Politics, News & Issues >
Hunger, Disease & Poverty
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs foreign aid the solution to global poverty?
Results so far:
| No | 73% | 590 votes | Total: 804 votes | |
| Yes | 27% | 214 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesWhile foreign aid is a temporary solution-a band-aid if you will-it does not cure the social and economic disease we call poverty. The correct method to stop poverty, is putting an end to the greedy, corrupt, power hungry elitists who have these regions in a stranglehold. The dellusional I-want-to-rule-the-w orld types of people who wage wars to expand their personal agenda, wealth and empire.
What do you see when aid is being delivered by way of truck or helicopter? You see hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of people savagely flocking the delivery, taking everything they can get their hands on. Then, once the dust settles, you see as many has half these people left standing there, empty-handed, having gained nothing more than additional disappointment. This is absolutely heart-wrenching. Providing half the population with one or two meals per week, month, or even year, is not going to solve this deeply-rooted, long-term problem.
Let us take a look at the continent of Africa, which receives more foreign aid than any other: The first indication the aid is not working, is the fact that Africa is still, bye quite a margin, the most impoverished continent on the planet. The second tell-tale sign foreign aid is not working, is the fact that Africa is still the most disease-stricken continent in the world. As a matter of fact, there's very little evidence showing improvement. The third sign, which is very telling, is the fact that Africa is the most war-torn continent on the face of the earth; War Lords control far too much, and seemingly have the entire economy in a death grip of fear, disease and poverty. There is no ebb and flow, there's just cash-flow into the pockets of the power-hungry and greedy. Where do you think the riches and resources are going?
Africa has the most vast wealth of natural resources in the world: from simple crops like Rooibos leaves(used to make tea), to blood diamonds and oil; there is an endless abundance of wealth there to be had, yet the elite few control the majority of these resources and the riches gained by harvesting them. The citizens of Sierra Leone make the equivalent of a bag of rice each day spent mining these expensive diamonds. These Diamonds are then handed over to the elite few who waged wars to take control, and then these diamonds are sold to countries like America, France and England. The money goes into the pockets of warlords, giving them more wealth and power while the impoverished and disease-stricken citizens of Africa continue to suffer from malnutrition and life-threatening ailments.
The key to curing impoverished nations is to remove the power-hungry, violent elitists. It is Dictatorships like these which always cause a disastrous trickle-down effect amongst the everyday citizens. Waging war to remove death mongers, like the African warlords, are the most justifiable wars ever fought. Whether it be the world powers who combine to stop these insane elitists, or the citizens of the impoverished nations by way of uprising, it has to be stopped immediately.
You should have rights as a human being, simply because you were born with them. The Africans are seemingly being stripped of theirs.
Thank you for reading.
Learn more about this author, Blake Butler.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
As with many, if not most, questions in the real world, a definitive answer one way or the other is hard to come by when we consider the capability of foreign aid to mitigate global poverty. After reading many of the articles on both sides of this debate and considerable thought, I have decided to contribute my conjecture on the subject in this article on the "Yes" side of the debate.
The first and most outstanding premise I noticed in articles on both sides, was the assumption that "foreign aid" is synonymous with "foreign financial assistance". Admittedly, this does seem to be the accepted norm in the world's developed nations, but should it be?
When a natural disaster occurs, be it tidal wave, earthquake or whatever, and the national government of a country impacted is incapable of meeting the needs of its survivors, the international community nearly always rallies round to help, or at least tries to. Some repressive regimes attempt to refuse or constrain the methodology of that help, but even in these cases, the international community's desire to help usually manages to get through in some form.
While a considerable amount of such help is monetary, a large component takes the form of food, medical supplies and on the ground assistance from a wide range of caring and capable volunteers; from doctors and nurses tending the injured through to engineers and builders resurrecting the area's infrastructure and providing replacement homes. Surely, if such help is provided by people who are not citizens of that country, it should be considered "foreign aid". Just because it is generally described as a "disaster recovery program" or some such, does not disqualify this premise.
There are a large number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), whether charities or not, that provide assistance in what we call the "developing nations". For many of these, it is the sole reason that they exist. The people who support these NGOs through, often tax-deductible, donations may be said to be supplying foreign aid in a monetary form, but the majority of this aid reaches those in need in the form of food, medicine, education, infrastructure and small-scale repayable and normally repaid loans for economic development. Such NGOs frequently participate in "disaster recovery programs" as well, but their main aim is to provide the assistance that allows people trapped in poverty to overcome the constraints they face. And they are frequently successful. This is a form of foreign aid that brings hope, but also instills a sense of achievement and control in those the NGOs have the sadly limited resources to benefit.
When it comes to foreign aid supplied to nations in need by the governments of the developed nations, the situation is significantly different. It is clearly this situation that has resulted in the feeling and articles that have responded negatively in this debate. Understandably so. Such foreign aid is predominantly financial, although some of the donating nations have included military materiel as well as money in their "aid". Let's consider that first.
The most prominent justification offered to the public of nations that supply military aid is the need for security in the nation being aided, so that humanitarian aid can then reach the people in need. This certainly sounds legitimate. But does the actuality we see in our News programs, at least where we might have a small chance of receiving unbiased ones, match this proposition. From what I have seen, I would have to say not. Although, since the end of the Cold War, it is considerably better than it was. Few nations receiving military aid to suppress rebels within their borders appear to adhere to any concept of democracy. Even when cease fire agreements are arranged and elections take place, the governments of these nations only seem to be willing to accept the will of the people if that will expresses itself by supporting them. If it doesn't or even if they don't expect it to, we tend to see totalitarian measures used to manipulate the result or suppress the political opposition. Hardly circumstances to encourage programs to alleviate the poverty of what is usually the vast majority of the citizens of these nations.
Financial aid given by the governments of developed nations to the governments of developing nations has a number of problems. These fall primarily in three areas:
the greed and corruption inherent in the receiving government's ministers
the strings the "aiding" government attaches to the aid
the debt burden of the receiving nation
When the nation receiving financial aid is based on a social system that incorporates graft as an established and normal part of its cultural background, it is hardly surprising that the powers that be in such a nation epitomise this characteristic. When 90 percent or more of foreign aid is siphoned off into the pockets of a small elite, why shouldn't the public of the aiding nations perceive that foreign aid as ineffective.
When foreign aid is offered on the basis of a political return, can we really expect the dominant forces in the receiving government to use it effectively. If they are willing to accept moneys with such strings attached, are they not likely to be the type of people that will redirect it into their own pockets rather than use it to help their people. For example, several Pacific Island and landlocked African nations have received "foreign aid" from Japan dependent on their joining the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and voting in favor of letting Japan resume commercial whaling. How much of such aid has gone to benefit their populaces might be considered questionable; the ethical validity of aid offered under such constraints is certainly so.
Many, possibly most, developing nations that receive foreign aid in the form of financial resources have considerable debts owing to financial organizations including the World Bank. Even when the governments of such nations have the ethical wherewithal to want to improve the lives of their people, they are often forced to first make payment on the interest they owe; not the capital debt, merely the accruing interest. This is why those attempting to reduce world poverty in recent years have been so strongly advocating that the debt of impoverished nations be "written-off".
Even the NGOs operating in many of the developing nations are forced to provide graft to "officials" to enable them to do their good works. Does that mean that their efforts are wasted? That the "foreign aid" they are providing is not working towards the eradication of poverty?
Global poverty is not limited to the developing nations. There is no nation currently extant on our planet that does not have people living below what is called the "poverty line". On the basis of our current technological, industrial and agricultural abilities, despite a population that well exceeds the ability of our planet to support if we returned to the hunter/gatherer societies of pre-history that are advocated by some back-to-nature proponents, we are quite capable of providing sufficient for all.
That we don't is due to the political and economic systems we employ in our global society. The supposedly democratic or communist, and the unapologetically totalitarian political cultures. The growth rather than sustainability oriented capitalist economics current in most, if not all, nations; no matter what their professed political systems. It is unlikely that we will change these sufficiently or in time to limit the environmental problems we are bestowing on future generations; it's possible that through effectively administered and provided foreign aid, we can at least alleviate the suffering of billions afflicted by poverty. Generosity to others is an inherent component of our human natures, perhaps it can prevail over the animal nature we seem to imbue to our social systems.
Learn more about this author, Perry McCarney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Hunger, Disease & Poverty
- Do Head Start preschool programs better enable parents to find jobs?
