Being dead doesn't help.

I just got back from seeing an awesome production of Carmen at the Kennedy Center and I am STILL putting up a blog post. That's right, commitment. And Toblerone = slight sugar rush.

Anywho.

People might say I am ridiculously naive when it comes to international development. I don't know who, but if you search long enough you can find someone who'll say anything about you. However, I'm not. Impoverished nations, regardless if they are in Africa, Asia, Europe or Latin America, are screwed. Whether new economic systems are given, free aid is doled out, subsidized aid is passed around or Barack Obama is president, countries where the majority of the population is labeled as "living in extreme poverty" are up shitake mushroom creek.

So what do we do, what do we address, when even if we do everything we can't guarantee an eradication of poverty and all the symptoms and causes (which may be the same thing, creating a cycle-o-vicious) of it? As much as I realize the need for structural stability, for roads and such...I remain firm in my statement that we must address basic needs of humanity first and foremost. A strong infrastructure in a nation means nothing if there are not people to utlitze it or even build it. Infrastructure, as important as it is, doesn't matter when people are too sick and too weak to use these services and structures.

A majority of people in extreme poverty live in rural areas (because it is pretty difficult to build up when you have nothing to build up upon). Within the broad affirmation that basic needs are the base of aid, perhaps it is easier to look at those in rural poverty. Afterall, even on a minimum level, urban dwellers have some sort of, at least, physical infrastructure. Ok, now that we've gotten all of that Lake Titicaca out of the way, what are basic needs?

....What do people need to survive?
Water, food, basic health care, shelter.

In order to make this blog not a KAJILLION bytes long, I'll just talk about water: Perhaps more than anything, water is the most basic of needs and one of the hardest needs to satisfy. Despite most of this planet being covered in the big blue wet thing, getting clean water for most of the human race isn't as simple as turning on the tap. Water-related illnesses are numerous (short list: cholera, malaria, ringworm, anaemia) and untold numbers of people die each year because they didn't have access to clean water, whether it was for drinking or sanitation. As the WHO tells us: In 2002, 1.1 billion people lacked access to improved water sources, which represented 17% of the global population (and just so ya know, 2/3 of that are people in southeast Asia). If wells, or as I mentioned in class, LifeStraws that filter water are provided, then, not only is the ability to get clean drinking water increased, the likelihood of getting water-related diseases decrased, but the time spent going to a water source (which could be 11 miles away in some regions) is drastically reduced.

Water = essential. No water = not really healthy. Not really healthy = DALY (not you Bovice.) is drastically decreased (or is it increased...whatever, you're gonna die sooner). Dead = not really useful to anyone. Not productive = kinda hard to build an infrastructure outta dead people. Yeah, they did it for the Great Wall, but how great was it, really? Didn't stop anyone from climbing it.

And I'm done. Opera high has worn off.

Bono would be disappointed.

World Politics Question #2
Should powerful countries look after the interests of less-powerful countries? In other words, is there any particular obligation to others associated with being a powerful country?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.



…If you were expecting more, you aren’t getting it. I, as a representative of a powerful country, am not required to divulge my reasoning, for that could lead to terrorists attacking my country.


On a less sarcastic basis, yes, “powerful” countries should look after the interests of less-“powerful” countries. Not necessarily out of any idea of goodwill and caring about that country and the people within it, but simply that there are more benefits to helping countries (of aid, of support, of business, of complete government overhauls through the idea of invasion [last one is a bit sarcastic]) than practicing isolationist policies. Let’s take the example of the U.S. (because I live here): if the U.S. doesn’t offer aid/help/support to other countries, particularly countries (or factions within the countries) that support democracy, freedom, other ideals of a Western nation, then the rest of the world, developed and developing alike, look upon the U.S. as a country that doesn’t care about anyone but itself. This leads to a negative image of the U.S., and a downturn in U.S. trade and economy, and in general makes everyone upset. Simply, from a world perspective, nations that are granted with a strong economy, strong military, strong not-dying-thanks-to-human-rights-violations-malnutrition-guerilla-warfare-lack-of-health-care state, need to look after /take interest in nations that aren’t granted with the above because it will damage a nation’s reputation (thus credibility and authority).

On an internal basis, most countries that profess “power” within the world spectrum have citizens who can access the news and thus know something (maybe not a lot, but something) about what’s going on in the globe-o-sphere. People, while being stupid, are not always callous, and thus, for the vast majority, want their home nation to help/support other nations, because people “care” about other people, especially people who don’t have all the advantages we have and want that warm fuzzy feeling when their nation does good. On top of that, celebrities, in their need to do something meaningful with their lives, convince the average person that a) their government is horrible if it doesn’t help other nations b) they are horrible if they don’t tell their government a) and c) the movie comes out December 15th. Now, if a government is isolationist, the people within the nation become discontent, unhappy and whiny, meaning they could make more choices based on emotions instead of logic and then everyone else is unhappy as well.

While taking care of one's own nation is a government's first priority, that also means that a sound nation is a content nation, and a nation filled with people who think the government is selfish (even if it is selfish in the name of its people) aren't content. So, the government must sacrifice resources to be used towards its own in order to satisfy its own.

Alright, let’s summarize: “Powerful” nations (going with developed as having power) should help nations that are less “powerful” because, internationally, people don’t like isolationist nations, and that hurts the economy, and nationally, people don’t like governments that don’t like celebrities that aren’t “caring”, thus hurting the stability of the country. So, to make people happy (not everyone, just in general), it is in the best interests of a nation to be globally involved and helpful.

Besides, when we spend too much time with ourselves, we start doing/believing/practicing weird stuff.