Powerful countries should help less powerful countries, but through an international organization. I am an idealist: I believe in the UN and the ability for countries to work together multilaterally to create peace and prosperity throughout the world. The process of lending aid to countries should be regulated by an international organization. I think these organizations have some problems that should be rectified, but they work in the essentials. Regulations on the help given can make it more effective in helping the people. The type of help matters of course because monetary and military aid should be regulated differently.
When powerful (for the nature of this blog, powerful=first world, or developed nations) countries send money to nations in need, the money does not always achieve its purpose. Many times foreign aid money goes straight into government official’s bank accounts. Needless to say, this does not help the people of the nation. If you would like to debate with me about the idiocy behind a “trickle-down” policy, I am ready and willing, just let me know. Sorry, I digress. The powerful nations also like to use policy strings attached to this bilateral aid to forward their own agendas. When people are suffering, imperialistic tendencies should be pushed aside. I am not saying that this will happen, but it should. While I have issues with the IMF and World Bank and their policy strings, I think those organizations are more effective than bilateral organizations such as USAID.
Going on a slight tangent now:
When individuals of powerful nations donate money to help other nations, they are most likely kidding themselves. The money most Americans are trying to get to Sudanese refugees is not reaching them. If you spend ten dollars on a “Stop the Genocide in Darfur” t-shirt, those ten dollars are not helping the Sudanese people. If you want to make a difference, send those ten dollars as a donation to a legitimate organization. Spreading awareness is fantastic; just don’t be ignorant about it.
Getting back on track, I have some strong feelings about lending military aid. I personally do not believe that nations should send their own troops into battle, but should only deploy their troops as a part of the UN Peacekeeping Troops. Physical conflict rarely helps when a nation is in dire straits, but when the world sends peacekeeping troops into a situation to send a message, the message is strong and impossible to ignore. Of course there are counterpoints to this. For example the fact that the UN Peacekeeping Troops left Rwanda sent the opposite strong message to the Hutus; go ahead, we aren’t going to stop you. When the world bands together and takes a stand AND when the world is divided, the results speak for themselves.
1 comment:
Very well written post. However, I must point out that peacekeeping forces are voluntarilly contributed, allowing nations to avoid their obligations, making the burden to fall disproportionately on the backs of the nations that do regularly contribute troops to UN efforts.
However, I agree wholeheartedly with your call for aid through bilateral organizations, going through a third party adds an extra layer of bureaucracy and possible corruption. Aid directly from one government to the people of another nation (like USAID) is the most effective way of seeing that the people in the most dire need get the assistance they deserve.
Post a Comment