7 million dead children every year

On Guard for Thee · February 16, 2014

There are many places where poverty has nothing to do with colonialism. Zimbabwe is certainly one.

I would argue that colonialism is too far in the past to think that it is a cause of poverty today. There are examples of entire nations that were rebuilt and poverty greatly reduced in 30-50 years - even in post-collonial countries.

No, let's not forget the past but, yes, let's move on.

I would agree with you, to a certain degree. There are the examples you speak of. I think there are also examples of poverty being propogated by despotic governments who are in effect "living off the avails" of colonialism. I think there are also examples of what you might call current day colonialism. I myself worked for a number of years in a very small African country that was found to have a very large supply of oil. A few local people got jobs, the government got extremely wealthy, the foreign oil company became the most profitable on the planet, but on my last trip down the airport road, just like my first trip up the airport road, the vast majority walked barefoot to where they would head off into the bush to hunt or fish. The road had been freshly paved, but I think it only made it hotter on their feet.

TimG · February 16, 2014

I think there are also examples of poverty being propogated by despotic governments who are in effect "living off the avails" of colonialism.

Yawn. Lots of countries in the world were colonized and later built a functioning non-colonial government that was able to look after their people. Colonialism itself is not to blame. The problem rests with the society which is not able to create a functional government.

A few local people got jobs, the government got extremely wealthy, the foreign oil company became the most profitable on the planet, but on my last trip down the airport road, just like my first trip up the airport road, the vast majority walked barefoot to where they would head off into the bush to hunt or fish.

Again, that happens because the people living there allow it to happen. There are simply too many counter examples where governments used the wealth from resources to help their people to take your suggestion seriously. Foreign corporations can only do business with the government that exists - they can't create something that does not exist. If a government wanted to spread the wealth around no foreign corporation is going to care. If a government does not it is not the corporation's fault. Edited February 16, 2014 by TimG

On Guard for Thee · February 16, 2014

They allow it to happen? Surely you jest. It's a bit hard not to allow it to happen when to do otherwise means you might just disappear.

TimG · February 16, 2014

They allow it to happen? Surely you jest. It's a bit hard not to allow it to happen when to do otherwise means you might just disappear.

Every democratic country in the world today used to be run by dictators/monarchs. In some cases the governments were over turned in a bloody revolution. In others the revolution was peaceful. Before the revolution occurred a lone voice protesting would quickly disappear. So the question you need to ask is why did these revolutions succeed given the hostile pre-revolution environment? It comes down to the implied consent of the governed - no dictator can rule without it. If the governed withdraw their consent then the dictator falls. Edited February 16, 2014 by TimG

On Guard for Thee · February 17, 2014

Every democratic country in the world today used to be run by dictators/monarchs. In some cases the governments were over turned in a bloody revolution. In others the revolution was peaceful. Before the revolution occurred a lone voice protesting would quickly disappear. So the question you need to ask is why did these revolutions succeed given the hostile pre-revolution environment? It comes down to the implied consent of the governed - no dictator can rule without it. If the governed withdraw their consent then the dictator falls.

Do you think Saddam had the consent of his people? Do you think Mugabe has the consent of his people? Theories are wonderful, reality something else indeed.

TimG · February 17, 2014

Do you think Saddam had the consent of his people? Do you think Mugabe has the consent of his people?

What do Saddam and Mugabe do that USSR or Eastern Block leaders did not? Any dictator's tactics are brutal and designed to make people fear but ultimately they depend on the willingness of the population to support them. Once that support is lost the dictator is history. We have seen this story play out over and over again around the world. The fact is people are collectively responsible for the leaders that govern them. In some cases, this support may be the result of intense brainwashing (e.g. North Korea) but their support is still required.

I think you need to face up to how the world really works instead of trying to classifying everyone as either a helpless victim or a cruel oppressor.

Edited February 17, 2014 by TimG

On Guard for Thee · February 17, 2014

What do Saddam and Mugabe do that USSR or Eastern Block leaders did not? Any dictator's tactics are brutal and designed to make people fear but ultimately they depend on the willingness of the population to support them. Once that support is lost the dictator is history. We have seen this story play out over and over again around the world. The fact is people are collectively responsible for the leaders that govern them. In some cases, this support may be the result of intense brainwashing (e.g. North Korea) but their support is still required.

All I can say is take a trip through Africa, then maybe parts of the ME. Your eyes will be opened.

TimG · February 17, 2014

All I can say is take a trip through Africa, then maybe parts of the ME. Your eyes will be opened.

I know the human misery is heartbreaking but that does not mean outsiders are responsible for it.

Whether you like it or not people are collectively responsible for the society they live in. The collective nature of the responsibility means it is impossible for individuals to change but the responsibility exists.

Edited February 17, 2014 by TimG

On Guard for Thee · February 17, 2014

I know the human misery is heartbreaking but that does not mean outsiders are responsible for it.

Whether you like it or not people are collectively responsible for the society they live in. The collective nature of the responsibility means it is impossible for individuals to change but the responsibility exists.

Outsiders may not be responsible for it, but they happilly ignore it as long as it helps the bottom line.

TimG · February 17, 2014

Outsiders may not be responsible for it, but they happilly ignore it as long as it helps the bottom line.

And what are outsiders supposed to do? They can't change it. They could refuse to do business with the country but that is rarely effective since there is always someone else willing to deal.

On Guard for Thee · February 17, 2014

And what are outsiders supposed to do? They can't change it. They could refuse to do business with the country but that is rarely effective since there is always someone else willing to deal.

Well that's the old standby argument isn't it? If we didn't do it, someone else would. If you're happy with that, fine. Asomeone who had authority to sign contracts on behalf of a major US oil company, I was required to sit through a 2 day course with a company lawyer who made me familiar with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. At the end I had to sign a document stating I understood, and would comply with the act. Why does this act exist? because of corrupt practices by American companies overseas. Why not just extend that to at least make it necessary to at least make an attempt to make those despots aware of proper practices?

TimG · February 17, 2014

Why not just extend that to at least make it necessary to at least make an attempt to make those despots aware of proper practices?

Sure. It would at least allow western corporate leaders to know that they are not simply giving the opportunity to their domestic competitors. Unfortunately, that does not mean much nowadays since places like China have the cash to make whatever deal the dictators want. In fact, China has been cheered on by many Africans because it does business without the moralizing which really undermines the entire basis for your argument. Edited February 17, 2014 by TimG

On Guard for Thee · February 17, 2014

Sure. It would at least allow western corporate leaders to know that they are not simply giving the opportunity to their domestic competitors. Unfortunately, that does not mean much nowadays since places like China have the cash to make whatever deal the dictators want. In fact, China has been cheered on by many Africans because it does business without the moralizing which really undermines the entire basis for your argument.

I have seen how the Chineese treat black people. And I like my moral argument. If we all just hid under the bed with our plattitudes, nothing would get done.

TimG · February 17, 2014

And I like my moral argument. If we all just hid under the bed with our platitudes, nothing would get done.

Don't get me wrong. I am in favour of things like the 'foreign corrupt practices act". It falls under the category of 'keeping our side of the street clean'. I just don't have any delusions about whether it will make any difference to the people in these countries.

On Guard for Thee · February 17, 2014

Don't get me wrong. I am in favour of things like the 'foreign corrupt practices act". It falls under the category of 'keeping our side of the street clean'. I just don't have any delusions about whether it will make any difference to the people in these countries.

And I agree, I certainly don't have the smarts to figure out to balance things a bit better than they are, or at least seem to me. I won't say the name of the country, but I did spend five and a half years there, and I got to know my way around. Both the local people, as well as the government offices. As such I had a good view of where the wealthj went. I have to say I felt a pang of guilt as I sipped a glass of wine in business class on the way home for my regular time off. And if guilt is a bit too strong a word, then certainly a feeling that something was a tad out of balance.

carepov · February 18, 2014

What do Saddam and Mugabe do that USSR or Eastern Block leaders did not? Any dictator's tactics are brutal and designed to make people fear but ultimately they depend on the willingness of the population to support them. Once that support is lost the dictator is history. We have seen this story play out over and over again around the world. The fact is people are collectively responsible for the leaders that govern them. In some cases, this support may be the result of intense brainwashing (e.g. North Korea) but their support is still required.

I think you need to face up to how the world really works instead of trying to classifying everyone as either a helpless victim or a cruel oppressor.

Some of what you say about "people are collectively responsible for the leaders" is debateable - but getting back to the OP - we are talking about 7,000,000 children dying every year - surely they are not responsible for their leaders.

I know the human misery is heartbreaking but that does not mean outsiders are responsible for it.

Whether you like it or not people are collectively responsible for the society they live in. The collective nature of the responsibility means it is impossible for individuals to change but the responsibility exists.

Tim, where do you draw your circle for society? Who are the outsiders?

TimG · February 18, 2014

surely they are not responsible for their leaders.

But their parents often are.

Tim, where do you draw your circle for society? Who are the outsiders?

The national boundaries define where laws apply. If someone breaks a law in Canada the Canadian police are authorized to use force to stop him. They have no authority to enter other countries. Any attempt to get involved in other countries without the permission of the government is nothing but vigilantism (which is a crime in Canada BTW).

My point is there is nothing that we can do other than keep our side of the street clean (e.g. refuse to do business with corrupt officials). We can offer aid when the need is particularly acute but aid is a band aid that does not solve the underlying problems. No one helped the French or the British dispose of their despots.

Edited February 18, 2014 by TimG

carepov · February 18, 2014

But their parents often are.

In general, if parents are powerless to prevent their children from dying, it is logical to assume that they are powerless to challenge their leaders.

The national boundaries define where laws apply. If someone breaks a law in Canada the Canadian police are authorized to use force to stop him. They have no authority to enter other countries. Any attempt to get involved in other countries without the permission of the government is nothing but vigilantism (which is a crime in Canada BTW).

There is international law and the responsibility to protect (not vigilantism) but certainly military intervention is usually a bad idea.

My point is there is nothing that we can do other than keep our side of the street clean (e.g. refuse to do business with corrupt officials).

Yes we should do this - we should especially avoid trading arms with oppressive regimes.

We can offer aid when the need is particularly acute but aid is a band aid that does not solve the underlying problems.

Sometimes a band-aid is what's needed to solve the problem. As I've said, when aid is done right it leads to sustainable development and poverty reduction.

No one helped the French or the British dispose of their despots.

Perhaps, but I am quite certain that they were not disposed by peasants either.

carepov · February 19, 2014

Here is an excellent, current and topical read on this subject:

Myth: Aid creates dependancy

"Another argument from critics is that aid holds back normal economic development, keeping countries dependent on generosity from outsiders....

The money America spent in the 1960s to develop more productive crops made Asian and Latin American countries less dependent on us, not more. The money we spend today on a Green Revolution for Africa is helping countries grow more food, making them less dependent as well....

Here is a quick list of former major recipients that have grown so much that they receive hardly any aid today: Botswana, Morocco, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica, Peru, Thailand, Mauritius, Singapore, and Malaysia. South Korea received enormous amounts of aid after the Korean War, and is now a net donor. China is also a net aid donor and funds a lot of science to help developing countries. India receives 0.09 percent of its GDP in aid, down from 1 percent in 1991...."

"Looking ahead

If you read the news every day, it’s easy to get the impression that the world is getting worse. There is nothing inherently wrong with focusing on bad news, of course—as long as you get it in context. Melinda and I are disgusted by the fact that more than six million children died last year. But we are motivated by the fact that this number is the lowest ever recorded. We want to make sure it keeps going down."

http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/?_ga=1.220473816.1769363082.1390491417#section=home

bleeding heart · February 19, 2014

All good points. A related issue, though currently getting little publicity (it's an issue that seems to wax and wane repeatedly) is the notion of cancelling "odious debts." so a country that, say, incurred debt under a foreign occupation or a dictatorship can apply to have its debt erased, under the notion that the debt "is not the country's, but the specific borrower him or herself. (well, ok....Himself, always, so why be coy about the gender language? )

Equador, for example, managed to decrease its debt considerably (though not totally eliminate it) by precisely this argument, which is a strong one. Haiti is, to my knowledge, still under discussion...but they should be an obvious candidate, especially given that the corrupt and greedy dictators were cherished US clients.

I believe the US itself had a debt cancelled under this policy, arguing that they shouldn't have to pay Cuba's debt incurred under the Spanish colonialists. Quite rightly, too.

Edited February 19, 2014 by bleeding heart

TimG · February 20, 2014

Myth: Aid creates dependancy

A simplistic analysis. Welfare obviously does some good things in the short term. The long term is the bigger issue:

I have long believed that far from being a catalyst, foreign aid has been the biggest single inhibitor of Africa's growth. Among its shortcomings, aid is correlated with corruption, fosters dependency, and invariably instils bureaucracy that hinders the emergence of an essential entrepreneurial class. For Africa to grow in a sustained way, foreign aid will have to be dramatically reduced over time, forcing countries to adopt more transparent strategies to finance development.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dambisa-moyo-aid-dependency-blights-africa-the-cure-is-in-the-credit-crisis-1522996.html

bleeding heart · February 20, 2014

Then how do we account for the fact--the truism, really--that the most successful nations (without exception, to my knowledge) achieved their high positions through trade protectionism and public monies....moreso than from the "entrepreneurial spirit," which is next to useless without the means provided by infrastructure and government help?

I know that's not foreign aid....but the fundamental principle is not much different, re "entrepreneurship."

the fact that the internet was developed largely through American tax dollars doesn't seem to stop a lot of people having gotten independently [sic] wealthy on it.

Michael Hardner · February 20, 2014

A simplistic analysis. Welfare obviously does some good things in the short term. The long term is the bigger issue:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dambisa-moyo-aid-dependency-blights-africa-the-cure-is-in-the-credit-crisis-1522996.html

In any case, that post really says that aid helps the worse off countries, it doesn't speak to how South Korea, for example, eventually excelled - which was by becoming a trading partner and world economic player.

Michael Hardner · February 20, 2014

Then how do we account for the fact--the truism, really--that the most successful nations (without exception, to my knowledge) achieved their high positions through trade protectionism and public monies....

Then how ? What do you mean 'then how' ? Which point are you countering from above ?

bleeding heart · February 20, 2014

Well, I agree my point is a slight deviation (but only slight); I was speaking to a fundamental (and in fact economic "fundamentalist") myth embedded in the link Tim provided, and which calls the "welfare dependency" theme strongly into question.

That is, no country achieves terrific wealth on the strength of some mythic, pulled-by-bootstraps entrepreneurial class. I don't mean they have no influence at all; I mean that they thrive only within a system of gifted monies (incentives, subsidies), of necessary infrastructure, of trade protectionism, and so on.

I got from the argument the notion that "foreign aid" stifles entrepreneurship, which might otherwise lead to a more prosperous society; but if so, then why do the domestic policies of entrepreneurially-successful nations behave on the principle that funding, infrastructure et all is necessary to success?....and that this seems to have worked quite well?

The issue with foreign aid is its misuse, presumably by powerful domestic forces within the receiving nations. And ok, but that's not the argument being put forth, I don't think, or not all of it.

The idea of "welfare dependency" is not a strong argument, and is based on platitudes like "teach a man to fish" rather than on real-world metrics and lived reality.