NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/activism/d/4362

Text File | 1992-12-28 | 5.3 KB | 138 lines

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!ousrvr.oulu.fi!tko.vtt.fi!dfo
From: [e-mail] (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: Mythologies of Foreign Aid (Re: support for US action in Somalia)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: VTT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 08:28:23 GMT
Lines: 126

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (BALDEN, RON) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] (Chris Blask) writes...
>>I'm going to do something terrible, and repost an entire article.  Mr.
>>Foxvog has some wonderfully written words for anyone who didn't catch them
>>the first time.

[Blush]

>>>[Re-repost of Foxvog article omitted]

>>Bravo!  A voice of reason (and probably the majority, American and other)!!

>>Doug, let me personally thank you for summarizing the whole complex
>>situation in such a calm and reasonable fashion, my own internal fires can
>>get a little over-stoked at times.

>>Please, folks, print this out and read it a few times.  Object to bad
>>things, promote good; work with us, people.  Please?

>>-chris blask

>I'd like to explode the floor of fallacious premises (not their fault, I
>should add) Chris Blask and others are standing as they debate the issue
>of "aid" to Somali by pointing out that U.S. "foreign aid" to the Third
>World is a bad thing, **never mind military actions**.

In the method of implementation this is generally so.  In the specific
case of a starving nation, it is not.  Although it is quite likely that
the starvation is a result of actions taken by 1st world nations
initially.

>I should emphasize
>that much of the problem with so-called conventional "foreign aid" on a
>government-to-government basis from the First to the Third world are
>common to all the First World countries, not unique to the U.S.. There
>are some especially problematic aspects with U.S. conventional "foreign
>aid" because of the coupling with extensive U.S. government military
>"aid" and support (as well as installation) of various neo-fascist Third
>World regimes.

Of course.

>"Foreign aid" has been described as "taking money from poor people
>in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries."

This is normally the case and is to be opposed.

>What
>government-to-government  "foreign aid" actually is is a form of subsidy
>to *domestic* agricultural producers and pharmaceutical manufacturers

True.

>(these,
>by the way often "donate" medical supplies which have passed their expiration
>date in their own countries and then get tax breaks for doing so).

I question this.  This has been found to be true of a lot of private aid
(and the recipient countries have to dispose of the outdated medicines),
but i haven't heard of it in govt. aid programs.

>This "donation" of food helps destroy the local subsistence agricultural
>economy.

True if the local agricultural economy still exists.  A major part of
aid in a famine should be seed native to the area and assistance in
getting in the next year's crop.  Often food shortages occur as a result
of foreign manipulation resulting in good land being used for export crops
instead of food for the local population.

Note that the "Food for Peace" program's supplies may NOT be used for
planting next year's crop, they are solely for consumption.  The US
wants to keep their market; aiding food production in other countries is
aid to the "competition."

>A good short (200 pgs.) reference to debunk the misconceptions about
>conventional foreign aid is:

>"Aid as Obstacle:
>Twenty Questions About our Foreign Aid and the Hungry"

>by Francis Moore Lappe, Joseph Collins, and David Kinley (1980,1981)
>Institute for Food and Development Policy
>1885 Mission St.
>San Francisco CA 94103 USA

A very good book.  The Lappes are opposed to food aid *in general* but
do support it as a temporary emergency measure when tied to support for
the redevelopment of the destroyed agricultural system in a country
stricken with famine.

>Various books by Susan George ("A Fate Worse than Debt",
>"Ill Fares the Land", "How the Other Half Dies" and most
>recently  "The Debt Boomerang" (Westview Press, 1992) discuss
>the consequences of IMF/World Bank "development" policies in
>some detail.

_HtOHD_ is good, and knowing Susan George, i would surmise that the
other books would also be informative and useful.

> [A number of reccomended readings deleted to save space.]

>"Let us remember that the main purpose of American aid
>is not to help other nations but to help ourselves."
>                Richard M. Nixon, 1968

>"Food is a weapon, but the way to use it is to tie countries
>to us.  That way they'll be far more reluctant to upset us."
>     John Black, during confirmation hearings to become
>     U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, 1981.

>"[The World Bank] is not in the business of redistributing
>wealth ... It's not the Robin Hood of the international
>financial set."
>      Tom Clausen, President of the World Bank, 1982.

>Ron Balden


Thanks, Ron for the book reccomendations and the advice that the whole
idea of foreign aid must be examined (i almost put "reexamined" but i
don't think that many of us have critically examined it once.).
--
doug foxvog
[e-mail]