Fostering Developing Nations: Can this be done Ethically?

[Acid_Lamp]

I’ve had this idea for a while now, and think that it is a viable, if controversial, solution to some of the issues that third-world nations face. I want to lay out the concept for you as best I can, and try not to get sidetracked into legal minutiae if we can help it. What I would like to debate is the ethical viability of this option.

I propose that the first world members of the UN create a “Developing Nation Mentor Program”. Mentor countries must be party to human rights declarations, the Kyoto agreement and enjoy an economic climate amiable to foreign aid. Under this program, developing nations that are stuck in continuous civil wars, famines, and the like can apply to be “Foster Countries”. A foster country would then agree to accept aid from the mentor countries with certain stipulations. Mentor countries will be made up a representatives from no less than 3 qualifying nations, to ensure against rogue deals.

The governmental system must be acceptable to the UN and meet all Human rights benchmarks.

The new government will accept a temporary occupation by a UN- overseen coalition of armed forces to stabilize the region, enforce borders, and ensure the general welfare of the country during the program. The coalition will also train the local police, and military to a responsible level.

Governmental officers will attend educational programs designed to help them effectively and responsibly execute their positions. They will have a Foster Co-chair to assist them and oversee their progress and decisions during the program.

The countries will immediately cease and desist all military actions, and grant a general amnesty to all combatants who wish to peacefully join with the program. The UN will provide travel to another country for those who do not wish to remain.

Foster countries will be subject to proper, responsible, economic development; basing their systems on local resources.

They will enjoy funding for food, infrastructure development, and all manner of humanitarian aid necessary to ensure a healthy and productive population.

In return for their investment, the mentoring countries will enjoy favored trade status when the fostered nations have developed to the point to be stable and independent. Their trade to and from these countries will be free from all tariffs and taxes for a certain period of time.

Mentoring countries will not be allowed to pursue or support any goal or program which is discriminatory based on race, religion, or economic status. They may not broker deals during the foster period, nor override a decision made by the local co-chair unless it violates the UN’s charter. They may not institute a policy regarding religion or language.

Is this ethically possible?

[Eben]

Let me ask this, would you feel comfortable with China mentoring the US (or whatever country you call home) until the US was able to follow the guidelines laid out?

I think that it’s possible it would work, but I wouldn’t want to allow the possibility that the foster parent country never considered my country to be grown up enough to release the reigns of power back to my country. Also if I had power in my country, I’d never want to give it up. YMMV.

[Acid_Lamp]

@Eben

Let me ask this, would you feel comfortable with China mentoring the US (or whatever country you call home) until the US was able to follow the guidelines laid out?

I think that it’s possible it would work, but I wouldn’t want to allow the possibility that the foster parent country never considered my country to be grown up enough to release the reigns of power back to my country. Also if I had power in my country, I’d never want to give it up. YMMV.

If we needed the help, than I wouldn’t have an issue with it.

I imagine that any such arrangement would have a strict timetable applied to it to prevent colonial efforts and such. Remember that the mentor countries are not benefiting at all during the programs period and must wait until the nation regains it’s full functionality to engage in trade.

[Sitnam]

I don’t quite understand what’s to debate. Is it ethical to aid a 3rd world nation? In what scenario is giving help that’s requested unethical?

[Acid_Lamp]

There are a lot of implications. Does the government of a struggling country have the right to hand over it’s future to others? Can a program like this ever be viable against basic human greed? Is it appropriate for other countries to assume control of sovereign nation for it’s own good? Is it correct to offer the people a choice in governmental systems rather than letting them figure it out for themselves etc…

[Grey]

Sounds a lot like the League of Nations Mandates

@wiki

Mandates

Main article: League of Nations Mandate

League of Nations Mandates were established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. These territories were former colonies of the German Empire and the Ottoman Empire that were placed under the supervision of the League following World War I. There were three Mandate classifications:

“A” Mandate
This was a territory which “had reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a “Mandatory” until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.” These were mainly parts of the old Ottoman Empire.
“B” Mandate
This was a territory which "was at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee:

    * Freedom of conscience and religion
    * The maintenance of public order and morals
    * Prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic
    * The prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than political purposes and the defence of territory
    * Equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League."

“C” Mandate
This was a territory “which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory.”

(Quotations taken from The Essential Facts About the League of Nations, a handbook published in Geneva in 1939).

The territories were governed by “Mandatory Powers”, such as the United Kingdom in the case of the Mandate of Palestine and the Union of South Africa in the case of South-West Africa, until the territories were deemed capable of self-government. There were fourteen mandate territories divided up among the six Mandatory Powers of the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, New Zealand, Australia and Japan. In practice, the Mandatory Territories were treated as colonies and were regarded by critics as spoils of war. With the exception of Iraq, which joined the League on October 3, 1932, these territories did not begin to gain their independence until after the Second World War, a process that did not end until 1990. Following the demise of the League, most of the remaining mandates became United Nations Trust Territories.

[MrDibble]

I’d say it’d only be ethical if the request came from a general (UN-administered) referendum of the population of the Foster Country, rather than just its government. In that case, since it’s a request for help, I don’t see how it can be unethical to oblige. Unless the mentors have prior knowledge that such a system is worse for fosters in the long run, which I don’t really see in your proposed system - except for the favoured trade nation thing. I’d drop that, and instead have a system where newly-released foster nations fund current fosters with some of their newfound prosperity. That way, there’s no hint of a profit motive for anyone - more of a pay-it-forward system.

[Martha_Medea]

Doesn’t this already happen, in some form? Wealthy nations and their cooperation programmes are linked to their historical connections or current interests. In theory at least all countries are accountable through mechanisms like the universal declaration on human rights, and have development targets as set out in the UN Millennium Goals.

Spain is a major bilateral donor in Latin America, then you have the European Union and their former colonies in the ACP countries, Britain with Africa and South Asia, not to mention the US and its various spheres of influence.

[Mops]

A related contemporary case would be Kosovo; only the Kosovars had no choice to accept first the UNs then the EU’s guardianship as they would have been reacquired by Serbia otherwise. Another example where a country did not rise against newly imposed foreign domination would be Iceland in WWII - again, under conditions of external threat.

With souvereign countries that are not threatened by imminent invasion by a country other than the prospective guardian country, the main problem with that IMO would be that no party in the foster country would have the legitimacy and the power and the will to deliver the foster country’s acquiescence and practical compliance:

A government or group of strongmen who had the effective power to deliver the foster country’s compliance with the process would be the very people who were responsible for the present sorry state of affairs, and who would be maintaining it for their benefit. They would consider themselves on to a good thing and would have no motive to accept fostering for their country. Lacking: will and legitimacy.

If a legitimate government is not responsible for the mess the country is in, it follows that it does not have effective power over the country. Also, with handing sovereignty over to outsiders, it would in the eyes of the population lose its legitimacy - if left in office, it would be a puppet government propped up by the guardian gountry. Lacking: power and legitimacy.

If all the several parties in a country’s inner armed conflict could agree on handing their country over to another country for fostering they could by the same token also have agreed on a power-sharing deal instead, which would have left each of them with more power than under fostering. Also in such an armed conflict at least part of the actors would have a vested interest not in any particular resolution but in continuing the conflict itself - a warlord fighting for spoils would not welcome peace and good government even if his ostensible cause would be served by a resolution of the conflict. Lacking: will.

If OTOH of the several parties in a country’s inner armed conflict only part acquiesced to the fostering, the guardian country would enter the foster country facing an insurgency which is off to a flying start (rather than needing to ramp up).

[even_sven]

Why would wealthy nations do this when the current method of providing easy-to-steal aid to friendly dictators in exchange for natural resources is working just fine?