4 ms·

> I feel like this debate only ever gets two sorts of representation, the people who think every migrant is a desperate refugee in need of rescue, and the "fort

> I feel like this debate only ever gets two sorts of representation, the people who think every migrant is a desperate refugee in need of rescue, and the "fortress Europe, it's an invasion" people. If we can just convince the "fortress Europe" camp.. or either camp, actually, that sending aid/investment to where the immigrants are coming from can substitute for allowing immigration, then both could be happy. The migrants receive the same aid they would in Europe, and Europe gets to play fortress - win-win. We're used to goods from faraway China stocking our shelves, sending cargo across the Mediterranean is trivial in comparison.

EA-3167 3y ago
Recently in Ethiopia there's been a cessation of food aid because the sheer scale of the corruption in the system was uncovered. https://apnews.com/article/ethiopia-humanitarian-food-aid-3801e9e167a98c4cc9db1ec82cd21501 https://apnews.com/article/ethiopia-humanitarian-food-aid-38... https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/jun/29/ethiopia-hunger-food-aid-suspended-usaid-wfp https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/jun/29/e... This isn't as simple as "Just throw more money at 'em" or even "just send more food." Decades of this casual attitude has led to governments who simply shrug and leg the international community handle the business of feeding their people, freeing them up to do other things with their money, such as murdering whole regions full of people. Food and monetary aid is also used as a weapon, shared with allies and regime supporters, and denied to "undesirable elements." And frankly none of that would matter to the Pakistani men on the boat in question in OOP's article, none of whom were desperate for aid. They wanted a better life for them and their kids, they wanted economic opportunities, and they weren't getting that in Pakistan. An uptick in aid wouldn't change that either!
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago
  > they wanted economic opportunities, and they weren't getting that in Pakistan. An uptick in aid wouldn't change that either! I did not say aid/investment by accident. It could well be charitable investment, i.e. into farming or other equipment, with no expectation of payback. As for corruption - if the aid is in the form of food or equipment, that's harder to turn into weapons than cash. If corruption is an issue, the aid can go to their less-corrupt neighbors that accept the migrants, or it can be handled by the same NGOs and such that help immigrants in Europe, if the local authorities are too corrupt to be trusted with anything. And if none of that works, then why it would work in Europe, if the people involved are the same? > Decades of this casual attitude Calling massive humanitarian aid "casual" reeks of trying to blame foreign corruption on those trying to charitably help.

EA-3167 3y ago

Recently in Ethiopia there's been a cessation of food aid because the sheer scale of the corruption in the system was uncovered. https://apnews.com/article/ethiopia-humanitarian-food-aid-3801e9e167a98c4cc9db1ec82cd21501 https://apnews.com/article/ethiopia-humanitarian-food-aid-38... https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/jun/29/ethiopia-hunger-food-aid-suspended-usaid-wfp https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/jun/29/e... This isn't as simple as "Just throw more money at 'em" or even "just send more food." Decades of this casual attitude has led to governments who simply shrug and leg the international community handle the business of feeding their people, freeing them up to do other things with their money, such as murdering whole regions full of people. Food and monetary aid is also used as a weapon, shared with allies and regime supporters, and denied to "undesirable elements." And frankly none of that would matter to the Pakistani men on the boat in question in OOP's article, none of whom were desperate for aid. They wanted a better life for them and their kids, they wanted economic opportunities, and they weren't getting that in Pakistan. An uptick in aid wouldn't change that either!

NoRelToEmber 3y ago
> they wanted economic opportunities, and they weren't getting that in Pakistan. An uptick in aid wouldn't change that either! I did not say aid/investment by accident. It could well be charitable investment, i.e. into farming or other equipment, with no expectation of payback. As for corruption - if the aid is in the form of food or equipment, that's harder to turn into weapons than cash. If corruption is an issue, the aid can go to their less-corrupt neighbors that accept the migrants, or it can be handled by the same NGOs and such that help immigrants in Europe, if the local authorities are too corrupt to be trusted with anything. And if none of that works, then why it would work in Europe, if the people involved are the same? > Decades of this casual attitude Calling massive humanitarian aid "casual" reeks of trying to blame foreign corruption on those trying to charitably help.