3 ms·

Why should rich countries be trying to provide infrastructure and food for the world's poorest? Far as I know, the original reason for doing so was to create st

Why should rich countries be trying to provide infrastructure and food for the world's poorest? Far as I know, the original reason for doing so was to create strong and loyal trading partners. That doesn't seem to have happened though. Is that no longer the end goal?

demxzy 9y ago
It hasn't happened probably because most of the aid to us in developing countries go to treating the symptoms of our real problems. Also aid business is a huge business for Western NGOs and most of the money find their way back to the west anyway. The positive I can see is that aid buys a lot of influence in a much cheaper way than war.
hyperion2010 9y ago
At the state level it is still true in some cases. China is dumping loads of less-strings-attached (than the international development fund) cash into the developing world, and one argument is that they are developing new markets for their goods. A more sinister twist would be that they are laying the infrastructure for future all-Chinese enclaves in those countries. On the other hand the US's failed state building exercises in the middle east is an example of the complete opposite. The US was/is literally burning money in an attempt to 'improve' another country. None of the nonsense about 'went for the oil' makes any sense when you look at the total cost, the destruction of a potential trading partner, etc. It is the 'oh no he is killing his own people/keeping his own people in poverty/pillaging his country for personal gain' type of mentality that enables the kind of self determination rejecting behavior that the US has been engaged in for a very long time. There are things that we can and should do to prevent atrocity, but we have consistently failed to strike a balance with helping states develop and have instead repeatedly opted to overthrow governments and destabilize regions, often in the name of improving the lives of their citizens. (Just look at the humanitarian disaster that has been the Arab Spring.)

demxzy 9y ago

It hasn't happened probably because most of the aid to us in developing countries go to treating the symptoms of our real problems. Also aid business is a huge business for Western NGOs and most of the money find their way back to the west anyway. The positive I can see is that aid buys a lot of influence in a much cheaper way than war.

hyperion2010 9y ago

At the state level it is still true in some cases. China is dumping loads of less-strings-attached (than the international development fund) cash into the developing world, and one argument is that they are developing new markets for their goods. A more sinister twist would be that they are laying the infrastructure for future all-Chinese enclaves in those countries. On the other hand the US's failed state building exercises in the middle east is an example of the complete opposite. The US was/is literally burning money in an attempt to 'improve' another country. None of the nonsense about 'went for the oil' makes any sense when you look at the total cost, the destruction of a potential trading partner, etc. It is the 'oh no he is killing his own people/keeping his own people in poverty/pillaging his country for personal gain' type of mentality that enables the kind of self determination rejecting behavior that the US has been engaged in for a very long time. There are things that we can and should do to prevent atrocity, but we have consistently failed to strike a balance with helping states develop and have instead repeatedly opted to overthrow governments and destabilize regions, often in the name of improving the lives of their citizens. (Just look at the humanitarian disaster that has been the Arab Spring.)