G 8
The World top conference has ended. Which gives me, regardless of its outcome, the opportunity to say something about the constant demonstrations and accusations against the “rich world”. I saw an African lady, a Noble Prize winner, declaring for TV that the rich countries constantly hide themselves behind the cop-out that the governments of the poor countries and the corruption prevent effective aid programs for the poor. This wasn’t an excuse, and she advocated a multi-billion dollar gift for Africa.
People are always inclined to find simple solutions and scapegoats. There are rich countries and there are poor countries, and if the rich ones would give some of their wealth to the poor, the problem is solved. It’s their fault, so they have to give. There are several arguments against this simple view, but it seems as if people are only proclaiming their view without listening to arguments contra. Every argument contra is wiped from the table: see above. Let’s have a look at some arguments:
In very poor countries, with a low education level among the people and powerful family and clan bonds every large-scale aid program is deemed to fail, because you always have to involve the local chiefs whose first concern is to preserve their influence and existing social (family) patterns. In Europe and USA we are used to bureaucratic rules formulated by Max Weber. These rules allocate the greatest power to those who actually contribute most to economic and social welfare, within a democratic system with separated government functions. Poor countries allocate power according to birth, gender, clan membership, sequence of birth. The authorities in these countries see Western aid programs primarily as a means to get money, not to get economic development. The result of this attitude, namely the suffering of their peoples, they put on the blame account of the rich countries who “don’t give enough”.
Europe has been blamed for colonizing a large number of countries who now are called “poor”. Colonization is a great evil that now belongs to the past. Yet, there are still action groups who demand monetary compensation because the West “has become rich thanks to slavery”. Then I want compensation for the Netherlands from the Spanish, the Romans, the Austrians, the French and the Germans who all once exploited Holland as part of their empires.
It’s NOT pointing at “countries” and demanding compensation from them, but first of all one has to point at themselves. If you are government member of a poor African country, it’s you who has to arrange things in such a way that prosperity is aimed at for your people. This is a “law” as old as humanity itself. It’s not the countries, it’s the people and their culture. Although authorities always want to stress that a country is an expansion of an inhabitant’s personality and identity. People should use their countries to pursue what is the right thing to do when it comes to mass operations like foreign aid and development campaigns. When the Dutch left Indonesia as their colonizers, the Javanese took over their role in colonizing the rest of the Indonesian archipelago. Without Dutch / British / Portuguese colonization Indonesia would never have existed, instead there would have been now a number of smaller countries just like in Europe. Even Java consisted in at least three different kingdoms, autonomously operating before the colonization era. For the colonizers, huge territories were more efficient to control. The problems this gave we see in Iraq, where all Iraqi people consider themselves in the first place as Shiite, Sunnite, Kurd, etc. and in the second place as Iraqis. Of course when Iraq is one “state” with uniform laws, then it’s they (their group) who have to be in power, and not the others. Iraq lacks now a strong leader such as Sukarno in Indonesia, to become one nation. Maybe Saddam Hussein was such a leader, but far less sophisticated than the erudite and elegant Sukarno, when we saw Saddam provoke every other power to withstand him instead of practicing diplomacy. In the USA we see that they have been a British colony (or a series of colonies) and afterwards we see that they themselves have been approaching each other and co-operating to become the country they are now, instead of constantly fighting each other. Of course there were armed struggles but these didn’t determine the result.
When we look at many poor countries we see charlatans as their presidents, constantly blaming and pointing to others, and doing everything except giving their people directions and guidelines of how they could develop as a nation. When the Pope visits South America, Mr. Chavez takes immediate opportunity to shout that the Roman Catholic Spain violently imposed Catholicism to the Indians, something that maybe happened 450 years ago. Uttering this opinion now, doesn’t help poor Indians at all and is only intended to show Mr. Chavez to the people as a friend of the Indians, exhorting them to forswear their faith, totally according to the Marxist principle that religion is the opium of the people.
Yes, people of the demonstration circus around “globalization”, you are in good company.
The World top conference has ended. Which gives me, regardless of its outcome, the opportunity to say something about the constant demonstrations and accusations against the “rich world”. I saw an African lady, a Noble Prize winner, declaring for TV that the rich countries constantly hide themselves behind the cop-out that the governments of the poor countries and the corruption prevent effective aid programs for the poor. This wasn’t an excuse, and she advocated a multi-billion dollar gift for Africa.
People are always inclined to find simple solutions and scapegoats. There are rich countries and there are poor countries, and if the rich ones would give some of their wealth to the poor, the problem is solved. It’s their fault, so they have to give. There are several arguments against this simple view, but it seems as if people are only proclaiming their view without listening to arguments contra. Every argument contra is wiped from the table: see above. Let’s have a look at some arguments:
In very poor countries, with a low education level among the people and powerful family and clan bonds every large-scale aid program is deemed to fail, because you always have to involve the local chiefs whose first concern is to preserve their influence and existing social (family) patterns. In Europe and USA we are used to bureaucratic rules formulated by Max Weber. These rules allocate the greatest power to those who actually contribute most to economic and social welfare, within a democratic system with separated government functions. Poor countries allocate power according to birth, gender, clan membership, sequence of birth. The authorities in these countries see Western aid programs primarily as a means to get money, not to get economic development. The result of this attitude, namely the suffering of their peoples, they put on the blame account of the rich countries who “don’t give enough”.
Europe has been blamed for colonizing a large number of countries who now are called “poor”. Colonization is a great evil that now belongs to the past. Yet, there are still action groups who demand monetary compensation because the West “has become rich thanks to slavery”. Then I want compensation for the Netherlands from the Spanish, the Romans, the Austrians, the French and the Germans who all once exploited Holland as part of their empires.
It’s NOT pointing at “countries” and demanding compensation from them, but first of all one has to point at themselves. If you are government member of a poor African country, it’s you who has to arrange things in such a way that prosperity is aimed at for your people. This is a “law” as old as humanity itself. It’s not the countries, it’s the people and their culture. Although authorities always want to stress that a country is an expansion of an inhabitant’s personality and identity. People should use their countries to pursue what is the right thing to do when it comes to mass operations like foreign aid and development campaigns. When the Dutch left Indonesia as their colonizers, the Javanese took over their role in colonizing the rest of the Indonesian archipelago. Without Dutch / British / Portuguese colonization Indonesia would never have existed, instead there would have been now a number of smaller countries just like in Europe. Even Java consisted in at least three different kingdoms, autonomously operating before the colonization era. For the colonizers, huge territories were more efficient to control. The problems this gave we see in Iraq, where all Iraqi people consider themselves in the first place as Shiite, Sunnite, Kurd, etc. and in the second place as Iraqis. Of course when Iraq is one “state” with uniform laws, then it’s they (their group) who have to be in power, and not the others. Iraq lacks now a strong leader such as Sukarno in Indonesia, to become one nation. Maybe Saddam Hussein was such a leader, but far less sophisticated than the erudite and elegant Sukarno, when we saw Saddam provoke every other power to withstand him instead of practicing diplomacy. In the USA we see that they have been a British colony (or a series of colonies) and afterwards we see that they themselves have been approaching each other and co-operating to become the country they are now, instead of constantly fighting each other. Of course there were armed struggles but these didn’t determine the result.
When we look at many poor countries we see charlatans as their presidents, constantly blaming and pointing to others, and doing everything except giving their people directions and guidelines of how they could develop as a nation. When the Pope visits South America, Mr. Chavez takes immediate opportunity to shout that the Roman Catholic Spain violently imposed Catholicism to the Indians, something that maybe happened 450 years ago. Uttering this opinion now, doesn’t help poor Indians at all and is only intended to show Mr. Chavez to the people as a friend of the Indians, exhorting them to forswear their faith, totally according to the Marxist principle that religion is the opium of the people.
Yes, people of the demonstration circus around “globalization”, you are in good company.
2 comments:
You demonstrate great insight. I agree with much of what you have written.
As a nation that colonized half a continent,Canada struggles with some of these very issues. We have recongnized the injustice metted out to our first nations peoples (also known as aboringinals, natives, indians).
Today many of the conditions found on the more isolated reserves of the north rival those found in some of the most deplorable situations in the third world. Deplorable houseing conditions, lack of clean drinking water and sewage, alcohol and solvant abuse and STD's continue to wreak havoc, destroying many young lives. Suicide rates are among the highest in the world. Corruption and financial mismanagment among first nations bands is the norm.
After years of corporate apologies, generous financial compensation packages, conditions still do not improve. It's easy to point fingers of blame, but there does come a time after 150 years that one has to move on, take ownership of their issues in order to conquer them.
I was speaking to a young man who will be moving his family to a first nations community to work among the people in a social services capacity. He said concerning the first nations people that they need to take responsibility for their actions - to stp the blame game.
Up to this point I have been speaking generalities. There are many first nations communities that are thriving. They have turned their communities into vibrant healthy centres. Good fiscal management and sound investments have created communities that are environmentally sustainable and ecomically thriving. All residents of the reserves benefit and have found freedom and cultural emancipation.
Thank you Stephen for your support. I wrote the piece in an impulse and normally one shouldn't do that, but I was tired of constantly reading in the papers and hearing from TV how I as a privileged inhabitant of a European country had to feel guilty about the world's poverty problems. Of course, there are many examples of how people and countries crawl upwards with big effort. But the problem is that millions of people seem to suffer from two things: motivation to move into the right direction and being imprisoned by local habits and ideologies. Then negativism takes its chance: the others are wrong, the own group is right. This goes that far, that even local traditions, which maintain a set of values and norms, are abandoned and desorientation follows. It's nobody's fault, but so many are delivered in the powerful hands of smart, super-negative agitators and usurpators who simply use desorientation and negativism to impose their will to whole nations, even abusing religious feelings. It's always the same pattern you see returning. I got so mad about it, and I'm glad I could write it without fear of being arrested the other day. Giving is good, but then do something with the gift and don't bring the money to the dealer or a Swiss or Virginian Islands bank (sorry, Switzerland).
Post a Comment