The Future of Humanitarian Relief?

[mischievious]

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/arc...e_future_of_h/

from the above:

In the post-9/11 world they are more often working in battlefields. Attacks on aid workers in Somalia and Afghanistan have become so prominent, agencies are pulling workers out of these areas. (NYT) Zimbabwe, Myanmar, and Somalia are just a few of the countries to ban or restrict the work of relief agencies in recent years

Now an aid worker in Sudan, Somalia, or Afghanistan is almost as likely to be attacked as military personnel.

This also leaves a significant void in the sphere of foreign aid.

Most likely this void would be filled by the UN, which has many more constraints on its operations than the private aid organizations, or worse, the military becomes the new face of relief work. AFRICOM, commonly referred to as the Peace Corp with guns, is a prime example of this

[mischievious]

I guess no one cares about aid workers then..... Red Cross pack your bags we want you home and safe.

Just because people don't comment, doesn't mean they don't care - it could mean they have nothing (of value) to add.....

[idi banashapan]

Why should it be down to 'us' to police and help these people? it seems globally expected that 'we' should always run to the aid of these countries who seem intent on their own self distruction... perhaps we should just let them get on with it?

If we give them back all the people, minerals and other resources we removed during our Empire-building phase - fair enough.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

If we give them back all the people, minerals and other resources we removed during our Empire-building phase - fair enough.

Not just in the Empire-building phase, I heard a terrible statistic the other day that for every dollar we give in aid we take 4 out, presumably through high interest loans, unfair trade agreements and the continued pillaging of resources.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Not just in the Empire-building phase, I heard a terrible statistic the other day that for every dollar we give in aid we take 4 out, presumably through high interest loans, unfair trade agreements and the continued pillaging of resources.

would that be yet MORE evidence to the theory that the 1st world is to blame for 3rd world issues? I think maybe....

[sollp]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

If we give them back all the people, minerals and other resources we removed during our Empire-building phase - fair enough.

Well you starting first then, what you going to start sending back? Everything we have and where we are is based on it, so lets send it all back.

[mischievious]

This is a twist I hadn't considered

From where I am, I was thinking that the conversation might focus more on Red Cross and other unarmed volunteers being targeted as the enemy by hostile military factions.....

Still the west being responsible for 3rd world issues is interesting.

Charity begins at home .. we should concentrate on aiding our own people first.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Not just in the Empire-building phase, I heard a terrible statistic the other day that for every dollar we give in aid we take 4 out, presumably through high interest loans, unfair trade agreements and the continued pillaging of resources.

Seems quite a few people don't want to acknowledge that fact TheDaddy

Originally Posted by sollp

Well you starting first then, what you going to start sending back? Everything we have and where we are is based on it, so lets send it all back.

No one is seriously suggesting we hand over the entire resources of the country over, instead it's perfectly fair and logical that we provide aid. The levels of poverty are unimaginable and people may argue that it should be considered basic humanity to try and alleviate at least some of the burden.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

No one is seriously suggesting we hand over the entire resources of the country over, instead it's perfectly fair and logical that we provide aid. The levels of poverty are unimaginable and people may argue that it should be considered basic humanity to try and alleviate at least some of the burden.

And if that's not enough, some people may want to consider what'll happen if we don't. Already, many Africans are prepared to risk their lives in wretched little boats trying to get to Europe (and many die in the process). Without aid, this will only get worse.

[sollp]

Originally Posted by Damien

No one is seriously suggesting we hand over the entire resources of the country over, instead it's perfectly fair and logical that we provide aid. The levels of poverty are unimaginable and people may argue that it should be considered basic humanity to try and alleviate at least some of the burden.

Thought that is what we already do: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g8-396477.html

How much of a debt do we owe to the ex Empire countries? Just keep pumping in money because we had an Empire years ago and we should feel guilty about? Of course it's because of the old Empire that these countries are in the mess they are in

Of course the dictators of these countires will enjoy all this aid given by our governments and ohters, and of course red nose day money, gotta keep them in Saloons for there convoys.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Damien

No one is seriously suggesting we hand over the entire resources of the country over, instead it's perfectly fair and logical that we provide aid. The levels of poverty are unimaginable and people may argue that it should be considered basic humanity to try and alleviate at least some of the burden.

what you seem to have neglected is the following;

3rd world is overpopulated, poor, starving and rife with disease. all these factors will kill a huge number of people. so what should we do?

1) send aid. help the overpopulated stay alive by giving vaccines and medicines. they will then require more aid to continue to keep them free from disease. this larger population will also need somewhere to live, but there is no money for shelter, so we could send more aid. with more people in poverty and dirty conditions, disease will flourish and food will become scarce with so many to feed. we could send them more money for food and more medicine and more shelter. but these people are still very poor, so they cannot support themselves. so we could send them more money for more food, more medicine, more shelter. being there are a larger number of poeople who are now slightly more protected from disease, and they have a hut to live in, and they are not as hungry as last year, the chances of their children surviving is higher. so the population will increase. so now we need to send yet more money for the extra people who need medicine, food, shelter. and so the cycle continues. our aid will continue to hamper the natural development of these people as they become more and more dependant on outside help.

2) let natural selection take it's course. the population will inevitably decrease, and so will the need for aid. these people can learn ways of standing on their own 2 feet and begin to make their own way. they are not dependant on us and become fully self sufficient in respect of dealing with issues and crisis that come their way.


harsh as it seems, ALL civilisations had to go through option 2, and we didn't turn out too badly for it. the difference is, no one came to our help on such a scale. we did it ourselves.

so tell me. how is our aid going to help in the long term? a short term fix, maybe. but we will only be making it worse for the future.