4 ms·

Any idea why the government officials stop them from building anything?

pg 18y ago
I get the impression that in a corrupt country like that, government officials say no to everything by default, in order to make you bribe them to say yes.
- patio11 18y ago
  There is probably more than a little of that. Then there is the fact that when you're attempting to pull off a genocide of your political opponents so you can get at the oil beneath their land, letting in white do-gooders to build them cool new houses is not exactly #1 on the to-do list. Plus, any improvement in their living conditions just means the West sends your poor impoverished people less money that you can steal. Look at, say, aid flows to Costa Rica ("not a basket case") vs. pick-your-favorite-usual suspect. If you're a tyrant, miserable people are a rich national resource.
  - kailashbadu 18y ago
    Exactly. Darfur is wretched because the government has a stake in keeping it that way. Anything that threatens to weaken their stakes will in every likelihood meet resistance from the government. Had the government’s intent been to see a thriving and safe Darfur, the crisis wouldn’t exist in the first place. It’s not surprising that any attempt to improve lives in Darfur would be frowned upon. Be that as it may, it never ceases to amaze me how some nifty startups come up with innovative ideas that discreetly transform the lives of people more than what UN’s billion dollar diplomacy fails to pull off. For example the stoves that helped keep Darfur’s women safe. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/12/27/stoves.darfur/ http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/12/27/stoves.darfur... http://www.darfurstoves.org/ http://www.darfurstoves.org/
- dfranke 18y ago
  And no bribe was offered? Undertaking a project in an area like that without being willing either to shoot or to bribe government officials strikes me as naive.
  - fub4r 18y ago
    Naive or principled? Who knows in this case. Sad reality is that in many parts of the world you've got to factor bribes into your financials.
    - andreyf 18y ago
      ...in many parts of the world you've got to factor bribes into your financials... In most parts, and not just to do business.
  - h34t 18y ago
    It's also illegal for a US, Canadian or European company to offer bribes to government officials abroad. A recent crackdown cost Siemens $1.6 billion, as bribes were apart of their standard system of doing business. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21siemens.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21s...
    - dfranke 18y ago
      It occurs to me that it would be a fascinating test case if a charity like this one were to be tried for bribery and plead self-defense.
      - anamax 18y ago
        "plead self-defense" to whom? To the govt that you didn't grease correctly? To the govt in your home country that thinks that bribing other govts is wrong? Note that "self-defense" typically is to prevent grave bodily harm or death and is usually reserved for immediate threats. Not being able to build houses for some poor wretch who will probably live at least a few weeks without the house doesn't qualify.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]

pg 18y ago

I get the impression that in a corrupt country like that, government officials say no to everything by default, in order to make you bribe them to say yes.

patio11 18y ago
There is probably more than a little of that. Then there is the fact that when you're attempting to pull off a genocide of your political opponents so you can get at the oil beneath their land, letting in white do-gooders to build them cool new houses is not exactly #1 on the to-do list. Plus, any improvement in their living conditions just means the West sends your poor impoverished people less money that you can steal. Look at, say, aid flows to Costa Rica ("not a basket case") vs. pick-your-favorite-usual suspect. If you're a tyrant, miserable people are a rich national resource.
- kailashbadu 18y ago
  Exactly. Darfur is wretched because the government has a stake in keeping it that way. Anything that threatens to weaken their stakes will in every likelihood meet resistance from the government. Had the government’s intent been to see a thriving and safe Darfur, the crisis wouldn’t exist in the first place. It’s not surprising that any attempt to improve lives in Darfur would be frowned upon. Be that as it may, it never ceases to amaze me how some nifty startups come up with innovative ideas that discreetly transform the lives of people more than what UN’s billion dollar diplomacy fails to pull off. For example the stoves that helped keep Darfur’s women safe. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/12/27/stoves.darfur/ http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/12/27/stoves.darfur... http://www.darfurstoves.org/ http://www.darfurstoves.org/
dfranke 18y ago
And no bribe was offered? Undertaking a project in an area like that without being willing either to shoot or to bribe government officials strikes me as naive.
- fub4r 18y ago
  Naive or principled? Who knows in this case. Sad reality is that in many parts of the world you've got to factor bribes into your financials.
  - andreyf 18y ago
    ...in many parts of the world you've got to factor bribes into your financials... In most parts, and not just to do business.
- h34t 18y ago
  It's also illegal for a US, Canadian or European company to offer bribes to government officials abroad. A recent crackdown cost Siemens $1.6 billion, as bribes were apart of their standard system of doing business. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21siemens.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21s...
  - dfranke 18y ago
    It occurs to me that it would be a fascinating test case if a charity like this one were to be tried for bribery and plead self-defense.
    - anamax 18y ago
      "plead self-defense" to whom? To the govt that you didn't grease correctly? To the govt in your home country that thinks that bribing other govts is wrong? Note that "self-defense" typically is to prevent grave bodily harm or death and is usually reserved for immediate threats. Not being able to build houses for some poor wretch who will probably live at least a few weeks without the house doesn't qualify.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]