Does foreign aid help or hinder 3rd world countries?

Remove all ads!

Read this first.

(The article in question was published Jan 22. If that article is not still up, click the archives at the bottom of the page and go to the Jan 22 article)

This is why economic aid should not be given to countries without some form of representative gov't. I know it seems a little cruel to deny the needy, but unless you are going to help them in the long run, you are only hurting them overall.

Give a fish or teach to fish?

 

Undermining a nations attempts to inspire its own economy with foreign aid is of course bad. But sometimes a nation is undermining itself.

Although I think it looks pretty obvious on paper reality is often a wide array of grey zones. So I'll answer both yes and no. Changes in Microeconomy is so hard to foresee with a simple macroeconomic change like the "foreign aid" stamp.

What is important to make foreign aid work is dedication and devotion from the givers as much as the takers.

 

That brings one thing to my mind I read in the newspaper a few weeks ago. IIRC there was some US pressure on african countries to buy and grow genetically treated corn to feed their people.

As a result of the genetical treatment, the corn was producing a pretty good harvest. Great plan sofar.

The major drawback was that a US company held the patents of the corn, and the corn was *infertile*, unable to produce the seed for the next year. So the country would have had to buy fresh seed every year ....

Give a fish or teach to fish? Maybe rather shall we sell or help them not-to-have-to-buy? Or to put it that way: US jobs & shareholder value or non-profit development aid for humanity?

Just my two cents

[ January 28, 2003, 20:14: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa,

Agree with you 100%. If the company did not make it abundantly clear the corn would not produce fertile seed, then that company should be shunned.

However you said that they bought the corn. You do not buy foreign aid. It is given, sometimes there is a concession involved with it, but it is not a true transaction as it sounds like this was. Splitting hairs? I don't think so. If a private company sold something to another nation, that is completely different than if the US demanded that the foreign county comply in order to receive a benefit.

As I am unfamiliar with this particular news piece, I cannot speak as to what kind of pressure and who that pressure was from. Was it corporate pressure or government pressure? That makes a world of difference also.

 

Ragusa, there is more to the story than that. The chief reason there is a problem over the genetically enhanced crops is that the EU has told nations that if they use the enhanced crops then they will be ineligible to trade with the EU -- not just the crops themselves but other products as well. So, thusfar, a number of African nations have backed off from using these succesful crops.

Now, the EU has stated that it is because of health concerns. Nevermind that according to CNN over 60% of American produce is similar and has been for over a decade. I'm also not sure how health concerns over corn that has been enhanced should impact the EU agreeing to import coal from Africa. I'm also not too surprised by the assertion from the scientist I saw on CNN that some of the EU nations enjoy selling produce to African nations.

Now, this is only one side of the story, but it's more than initially was presented.

 

I read that article, and I must say that I couldn't agree more with it. Foreign aid sounds nice, but it's only hurting them more in the long run. 3rd world countries need to help themselves. It sounds cruel, I know, I can't believe I'm saying it. Not to mention that since the U.S. has practically dedicated themselves to providing foreign aid, the U.S. needs to stop and get it together in their own country before they think about helping others, that's what I say.

 

Laches, as a matter of fact the EU bring in health concerns when talking about genetically modified corn. It is not allowed to produce it within the borders of the EU btw. And it is indeed not allowed to import it.
That has nothing to do with discriminating the US - we could make money with producing that corn too, but we europeans chicken when it comes to toying around with genes and putting the result back out in the wilderness and the genetic pool.

Your reply, however, still doesn't adress the problem of dependency I pointed out.

[ January 29, 2003, 16:03: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Yeah, this one had occurred to me...as a matter of fact, I was talking about that with some friends this morning. Actually the topic was UNICEF, but it is relevant nonetheless; we were saying that UNICEF supports starving children every year, giving them the absolute necessities (barely enough to eat and drink, and shelter), keeping them alive in a life of misery and poverty which is worth nothing to them. Would it not be better if, instead of buying food (after taking its own cut...heh), UNICEF used all that money to start up a couple 'o factories and give those poor people jobs? As Ragusa said, give a man a fish....

 

When UNICEF is feeding people who would starve otherwise that gives them just that, their life. The problem is not so much that the UNICEF has the wrong concept of aid - what they do is the ultimate minimum for humanity, not more.

What use is a factory in a country where people don't have enough food to eat? What use is a job in a country where you will loose it as soon as civil war destroys your factory again? What use is it to introduce intensive agriculture in a country where this approach will likely result in the soil turning into a desert?

Since UNICEF isn't able to bring peace to these countries, lacking the tools and the international military support, feeding the victims of the civil wars is the least thing they can do. That is a realistic and pragmatic approach. The UNICEF is indispensable as our emotional/ moral loincloath.

No western country has an interest in risking his own troops and money in a foreign land to bring peace by sword in foreign conflict. The US public for example will never forget the silly pictures of the US soldiers in the streets of Mogadishu, and the politicians don't want that either - because of the next elections. There is no profit, neither economical nor political, in it.

What do we want? New humnitarian colonialism? That may be the best for africa and it's people, but since these countries have chosen to become independent countries (or spoken cynically, independent monarchies & dictatorships) this will likely fail, and result in a few more wars and a few million more dead. They will continue to do what they want.

The current system is unfair and injust, but it works splendidly - to our advantage. With giving freedom to the colonies the colonial countries have only made colonialism cheaper, more democratic and global - now the other developed countries can get their piece of the cake either.

 

Agreed...and of course it suits us in developed countries simply because they're poorer, so we are richer. Don't you love our idea of justice?