons and presidential palaces and then asks for western aid to feed its people when the crops fail. And then pockets most of that.

The question being asked seems to be: should the “civilised” democracies of the world, the USA in particular, try to fix the problems of the world by removing “evil” governments by force? Should this be adopted as a matter of principle? Airstrike the palaces of dictators, the barracks of their armies, the offices of their bureaucrats? “Get elected or get out?”

Many posters have pointed out that this has never succeeded in the past and frequently made matters worse. All true, but is there anything wrong with the concept itself? Is it immoral or just impractical?
If we don’t do it, is there anything else we SHOULD do?

10

Matt: It’s immoral. It’s imperialism. It’s “Uncle Sam the World Cop”. Why should it be our problem if the generals take over in Burma, pardon me, Myanmar? Why should it be our obligation to make sure everybody in the world has a constitution and that they know how to work it?

Captain Kirk does this all the time, violating the Prime Directive nearly every week, but does that make it “moral”?

What we should do is give them assistance IF THEY ASK FOR IT. Otherwise, we should butt out. Democracy doesn’t “take” if it’s imposed from without–people have to learn how to make it work for themselves.

A lot of countries in the world only see the surface trappings of “America”, the Levis, the CDs, the whole capitalist system, but they don’t grasp what it takes in terms of social cooperation to make it work, in terms of letting people vote the way they want, and if your party loses, hey, that’s the way it goes, try again next election. A lot of nations don’t understand that whole Western mindset of “being a good loser”, a “good sport”, “lose it on the apples, make it up on the bananas”, etc. which is what makes the republican system of government work.

11

Does this perchance include the 49th parallel? if so, I have a few personal concerns.

12

Nicely put, JTI… (surreptitiously edges my desk a few centimetres northward)

13

“You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”. Matthew 7:5, NIV

Once you have fed and clothed your own people, banished disease, and perhaps stopped your children killing each other at school, then come talk to us poor ignorant and benighted foreigners. :wink:

14

Akatsukami

Be very careful imposing your “help” on others. They may one day get a bigger gun and decide to impose on you. To help those asking for help is a sentiment shared by most of us; imperialist actions and ideals are not likely to succeed, good sentiment or not.

Sili

15

How about this as an alternative:

"OUr success in the US is not the cause of the failure of other countries. We have poured billions of dollaars of aid into various hell holes and the only thing that has changed is that you now think you are our responsibility. You are not. You are your own responsibility.

It is not our fault that you haven’t been able to get you act together over the past 5,000 years of civilization. We have only had a little over 200 and look at us!

It is not our fault that you are killing each other. It is not our fault that you have corrupt leaders. It is not our fault that you haven’t figured out how to grow your own damn food.

We will consider offering help if you stop killing each other, robbing from the state coffer and can show that there is a reasonable chance that you will be self sufficient in the near future. Otherwise, it is your own damn problem."

16

Ah excuse me, I think you’ve missed a bit of history or political science there, Mr Zambezi. The American economy
is the biggest economy reaching just about everywhere on earth. Much of our wealth and power come from raw and manufactured products which come from someplace other than America. As such, our economic tendriles extend to even the smallest little country or land lorded over by punk and murderous warlords. The more important or crucial your raw material, the more influence American companies or the US govt has in you. Fortunately, American diplomatic skills have improved recently [no longer do we twirl our big stick in your face] and the govt has tried, sometimes successfully, in helping civic society develop and democratic systems, ie elections, become a reality. The point is not that “it’s not out fault”, the point is that our economic system has been and is global for decades.

Secondly, not only have we been leaders of the world economy, we Americans have backed many leaders who have or still represent the complete opposite of our American values of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free market economy [debateable] etcetcetc. We have done this to protect our economic interests or political interests as during the Cold War.

Thirdly, American arms merchants are everywhere and I include official American military assistance to non-democratic govts in this bunch. Our military assistance has been much greater than our economic/humanitarian assistance. We might feed hungry people, vaccinate kids, provide agricultural technical assistance and education assistance to the unclothed, hungry and poor, but we also provide military goods, services and technical assistance. Israel receives the largest cut of the American assistance pie, or maybe trough is a better word. This is one hell of a big check in military assistance.

Many of the world’s countries are where they are because of our economic influence, our political influence and our military and/or economic assistance. Some have done better than others, but I don’t know of any magical formula that guarantees success other than a combination of the following factors: education/literacy, freedome of ideas and communication, healthier people and fairly decent health care, agricultural development, social entrepreneurs and growing civic society.

I have long thought that American assistance needs to go from govt to govt. I think that many who’ve posted here think so as well if I am reading between the lines correctly. But I have recently begun to see that this is not necessarily so. American assistance needs to go to where it can best be used and if that means channeling money thru voluntary agencies or NGOs to go to other nongovt agencies - so be it.

Therefore, to finally cut to the chase, I would prefer to see the opening OP thread to stress the need to clothe the naked, feed the hungry etcetcetc on a people to people basis, NGO to NGO, non-govt to non-govt. Let’s cut out the dead meat military who chew up some much of the national budgets. Let’s encourage American companies to invest not only in the immediate profit-related business, but also in long-term investments such as education to assure a talented and capable workforce and NGOs to assure adequate health care. Let’s work govt to govt to reduce corruption, strengthen community oriented police depts, increase democratic capacity [ie elections, establishing or reforming legal systems/Robert’s Rules of Order]. We will all benefit in the end.

17

So we have hurt poor countires by buying the raw materials they were selling? We have prevented democracy by promoting the forces fighting for democracy (e.g. Chile) ?

And it is a bad thing that we protected our own interests during the cold war?

I can recognize those who dislike, even hate the US because it does effectively what wevery other country in the world does to varying degrees of success: protect its own interests.

We did not cause the problems in Africa, we did not cause the conflic tin the middle easet. We did nto cause the revolutions in Central and South America. We may have taken actions that caused a flare up or didn’t help, but you can’t pin Somalia, or Haiti on us.

And what about the benefits
the US has provided by way of technology and inventions: The lightbulb, television, the internet, computers, medical breakthroughs, not to mention billions in aid for both food and developement.

Bottom line, we are disliked world wide and if we help, we are critisized for helping in the wrong way. If we dont’ help, we are critisized as well.

18

Let’s see:

  1. Salvador Allende - democratically elected;

  2. General Pinochet - came to power by CIA supported coup and killed Salvador Allende.

Can you help me a bit, Mr. Zambesi?

19

Mr Zambezi: it is not a question of dislike or even hatred of the US because of its ‘effectiveness’ in protecting its own interests. Many folks, myself included, feel that these efforts have NOT been effective and, in fact, they have backfired on us. And, just as important, these activities weigh heavier on the local populations. I give you the following as a few of the worst examples:

 Afghanistan and the Taliban
 Vietnam
 El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua
 Liberia, Congo/Kinshasa including combattants Rwanda,
 Uganda, Zimbabwe and Angola

As a matter of fact, Americans are NOT hated worldwide. Our culture is everywhere in movies, TV shows, music, clothes, food. Many young folks around the world actively look for the latest music, fad, style coming out of North America and Europe. Some folks say that this interest is the seed for the fundamentalist Islam backlash which sees American cultural as the enemy to traditional society [that’s a topic for another OP]. Intellectuals, entrepreneurs, journalists, scientists express appreciation for our open society and freedom of speech.

You may think that everyone hates the US because there are demonstrations, hanging Uncle Sam and burning American flags. Sometimes these actions are in reaction to American activities which are actually against our own system of beliefs, values and ethics. Chile’s past history is an excellent example.

Mr Zambezi, I suggest that you take a quick history lesson of what happened in Chile, Afghanistan, Liberia, Congo. Be sure to make a rational judgement on the source of your information and try to get a well rounded info bank. I look forward to your response.

20

I would argue that Piniochet, despite teh manner in which he cam to power save Chile from a socialist regime. Chile is doing very well right now and despite the protests, Pinoichet is pretty popular.

Now the Congo was messed up by the rapacious Belgians. When independence came, we desided to oust the first elected leadr (can’t remember the name) and put in our man who lined his own pockets. Teh IMF lent money for many failed projects which made the ruler rich and put the country in debt.

We did not do the Congo any favors by getting involved. But as for the average person, I am not so sure that they are a lot worse off. 1,000 years ago they were living in huts and eating manioc. Now they are living in huts and eating manioc. WE should have just stayed out of their business.

I am not saying that the US hasn’t screwed up other countries with our meddling. In fact I think we should stay out of the business of others unless our interests are seriously threatened. And one reason is because no matter what the outcome, we will have many deteractors thinking that we should have done something differently.

I think that history will show that our actions in Iraq, Somalia and Bosnia were ill advised and harmful. I am not saying that we are a great savious of the wrold.