Today, BBC figures "suggested" that the government could be cutting aid completely for fourteen developing countries. Lets go through the list, shall we?
- Angola- Britain is not specifically responsible for Angola's situation, as it was a Portuguese colony. However, the Angolan people are victims of European colonisation along with the rest of Africa, and it's up to us the inheritors of wealth that came largely from colonisation to assist those countries who suffered as a result of our expansion. It's also worth noting that Britain invested in Portuguese industrial activities during to colonial period. Angola should receive British aid.
- Bosnia- I don't see Britain as having any specific responsibility towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, other than the usual humanitarian cause. Most Bosniak people are exceptionally poor, and the GDP is 30% that of the average GDP of EU member states. Deficit or no deficit, they are in a far worse situation than us. I say Bosnia probably should receive British aid, but it's not too outrageous if they don't.
- Burundi- A former German then Belgian colony, so same story as Angola. They should receive aid.
- Cameroon- Half of Cameroon was a British colony from 1919 to 1961, during which time it was neglected even more than the other colonies. We share direct responsibility with France and Germany. Should receive aid.
- Cambodia- Victim of European (French) colonisation. Secretly bombed by the US during the Vietnam war, a war which Britain supported. 40,000-150,000 Cambodian civilians died, and the country was entirely neutral. Should receive aid.
- China- It surprised me that China is receiving aid at all, given that their economy is bigger and faster-growing than ours, and their poverty rates are either smaller or insignificantly bigger. I don't really see any point in giving them aid. China should not receive British aid.
- Gambia- Former British colony. Britain is directly responsible. Gambia should receive aid.
- Indonesia- Former Dutch colony, so similar story to Angola etc. Should receive aid, but their economy is fairly strong, so they are not in as much need as several other countries on the list.
- Iraq- I don't think I really need to go into the reasons why Britain is responsible for the instablity and chaos in Iraq. We all know. Should receive aid.
- Kosovo- Very similar story to Bosnia. Should receive aid, but only on a humanitarian basis.
- Lesotho- Colonised by Britain for a time, who fought over it with the Dutch, damaging the people even more. Direct responsibility. Should receive aid.
- Moldova- as with Bosnia and Kovoso. Should receive aid.
- Niger- Former French colony. As with Angola etc. Should receive aid.
- Russia- Some might be surprised as to why the Russians need aid, but they are still fighting bad levels of poverty, partly caused by the conversion to capitalism encouraged by NATO. Should receive aid, but on an almost entirely humanitarian basis.
- Serbia- As with Bosnia etc.
- Vietnam- Almost identical story to Cambodia, but far more innocent deaths from Vietnam War. Should undoubtedly receive British aid.
I think people in Britain need to be made aware of how much suffering and poverty was caused so that our country could be as developed and comfortable as it is. We have a moral responsibility to assist the Third World as much as possible- and helping development in other non-developed countries will help to build ties and strengthen our place in the international community. That's a pretty strong argument before you even get to human ethics.
International aid is a good thing. We all knew it was going to be cut, but it shouldn't be. We need to pay more attention to the need of those beyond our coastlines. We, the British, have reaped so much from the outside world- it's about time we sowed something.
A few thoughts;
ReplyDelete1) There are no [long term] victims of European colonization in Africa- the colonized nations do far better than the uncolonized nations.
2) we have NO moral responsibilities to other nations as Thucydides put it
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"
Thirdly- phrases like;
"Britain is directly responsible. Gambia should receive aid." really distort the argument
What is Britain responsible for? the 81 coup? the borders, the FGM influenced by non western cultural practices the current Presidents authoritarian practices ? You ignore a whole mirad of cultural fa, historical geographical and economic factors and simplify the argument down to- Britain/Europe was once involved they must pay... Same with Lesotho(etal)
Finaly I fail to see why Britain should be responsible for other European nations actions- you haven't presented any criteria to explain why? do you have one?
My $0,02
1) There are no African nations that were not colonised at some point, so how can you demonstrate this?
ReplyDeleteEx-colonies have suffered in the long term. British colonisers set up Western-style hierarchies that the African people were fine without and now, in most cases, are suffering under, as well as the fact we used up a great deal of natural resources in Africa.
2) This depends on your system of morals. I wholeheartedly oppose Thucydides "might is right"-esque idea. IMO, if you have the ability to help someone out of a situation they are suffering in, you have the humanitarian responsibility to use that ability. Westerners were all for contributing to humanitarian aid when it was a big, shiny disaster like the 2004 Tsunami- why are we less keen to help those who struggle every day with finding the means to survive? There is no logical difference whatsoever.
3) I maintain the view, as do many, that the people living in ex-British colonies would be far better off if colonisation had not happened- therefore I hold the British government responsible for righting a wrong they have benefited from.
Geographic factors are minimal- African natural resources are among the richest on earth. Poverty in Africa would not exist at anything close to the rate it does if it were not for both colonisation and international economic protocols that favour the West- global debt, governmental subsidisation of American and European exports.
Corruption and authoritarianism in Africa can be traced back to the colonial era. Plus the fact that Western governments have sponsored/supported several of the regimes. But even these pale in comparison to Western intervention- do you think the most insane dictator wants to deliberately stop the country he runs and receives taxes from from developing? What benefit is that to him? None.
4. Because our present state of wealth is also dependent on our ability to trade with other developed nations. This may be a simplistic comparison, but would you not feel guilty if a hitman paid for a car you sold him with money he had made from killing innocent people?
I think that covers everything. Thank you for the opportunity for argument. :)
I disagree that it is an argument- arguments are unreasonable this is a debate. So in response.
ReplyDeleteFirstly- Though the British established 'Western-style hierarchies' it is untrue that they were 'ok' without.
EXAMPLE- the invasion by Cortes of South America. The Aztec nation practiced human sacrifice and idol worship. They were ruled over by an authoritarian king. Now, however, the area which the Aztecs once occupied is predominantly Catholic, and democratic.
A related case can be made for Africa, Headhunters and the like.
Secondly. Whilst you may feel we as a nation have the 'obligation' to help the truth is we do not- things are often better with out us[more on this later] IMO. Foreign aid is on par with imperial colonization. It assumes we know what is best for each country. Case in point The middle east where 'we' assumed Arabs would never be ready for democracy. Intervention (iraq etc) ended in bloodshed yet we have the current case points.
Tieing 'best practice' to aid is imperial. It's what we do. IMO it's wrong. Better to have an Africa for Africans...
Thirdly- two points firstly-
Authoritarianism was not born out of colonization,Drydens concept of a 'bon sauvage' never existed. Life was nasty brutal and short. The main benefactor of the slave trade was other Africans. People like Shaka Zulu Ruled with an iron fist- your claim, politely, is simply not true.
Aid has been eaten up by dictators- this is a fact. Other nations have had loans and inturn paid off loans other nations have seen their economies explode even though they were comparable to other African nation (case in point Ghana and South Korea)I reject the claim that the IMF,WTO, World bank are to blame...
As for unfair trading practices- thank the EU for that...Case in point the CAP and the Ghana/South Korea issue... Africa needs more open markets and a developed infrastructure. This is built on property rights...
Finally no...
I would feel no more guilty for that than having a father who was in the military who would pay my bills.
It is neither my right nor responsibility to police my neighbor only my self.
India was one of the countries, but it's not in your list... Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteAlso, it would be good to see a post from you sometime about how specifically you think AID should word. Should it be given straight to governments? Should it be distributed amongst the people somehow? Etc.
Ooh, was it? Managed to miss that one...
ReplyDeleteI'm torn between placing it in my "former British colony" category and "strong and strengthening economy" category. The Indians are certainly doing well for themselves, but poverty rates are still pretty high...
Hmm. Given that they're likely to overtake our economy in the foreseeable future, I don't think there's really much point aiding them.
That could be interesting. I shall consider it. Obviously there's a great number of things to consider... *is submerged in ocean of aidy thoughts*
Ryan: Sorry for the late response, for some reason your comment was auto-spam-detected.
ReplyDeleteIt is a debate, but I thought the word debate sounded pretentious. Moving on...
I'm only going to talk briefly on this, but:
a) Don't your first two points kind of contradict each other? You say life in Mexico has improved thanks to Spanish colonisation/intervention, then you say it's bad for the West to intervene assuming we know what's best for other countries?
b) A simple donation of resources is not comparable with trying to dominate other nations. If we are trying to make third world governments behave in a certain way, it doesn't appear to be working, does it? None of the countries on the list are adapting very British-style policies on, well, anything.
c)i) There are a number of conflicting accounts to how life was lived in Africa pre-colonisation.
ii) While I object to authoritarianism, it is not mutually exclusive with high quality of life.
iii) Even assuming life was nasty and brutal and short- what's changed?
d) "Aid has been eaten up by dictators- this is a fact"- I see no further basis than before to accept this as fact, rational or empirical.
e) Interest rates have risen to the extent that some third-world nations have paid three times as much as they originally borrowed, but are still in debt. Who controls this other than the banks?
f) So lessoning African nations in Western economics is less "controlling" than aid, is it?
g)The EU do share a great deal of the blame for subsidisation. But I don't hear even the most Eurosceptic politicians at Westminster calling out against it.