Should the Northern Hemisphere help the Southern?

Great Debates
1

Right or wrong:

1) The Northern Hemisphere (including Australia, I think You know what I mean) controls the use of the Southern Hemisphere’s resources.

2) The Northern Hemisphere can “easily” help the Shouthern to the stage where it can help itself. (Education & investments, sort of “Marshall-plan” etc., not “we give You food today if…”

3) This would decimate future terrorism and a new market would grow sooner or later (as it did in Europe after WWII.)

If You agree to these statements above, the question is, what else would/could happen if we really sat down and begun to see the mankind as a whole, giving the people “out there” a sensible life?

Or will it cost us too much?

  • I am full aware of that e.g. Ghana is not the same as Germany after WWII, I just want to give a picture of the help.
  • The help I am writing about would not come from US alone, but from all of us that uses the resources of the world.
2

Why don’t you just say “The First World should help the Third World” and give over with all the confusing geography stuff, with Australia being in the Northern Hemisphere? (Yes, I know what you mean.)

Yes, the First World should help the Third World.

By the way, the First World already does help the Third World.

And I notice that it says “Russia” by your “Location”. Just curious–where are you putting Russia? In the First World, or the Third World?

What resources would those be, and in what way does the “Northern Hemisphere” control them? Explain.

3

I know this is Great Debates, not General Questions, but I have to point out that there’s a bunch more countries in the Northern Hemisphere than a lot of people realize, including, e.g. Ghana.

4

Where did all this extra money and resources come from? Before we venture to save the 3rd world, why don’t we try fixing this one.

5

Duck Duck Goose wrote:
quote:
“Yes, the First World should help the Third World.
By the way, the First World already does help the Third World.” End of quote.

Our help to the Third World is mostly national or of national interest. We send what we have too much of. It means that the government (in a country) buys from an enterprise stuff…, giving thus a helping hand to the industry that has the over-production problem.
That is not to help them to help themselves.

Kofi Annan writes in http://www.un.org/Overview/SG/99113014.htm as follows:
quote:
In some rich countries it seems as though emerging economies are assumed to be incapable of competing honestly, so that whenever they do produce something at a competitive price they are automatically accused of dumping. In reality, it is the industrialized countries who are dumping their surplus food–created by subsidies of $250 billion a year–on world markets and thereby threatening the livelihood of millions of poor farmers in the developing world, who cannot compete with subsidized imports.” End of quote

As I see, everyone is acting selfish in this question. I do mean that the burden should be carried by all of us. E.g. when Eu use money for projects, there is always the question: “How will this gain EU?” I know this for sure, because when I applied for an Eu-project, that was the main question.
I got the project, but when I asked that EU would start a project of teaching in Russian prisons, (what was my former work), there was just silence. And still EU is pouring so much money to the projects of “former socialistic countries” that everything can not even be used. As I see it now, many of these countries has come over the worst period and I do not think additional “help” is needed.
See the next answer.

Duck Duck Goose wrote further:
quote:
“And I notice that it says “Russia” by your “Location”. Just curious–where are you putting Russia? In the First World, or the Third World?” End of quote.

I have not found a good defination. What is the “missing 2nd world”?
Maybe it would be a country in chaos, just recovering?
Russia is a very rich country. The people are poor. When the former president, Boris Jeltsin, was in power, the money just dissappeared.
His “datcha” (summer house) consists of everything possible, even an indoor swimming-pool that has the standards of the Olympic Games!
When the western media was allowed to visit, it was forbidden to
photograph there, but they estimated that everything costed between 300 - 500 million USD.
Now Putin is trying to do everything so that the country can be better again for the common people. He is much more “western democratic” oriented than e.g. the duma in this country. Half of them should be sent to Siberia, btw.
But Putin was working as a spy in Germany and in Finland. As a Finn I am very happy that he knows how we are thinking. He is quite popular, as a Russian president, in Finland.
When Russia asked for money and investments last time, a German guy from the EU banking system said something like this: “We will invest and put money in Russia exactly the same day as the rich guys in Russia are investing there”. It was a very good point.

Still about Russia. It is a fact that people here are very well educated.
The “brain-leak” has been enormous but it does not affect the country in the whole. (Someone said that in Microsoft the Russian language begins to be the most used language in the coffee-rooms.)
If Putin can act, and I hope he will, still some 5 - 10 years, it has a great future. The biggest problem here is the 70 years of complete: “the instructions, bread and cheap vodka comes from above - we are not assumed to think by ourselves”.
I would put Russia in the First World, whatever that means?

and Duck Duck Goose, quoting me:
The Northern Hemisphere…controls the use of the Southern
Hemisphere’s resources.

Duck Duck Goose wrote:
quote:
“What resources would those be, and in what way does the “Northern Hemisphere” control them? Explain.” End of quote.

  • We, or the multi-national companies as well as smaller companies are exporting every job “we” can, to the third world and thus have a large share of power.

  • A poor country can not sell it’s natural resourses to another poor country, except to a western owned corporation in that other poor country. So “we” have the power.
    _ I do not want to put here anything about IMF, but I do not believe they and The World Bank “lends” money without putting up a “what You should do to get it”-scheme. Some people are critizising this very hard, in some thousends sites.
    I just want to point out that “we” are using very much power through them.

  • “We” are buying their natural resorses, but put up high export walls on their products. Usually the money for the natural sources are not gaining the common people in a poor country. Look at the illiterate figures in the end of this post, but first back to Kofi Annan.

**Kofi Annan[b/] in the earlier mentioned thread:
”Rich countries’ average tariffs on manufactured products imported from developing countries are now four times higher than those they levy on products which come mainly from other industrialized countries. Quotas and “antidumping” penalties
are also used to keep Third World imports out of First World markets, especially in sectors where poorer countries have a competitive edge, such as agriculture, textiles and clothing.” End of quote.

He also writes that “we” should give free trade in the world a chance, but I can not just paste everything here because of copyright reasons. Please take the time and read the site.

There is thousands of sites on this questions in the Net. I do not know which are biased and which are not. If I refer to a biased source, I will not help the Third World.
I am sure that there is many of us that are much better on this, having knowledge on these questions.

scratch1300 wrote, very thruthfully:
quote:
I know this is Great Debates, not General Questions, but I have to point out that there’s a bunch more countries in the Northern Hemisphere than a lot of people realize, including, e.g. Ghana. End of quote.

You are right. See below my question about “Who should we help?”

Rug Burn wrote:
quote:
”2Where did all this extra money and resources come from? Before we venture to save the 3rd world, why don’t we try fixing this one.” End of quote.

Because it seem that we can’t (“fix this one”).
The attitude that we should help ourselves, not the neighbour whos well we are constantly using, sickens me. Maybe I understood You wrong?
I think that if USA, Russia and EU cuts down the military costs 10%, it will be enough.
or
if we just put aside some 1 - 2 % of our budgets.

I can not prove this, but I think in these lines:
1) We will gain everything back within some years in more buying power over the whole world = more job opportunities.

2) There will be less food for the warmongerers if the people is more educated and lead a decent life with a home and an opportunity to work. In countries with a broad and educated middle-class the opportunity for fanatic leaders are smaller.

3) There will be less terrorism. I know that the terrorists now have had a quite good education, including our western terrorists, but they would not have such a broad support if people would know more about the surrounding world. Without a “broad” support, it would be very hard for the terrorists to act. This does not mean that the majority in any country support terrorism.

4) Even if I am not a believer myself, Muhammed and Jesus Christ said that we should (help our neighbour). This I think can be proved.

I do not know how many of us are interested in helping, if it costs something…
I think one question is: “Who should we help?” The earlier question, if I put Russia in the Third World or not… Well I can not even define The Third World.

I thought one quite good definition would be illiteracy. But look at the UN site: http://www.un.org/Depts/unsd/social/literacy.htm

Estimated adult (age +15) illiteracy, year 2000

Bangladesh, men 47.7 and women 70.1
Congo, men 12.5 and women 25.6
Guatemala, men 23.8 and women 38.7
Honduras, men 25.6 and women 25.2
Iraq, men 34.4 and women 54.1
Israel, men 2.1 and women 5.8
Kuwait, men 15.4 and women 19.7
Libya, men 9.2 and women 31.7
Mongolia, men 0.8 and women 0.7
Nigeria, men 27.6 and women 44.2
Pakistan, men 40.1 and women 68.9
Qatar, men 19.6 and women 16.9
Russia, men 0.3 and women 0.6
Saudi Arabia, men 15.9 and women 32.8
United Arab Emirates, men 25.9 and women 21.1
Uzbekistan, men 6.6 and women 15.3

(I just took some countries here that maybe shows the dilemma. USA and many other countries were not in the list. Sorry that I did not get the lines straight in this table.)
The list is here as food for thoughts.

  • I think that we should not put too much money in the countries with oil.
  • Look at Mongolia. If the figures are right, it means that they are about the same level as USA, Russia and the rest of the industrial countries!!!
  • Look at United Arab Emirates (the women seems to be more educated!!!)

Comments?

6

The missing 2nd world is where your country used to be. The term referred to the Communist states.

7

Well, this is all awfully abstract, all that economics and free trade and World Bank stuff. Be specific. Make some suggestions. If Russia’s in the First World, then who do you think Russia should help in the Third World, and in what way?

8

I assume you mean Western industrialized nations like USA, Canada, Europe, and Austrailia control the resources of the Middle East, South America and Africa. This, of course, is false. Countries control their own resources. The evidence for this is the fact that we do have to pay for them.

The problem is that many of theses countries are either unstable or have poor buisness practices (South America comes to mind).

Other than providing the opportunity for people from these countries to learn Western business methods (which we do), I just don’t see the benefit to providing welfare on a national level to these countries.

9 
Corruption needs two (at least in Argentina) one who receives the bribe and one who pays it. Both are as guilty. I said this becuase no matter how obvious it is people from the firts world usually don't notice it. In there view it seems that Ghana, for example, is a corrupt regime. They don't say the same of the american corporations, for example, that pay the bribe. It's the "cost of doing buisness", it's also a crime. 
I usually use diplomacy as an analogy. Frontiers inward U.S.A is the most democratic country in the world, human rights are enforced and respected. The same does not happen frontiers outward. Result? Hundreds of thousands die in Central America, to give one example, and then the moron you have as president asks "Why they hate us so much?" his answer to that question is so pathetic that it's best to forget it.

Every time an undeveloped country brings to the market a competitive product, frontiers in the first world close. But the developed countries continue to preach about “free trade” as the way to solve all problems.
And when a third world country is unable to “settle it’s bills” the IMF moves in. They give you al the money you need but in exchange of “structural reforms” that’s another eufemism, this time it means make sure you end your deficit, no matter what. Result? At least in Latin America all indicators like poverty, illiteracy, hunger and life expectancy are worse, much worse than 10 years ago.

10

Thank You, Captain Amazing, I did not know. Btw., my country is Finland, not Russia, so I come from the First World. I just live in Russia, which I think is now also a part of the First World. Thanks anyhow.
Duck Duck Goose wrote:
quote

”Well, this is all awfully abstract, all that economics and free trade and World Bank stuff. Be specific. Make some suggestions.” End of quote.

Abstract? Well the world is huge, so it is hard to write very specifically about it.
But I clarify what I have said, ment and hinted so far:

First of all, I am speaking about helping the third world to help themselves, not that kind of help that we are giving now. Even if the “emergency help” is also needed, but it does not give the solutions to the problem.

1) The industrial countries controls the recourses of the world in one way or another.

2) The industrial countries would have an easy task to help the Third world with education etc., so that they could help themselves.

3) If we continue doing nothing for them, just “buying” their natural resources, we will face them on another stage. The stage of war. In every country that I am familiar with, where poverty is the main impression, the students in university are the most radical. There is no way to win a war, so they will answer with what they can create: Terror and terrorism.
We have to “pre-empty” this threat on an early stage, in a civilized way, not just pre-emptive bombing something.
Continues bombing will escalate the radicalism into terrorism.

4) Now one country is helping another country, depending on what kind of political influence is wanted. IMHO everything should happen through UN, but as it is now, UN is always broke.

5) We are very hypocrite when we speak about “free trade”. It is mostly “free robbery” from our part. We pay something to the government for the right to make mines. The people never sees that money, but then we “give” them “opportunities to work”, in conditions that no-one should accept. Yes, we are paying for the Chilean copper, for the Bolivian lead…

6) And when they want to export something themselves, to us, our custom-tariffs are sky-high. “Free Trade” indeed.

7) We will gain in the long run, by helping the other guy.

8) I am sure that if we do not do anything, just having “business as usual”, we breed more hate around the world.

9) I am sure that if we do not do anything, we need very big para-military budgets, and just turn our countries to police states. Does the words “police states” already sound familiar? “Cutting down the constitutional rights?” etc.
Not directly in these words, but…

Duck Duck Goose wrote further:
quote

“If Russia’s in the First World, then who do you think Russia should help in the Third World, and in what way?” End of quote.

As every other country should help. We should just make rules how much each country should pay. I took the example before about the military budgets.
In reality it does not matter if we take from this or that budget, it will be the governmental budgets anyhow.
msmith537 wrote:
quote
”I assume you mean Western industrialized nations like USA, Canada, Europe, and Austrailia control the resources of the Middle East, South America and Africa. This, of course, is false. Countries control their own resources. The evidence for this is the fact that we do have to pay for them. ” End of quote.

The only ones that are controlling some resources are OPEC-countries, and that because they are rich enough. Even in these countries very little comes to the people in Saudi Arabia etc.
And yes, You and I are paying for all the resources we use. But usually to a multinational company, not “the people of Ghana.”
And one resource we use most is the cheap uneducated labor.
Or why do we export all working places possible to some “cheap labor countries”?

But, I think that the business has no obligation to act like a social service bureau, but we as nations should prevent our firms to behave as the “jungle law says”.
As it is now, a business that is working in the same conditions as the other firms, has no chance to be fair and square unless:

  • Our governments acts in the direction of making it impossible to e.g… to use child labour.
  • We vote with our valets.
    How? Our government(s) can just make a law that it is forbidden for a company or TradeMark to import anything to our country if it uses, or has used, child labour. It is simple like that.

And I think that our citizens would agree to that kind of law, even if it would put out one leading brand here and there.
But, somehow our governments have not got this idea. Not even the idea to discuss the question.
If You think that a company would take import their stuff with another name or something, You are wrong. To build up a new Trade Mark that everyone recognize etc. is costing very much.

msmith537 wrote further:
quote
”The problem is that many of theses countries are either unstable or have poor business practices (South America comes to mind).” End of quote.

How about us? Our moral in business is quite rotten.

msmith537 wrote further:
”Other than providing the opportunity for people from these countries to learn Western business methods (which we do), I just don’t see the benefit to providing welfare on a national level to these countries.” End of quote.

I really do not know what to say.
Even if there would not be any benefit, well there is something called moral.
Noblesse oblige’.

Someone wrote here, before the SD was stopped for some days, some posts lost, etc., that the Third world has no education and bad infrastructure, so why to spend money on these countries?
The answer is, that because they have bad education and infrastructure.
After using them, we have the heart to say that there is no use to teach them anything.

Estilicon wrote:
quote
“Corruption needs two (at least in Argentina) one who receives the bribe and one who pays it. Both are as guilty.” End of quote.
<snip>

I fully agree.

Estilicon wrote further:
quote
“Hundreds of thousands die in Central America, to give one example, and then the moron you have as president asks “Why they hate us so much?” his answer to that question is so pathetic that it’s best to forget it.” End of quote.

Well, sadly enough, it is not only the president and the Jet Set class. Even the poor in our First-World-(my ass)-countries can not imagine “why the hate?”

Estilicon wrote further:
quote

“Every time an undeveloped country brings to the market a competitive product, frontiers in the first world close. But the developed countries continue to preach about “free trade” as the way to solve all problems.” End of quote.

As I wrote before, we just preach the “free trade”. There is non for the other guy. So obviously I agree.
Estilicon wrote further:
quote

“And when a third world country is unable to “settle it’s bills” the IMF moves in.
They give you al the money you need but in exchange of “structural reforms” that’s another eufemism, this time it means make sure you end your deficit, no matter what.
Result? At least in Latin America all indicators like poverty, illiteracy, hunger and life expectancy are worse, much worse than 10 years ago.” End of quote.

I seem to agree to everything what Estilicon wrote. I just do not want to discuss IMF, even if by all means, discuss it.

Finally I want to say this: I can not at all understand why we do not help the other guy?
If we can not understand that we should, we have not earned the position we have as the First and Most Beautiful in the World, with High Morals.

Our Morals stinks. And that is what the world really thinks of us.
I am not very proud of our attitudes.

11

Yes, the world would be a much better place if we went to South America, Africa and the Middle East, tossing money out of the back of cargo planes, and singing Cumbaya.

So what do you think would happen if we go to all these poor countries, building schools and whatnot? How long do you think it will take for people to start crying “American Imperialism”? How long until some nut decides to blow up one of those schools in the name of “Freedom” form America?

Here is how the real world works:

  1. Everything comes with a price. People who do not understand this are doomed to a life of whining and complaining about how unfair the world is.

  2. The world IS unfair. Some people are born smarter, stronger and with better access to money and education. Some aren’t. There will always be inequalities.

  3. When push comes to shove, people look out for their own interests first.

Governments, nations, corporations and other social structures are just an extension of this.

Given this, it is no surprise to me that wealthy nations don’t want to invest in poor ones. People want to see a return on their investment. They don’t want to invest millions in a factory just to see it blown up by revolutionaries or stolen by a corupt dictator.
“I really do not know what to say.
Even if there would not be any benefit, well there is something called moral.”

There is nothing moral about craping money away.

12

msmith537 wrote:
quote
”Yes, the world would be a much better place if we went to South America, Africa and the Middle East, tossing money out of the back of cargo planes, and singing Cumbaya.” End of quote

Quite out of context, I would say.

msmith537 wrote further:
quote
”So what do you think would happen if we go to all these poor countries, building schools and whatnot? How long do you think it will take for people to start crying “American Imperialism”? How long until some nut decides to blow up one of those schools in the name of “Freedom” form America?” End of quote

You miss the point, USA is not the industrialized countries.
I am not saying that the education of the Third World should be done by USA, but UN.
Also UN is not USA, even if some people seem to think so.
People are polite and do not always point out that USA thinks that it is the navel of the world. The world is big, You know?

msmith537 wrote further:
quote
**”Here is how the real world works:
<snip>

  1. The world IS unfair. Some people are born smarter, stronger and with better access to money and education. Some aren’t. There will always be inequalities.”** End of quote

Quite near the book “Mein Kampf” related ideas.

msmith537 wrote further:
quote
<snip>
”Given this, it is no surprise to me that wealthy nations don’t want to invest in poor ones. People want to see a return on their investment. They don’t want to invest millions in a factory just to see it blown up by revolutionaries or stolen by a corupt dictator.” End of quote

How do they steal e.g. education, lowered custom fees in the industrialized countries?

And usually the puppet regimes are put up by a “third part”. You can just wonder who or what that could be.

It is not obligatory to have US at all in a helping program. It can be carried out without USA as UN has proved for many years.
They just need more money so that they can begin to “help them to help themselves” and not just running there when someone is almost dead meat.
Now USA is coming back to the UN educational programs. I just wonder if it has something to do with the “Please give as a free ticket to bomb!”-policy?
Americans does not seem to understand how USA is looking like from outside US.
It is not a very flattering picture You are giving.
But You do not need to give a damn shit. I just ask that if Your president believes he is the Sheriff of the World, and You think it is right, You should also understand that there is some responsibilities.

Responsibilities is one thing that this world should learn about. And not only the Third World, there is some others as well…
And the Third World should be given some responsibility, otherwise how can they learn? Now we are saying that we carry all responsibilities, which we do not.
We condemn e.g. child labour, but suck eagerly it’s fruits.

Our hypocrisy is quite visible and loud, I would say.

I do not want to make too fast conclusions, but I have seen only Estilicon taking part for more education, so far. (I did not see all the lost posts though).

Is this really the result of our good education system?

13

Henry–dear–do us all a favor and figure out how to use the “Quote” function, okay? :smiley: It’s easy, you just put square brackets–thus, [ and ]–around the word “quote” in front of the passage you want to quote, and then you put more square brackets–thus, [ and ]–around the slash symbol and the word “quote”–which stands for “end quote”.

If you want to see how the coding itself looks, click on the “Quote” button in the bottom right-hand corner of my post here, and look at it in the Reply window. You’ll see the coding for how I did the following quote.

It’ll say:

left-hand square bracket quote right-hand square bracket Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York left-hand square bracket slash quote right-hand square bracket

And–most important–before you Submit your reply, always use Preview Reply, to look at your post and make sure you didn’t screw up the quoting.
There now, that’s perfectly clear, isn’t it? :smiley:
You did get the message that the board crashed on Monday the 16th, and they had to restore from an early Monday morning backup? So a lot of posts were lost, and we all took the week off, so it’s taking a while for people to get back up to speed here.

14

OK. I try it.
A quote from my next night “Good Night Prayer”, next after “bless the president of mine”…

Now I check “Preview Reply”

It worked!!! Why did I not find out this earlier?:smack:
Truly Yours,
ever so happy :smiley: Henry,

sending tomorrow the sun from here to Your location. :stuck_out_tongue:

15

msmith537 when you put it in crude economic terms it almost makes sense. After all “investing” in your fellow human beings in order that they can have a better life perhaps is not very profitable for you. But in crude terms, How much 9/11 costed? Afghanistan? The planed invasion to Irak? Wouldn’t it be better to spend all that money in education, health, better living conditions?

16

How is it possible that a guy in Argentina and a Finn in Russia has the same views in a question? Same views to the last letter.
Only difference is that Estilicon says it better.

Maybe there is some concpiracy and I am just a programmed alien without knowing it?
Are there more aliens around?

Duck, Duck! How about You?
Have You thought it over yet?
Or are the programming guys slow?

17

:smiley:

  1. If you’ve been reading any of the other threads on this message boards, and especially the other threads in Great Debates, you’ll see that many, many Americans have a big problem with George W. Bush apparently nominating himself as “Sheriff of the World”. And yes, we do realize that the USA is not the “navel of the world”, and that with great power comes great responsibility. Many of us are doing all we can to make sure that our government understands this, too.

  2. If I’m understanding your basic idea correctly, you seem to be saying the following:

"The First World, meaning the UN, should see to it that everybody in the Third World has nutritious food, clean drinking water, medical care, and education. These programs should be funded either by the USA, Russia, and the EU all cutting back on their military expenditures by 10%, or by those countries earmarking 1% to 2% of their annual budgets for this purpose, and then donating this money to the UN. Also, the UN should ensure that Free Trade takes place between the First World and the Third World, they should abolish child labor in all Third World countries, and they should make sure that a fair living wage is paid to all laborers in all Third World countries."

Does that summarize it pretty well?

  1. Big question: Why is it the First World’s job (meaning the UN’s job) to make sure that everybody in the Third World has a perfect life? I don’t question the idea that the “Haves” should help the “Have Nots”, but I do question the idea of the UN guaranteeing everybody in the Third World a healthy, happy existence. Why is it the UN’s problem?

  2. The UN already does a great deal towards “helping”. The list of the UN’s “Main Bodies”. See over on the left, where it says things like “Peace and Security” and “Economic and Social Development”? Work your way through all those links and then come back and we’ll discuss this some more. Perhaps you would have some specific ideas as to how the UN could improve their current activities.

  3. Part of the idea of “free trade” involves allowing countries to make their own decisions concerning whether or not they permit child labor.
    http://www.mcn.org/c/irapilgrim/econ21.html

If the UN comes into a country and tells them, “You may not have children under the age of 16 working as laborers”, doesn’t that make the UN a kind of totalitarian world dictator? Where would the UN get this power? Why would the other nations in the First World allow the UN to have this kind of power? What would prevent the UN from using this power against nations in the First World?

  1. It’s difficult to have a discussion about the First World, or the UN, helping the Third World without also talking about the International Monetary Fund, or the World Bank. Stipulating that you don’t want to include those organizations in the discussion is like stipulating that you want to talk about the history of Russia in the 20th century, but that you don’t want to talk about Communism.

  2. You have a lot of rhetoric here but not many concrete suggestions. You are making a lot of big sweeping statements like “the First World controls the Third World’s resources”, but you are not giving us much by way of actual facts. In what way precisely does the First World control the Third World’s resources? I asked you this before, and you responded with more rhetoric:

And then you quoted Kofi Annan a bit, and then you broke off and said there was too much to quote. But we’re not here to discuss what Kofi Annan thinks–we’re here to discuss what you think.

  1. As MSmith pointed out, countries control their own resources. If you think otherwise, please give a cite that proves this. This means a link to a page that proves your point.

Here is a list of some African countries and their resources.
http://www.standard.net.au/~garyradley/games/GRAfrica.htm

Please indicate which countries do not control their own resources, and in what way. For example, “More than 25% of the known world reserves of high-grade bauxite ore is found in Guinea.” Does the First World control this bauxite? If so, how?
http://www.mining-journal.com/GUINEA/file1.htm

I suppose you could make a case that the World Bank, by lending them the money to open the mines, is “controlling” the mines, the way you can say that the bank that lends you the money to buy your house “owns” the house until the mortgage is paid off.

It looks to me as though the First World is already helping Guinea.

  1. The resources that a country controls includes the resource of “labor”. Nobody is forcing Mexico to allow companies to come in and set up “maquiladora” manufacturing and assembly plants in their country. Nobody is forcing the West African nations to allow children to labor in the cocoa sector or in diamond mines. The West African nations, one way or another, have made the decision on their own to allow these things. You’re saying that the UN should use financial contributions from the First World to make the world a better place, a place where child labor would no longer be economically viable, so the Third World could get rid of it–and you’re saying that the UN should do this by implementing Free Trade laws?

I would think that Free Trade laws would make child labor even more attractive, as kids work cheap and are easily replaceable. The rewards are great in the Free Trade “jungle” for the one who can get ahead the fastest, and getting ahead fast frequently involves hiring the cheapest possible labor. Child labor is about as cheap as you can get.

Implementing NAFTA between Mexico and the US hasn’t lowered the child labor statistics in Mexico. It went into effect January 1, 1994, and child labor is apparently just as big a problem as it ever was.

http://www.globalmarch.org/worstformsreport/world/mexico.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=799

  1. To go back to those proposed “financial contributions”–why should only the USA, Russia, and the EU contribute? What about Australia? China? Japan? And what happens if a First World country declines to contribute? That’s hardly fair to the others, who all paid their share in good faith.

  2. Finally, consider the idea that it’s up to each individual country how it runs itself, the same way that it’s up to each individual person how he runs his life. You just got done living under 75 years of Government with a capital “G” telling individuals how to run their lives, and you’re in here telling us that you think this is a good idea, and ought to be implemented on a world-wide scale?

18

Duck Duck Goose wrote (and the the following quotes are her too):

I am frequently other sites as well, and I know that the people in USA that are creative enough to write in GD and other sites, are very concerned of the situation in the world.
I did mean to address msmith537, but now when I re-read my post it is obvious that I again wrote without thinking, without specifying to whom I was answering/writing. I did not mean to wrong the American people.

  1. Yes, but first comes the education, because I do not believe in continuous “feeding”. People has to learn how to make bread by themselves. This does not mean that I am against humanitarian help. But we have “helped” for decades now and the situation seems to me the same.

I think that the help that singular countries gives serves political ends.
Therefore we should concentrate on UN. Also the fact that radicals can begin to shout: ”Yankees go home!, Swedes go home! Russians go home! etc., but a slogan that says “World go home!" is not very, well…, does not sound very well, or what do You think?
Secondly, UN should not guarantee anything. Just make up programs and hire people for these programs. If it is, as it likely is, people from the first world, UN should first school the helpers about the local culture, traditions and history.
I have e seen and heard too much of “helpers” that are laughed about, behind the next corner. We should help people to “make bread to their taste”, not to our. Leftists call it cultural imperialism. I just do not know what to call it.

As we live in a competitive world, also the help should be competitive. If You have good grades at Your studies, You can continue to study. And continuity in the programs gives a working place to the graduated. How many African dentists leaves England, France etc. when they have learned their profession? Is there anything to go back to?

Happy existence? No! Hard work? Yes!
Problem of UN? No, if we give them money. They will happily take the funds.

I know they are making good, but they are always short of funds. They can just give an Aspirin to a country, which is constantly sick. They (we) are just helping putting away the symptoms of the day, not cure the sickness in itself.
To improve they need money. Suggestions as above.

  • Naturally every country should do their own decisions. About taxes, custom-fees, child labour etc.

Let me take my own country Finland as an example:

  • If our parliament makes a law that companies that uses child labour, let’s say under 14 years, can not import anything to Finland, I would not object.
    Or putting a higher custom fee for the blacklisted companies. But these mother****ers have not decency to make such a law. They just talk sky-high.

(Here Duck Duck Goose is quoting the thread given by her)

[/quote]

“The failure of Russian communism” has nothing to do with free trade. It has to do with elitism in the party, the fact that USSR was a big war camp, and the fact that there was no trade in normal sense. (I could write a book about how crazy The System was.)
I do not mean that we put everything “anarchistic free”. That would just make everything worse. Just equality between the countries.
Just like Kofi Annan says in my second post.
And there is always an invention that Mr Bell gave to the world; the telephone. Our president can phone the President of Sri Lanka and ask how will it affect his country if Finland lowers the import-fees?
I am sure she gets an answer.

UN should say nothing about how to run a country through the bodies that are there to help. UN in New York can say whatever, according to the resolution praxis. Just as the situation is today. I do not mean to change here anything.

Sometimes, I have seen, that the First World does not like when the UN has so many countries (practically all) from the Third World and everyone has just one vote. I would not change here anything either.

Now I go and test my new abilities in quoting!:smiley:

I’ll be back later with the rest of Your answer, Duck Duck.
Thank You btw. for one of the few answers with some thoughts, not just reactions.:stuck_out_tongue:

19

The second part of “Answers to Duck Duck”
Duck Duck Goose wrote:

??? In my third post i wrote:

So by all means discuss it!
My reasons I do not want to/can’t:

  • I have a very slow line. This is Russia (sic!)
  • I share a line with my neighbour, so I can be longer times at Internet only in night-time.
  • I do not feel competent to write about it if I just pick ten sites about it. There is thousands of sites about IMF and World Bank. I know how EU is working and as I know the main lines of IMF, I can give some examples. Just wait a little bit.
  • Most of the sites are criticizing USA like it would be the peoples fault what some international companies are doing. Companies that has maybe been born in US, but has not a home (a heart) anywhere anymore.
    The laws that are made by a congress, parliament, senate, duma or whatever, is one thing, the people is another. So if I criticize I try to be clear whom I criticize, but that was not the case some posts ago. I am sorry about that.
    Anyhow, there is too much of “Yankees go home!”, when in fact the whole First World is doing the same and the other would do, if they could.
    It should be like: “Yankees, what can we do together so that we can straight out things?” Btw. Internet is a good tool for that. (And naturally krhom, krhom, SD).
    OK. Now it begins to be a rant. As usual.
  • Education to as many as possible. Some 4 - 6 years minimum and to more talented/industrious a continuity (as I wrote before).
  • That we negotiate lower import fees for their industrial products. Not totally free. You will see the difference of salaries in the site I will put here a little bit later in this post. So lowering the fees gradually, mutually negotiating. Otherwise it will be chaos as has been pointed out.
    Is this concrete enough?

According to some rules in this site, I am not allowed to quote more than 5% of a text.
I also know that the law in USA is saying that if I brake the law in this site, the forum keeper can be charged (also). I have had a long discussion about this in another site, when I begun to write about some criminal elements here in Russia.
The site-keeper could not know if it was slander or not, so he did not want to publish it. I try to be very care ful with these laws.

Because I think like Kofi Annan in this question.

(Here Duck Duck Goose is quoting the thread given by her):

Keep in mind that You quoted “Mining Journal’s information portal for the worldwide mining and minerals industry”
I bet it is not an African or Asian paper, or from any other Third World corner. They will never critizise the Status Quo!

Anyhow, a little bit later the same site says:

I have seen some pictures of Saudis climbing out of their Mercedes, the roads are broad and the aphalt is good, but still people can’t read and write. I just wanted to point out that this kind of countries we should not help (to help themselves). That they can do themselves.
If Guinea is really trying hard, why not help them? Yes we should.

So, we are helping them:

  1. The government is selling the right to make mines on auction.
  2. Surely it is bought by an international company. (Read: First World Company).
  3. a. IMF/World Bank and others lends money on certain conditions: It is always linked with the western needs. In this case the railways. It can also be ports etc.
    Usually they are selling raw-material, well, raw. If there is any additional industry, it is surely owned by the international companies. Transport, even at sea costs, labour is cheap. OK. I accept that. Business is business. But I am speaking about that we should have fonds that are not linked to business.
    Who are we “helping” in this case? Naturally the sitting government, but mostly ourselves.
    3 b.) If IMF/World Bank is not giving money, it is taken from their tax money. That is OK. It’s their country. (In this case IMF/World Bank gave money).
    Result:
  • Mining work is available.
  • Works related to transports are available. Good.
    How many small business opportunities does this give? Some I think.
    A country gets moving only when there is a middle class. A middle class needs education and a market. We should help them with the education part and we should let them into our market. We should help them to help themselves! It is not the business of the companies inside that country.

Helping Guinea yes, and in many countries, helping the multinational companies.
Probably also in Guinea.

Nobody is forcing? Starvation that is the biggest force of mankind!
Let me be very clear: Those that opposes that the “cheaper countries” comes to our market are always saying Free Trade, meaning that everything is free over a night! And then they point out that it would be chaos.
So if every Englishman will educate himself to an engineer, there will not be jobs for every engineer. True, but that does not mean that England should stop educating people to engineers.
(I was once in my youth kicked out of class, after discussion that the teacher held: “If everyone would …”
I was claiming: “If everyone will be a teacher, this country will go bust.”)

So here is my site! I have no idea what the site is standing for, but surely Nike will get very much good will if it is true!
I will buy Nike!
And even the US government seems to be there giving a positive support and some fucking leftist president seems to be involved;)
I think we should do more of this stuff. If there are “No Sweat”-products I know what to buy. I did not maybe mention in this Thread that we should vote with our valets! That we can do, can’t we?
Please read: http://www.ourindia.com/oi-news/nw31.htm
Look at the wages, and it is obvious that the custom fees can be changed only gradually. So what?

I came through a link given by Duck Duck to a link:
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=46
A quote from that link:

The question about free trade in farming products is a tough one.
E.g. EU gives money to those who can export to Russia. You do not need to be a farmer for that, just export wheat related products, spagetti or whatever. The Russian farming system had not a change to compete as long as the rubel was high. After 75% devalvation 2 years ago there was “normal” conditions again.
But try to export food to EU from here… It is a joke, do not try.
Russia is not a country that needs help.

Of course the should be with us.
What happened to USA? Nothing.

Heh, heh. :slight_smile: You could naturally not know that I am a Finn living in Russia, exporting wooden products. Now I am not really living in Siberia, but some 400 miles north of Moscow. But I have a comb that a prisoner gave me that says:”From Siberia with love”. (I was earlier teaching in a Russian prison.)
OK. UN is not a government, but naturally it has to do as the governments of the world says. That is the whole idea with UN.
The philosophy: “Everybody on his own” takes us to a catastrophe one day.
E.g. here in Russia, the nationalistic tendencies are huge, mostly because of lack of international contacts to the people.
The politicians should know better, but they are just playing along, playing the easy strings. There are good politicians here too, that understands and acts accordingly, but they are fighting uphill. Does it sound familiar?
The people here is really left “on their own” in the riches country (on resources) of the world, just the people being poor. But here has been a good education system and it begins to recover again and some middle class is already visible. I am very optimistic about this country. It will take them some 10 - 20 years, but then everything is better.
It is not an easy task to recover if You have lost 50 years of 70, but they will do it.
If someone is interested how EU is “helping” Russia and the other “ex-socialistic” countries, I can put something here, but that is not the real issue here.
I think I should read through everything, so that my answers would not be a soup, a soup as usual, but I am quite tired right now, so I just send it and go to bed.

Btw., did the sun come to You Duck Duck?:slight_smile: