Can foreign aid be a bad and corrupting thing?
Just speculating here:
Altruistically helping someone in need is a good thing. No less an authority than the Bible urges us to help others. But is it possible that this impulse to help those in need--now commonly called "aid"--could actually be destructive?
At first this doesn't seem possible: How could any behavior that seems so noble and helpful become destructive? And if it can, why would it be advocated by the Bible (and other religious tracts)?
Start with this basic premise: Aid enables recipients to tolerate otherwise intolerably cruel and corrupt rulers.
Example: Thuggish governments--or simply local thugs--often steal food from hard-working farmers. Eventually the latter are forced to flee to government camps, where aid workers from other nations give them food. Even though conditions in the camp are usually hard and impoverished, it's better than working hard every day planting and watering/tending crops only to have them stolen by the thugs (including government).
If food aid were not available, thousands of peasants would be far more likely to take up whatever tools or arms they could and start shooting. I'm starting to think that in the long run--harsh as it sounds to many--that might well be a better solution.
Consider conditions in places like Haiti and most of Africa after decades of western food aid totalling hundreds of billions of dollars. While the aid certainly keeps people from starving--a good thing--there's never any improvement in the condition of their hell-hole countries or regions.
Wait...does this mean war might be the answer after all?
Obviously not being entirely serious there but consider: Which is better? To overthrow thugs (and thug governments) by revolution now, even if it costs thousands of lives; or to condemn your children and grandchildren to a miserable life indefinitely?
Altruistically helping someone in need is a good thing. No less an authority than the Bible urges us to help others. But is it possible that this impulse to help those in need--now commonly called "aid"--could actually be destructive?
At first this doesn't seem possible: How could any behavior that seems so noble and helpful become destructive? And if it can, why would it be advocated by the Bible (and other religious tracts)?
Start with this basic premise: Aid enables recipients to tolerate otherwise intolerably cruel and corrupt rulers.
Example: Thuggish governments--or simply local thugs--often steal food from hard-working farmers. Eventually the latter are forced to flee to government camps, where aid workers from other nations give them food. Even though conditions in the camp are usually hard and impoverished, it's better than working hard every day planting and watering/tending crops only to have them stolen by the thugs (including government).
If food aid were not available, thousands of peasants would be far more likely to take up whatever tools or arms they could and start shooting. I'm starting to think that in the long run--harsh as it sounds to many--that might well be a better solution.
Consider conditions in places like Haiti and most of Africa after decades of western food aid totalling hundreds of billions of dollars. While the aid certainly keeps people from starving--a good thing--there's never any improvement in the condition of their hell-hole countries or regions.
Wait...does this mean war might be the answer after all?
Obviously not being entirely serious there but consider: Which is better? To overthrow thugs (and thug governments) by revolution now, even if it costs thousands of lives; or to condemn your children and grandchildren to a miserable life indefinitely?
posted by SF at
9:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home