Hypocrisy: USA case study 10,001

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This is an example of the type of hypocrisy in American foreign policy which leaves me disrespecting and untrusting of our government.

Quote:

In Paris, the first stop of his European tour, Baker met with Chirac at the Elysee Palace. Emerging from that session, the American envoy told reporters that "the French and the U.S. governments want to reduce the debt burden on Iraq so that its people can enjoy peace and prosperity." Iraq owes the French government about $3 billion.

A joint statement issued by Bush and the European leaders said that "France, Germany, and the United States agree that there should be substantial debt reduction for Iraq in the Paris Club in 2004, and will work closely with each other and with other countries to achieve this objective. The exact percentage of debt reduction that would constitute 'substantial' debt reduction is subject to future agreement between the parties."

The Paris Club is an informal grouping of 19 Western creditor countries. When a debtor country runs into problems with repayment, the group may coordinate restructuring of the country's loans from foreign governments.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, speaking separately, said debt reduction could take place only after occupation authorities had transferred power to a sovereign Iraqi government. France has repeatedly pressed for such a transfer as the best way to restore peace to the country.

The government of former president Saddam Hussein left behind about $120 billion in debt to foreign governments and private lenders. U.S. officials view reducing that sum or improving repayment conditions as vital preconditions if Iraq is to rebuild its ruined economy. They also want to cut an additional $100 billion that Iraq owes in reparations, mostly to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for damage in the war that began with the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

Now juxtapose that with the realities of African Debt to the West and IMF and World Bank:

Quote:

Arguably, Africa’s most visible crisis is the crisis of poverty. The continent is the poorest in the world and the average African lives on less than $1 a day. At the same time, African countries are forced to repay billions of scarce dollars a week to wealthy nations and institutions in the West such as the World Bank and IMF while millions of Africans continue to die from poverty-related causes.

• Africa spends about $15 billion* a year on debt repayments but gets only $12.7 billion in aid during the same period (World Bank, OECD).

• Africa’s total debt stands at $300 billion (Nepad Secretariat). To put that in perspective, according to Forbes Magazine, 2002, the 18 richest Americans could pay Africa’s total debt with several billion in change.

• All developing countries, including sub-Saharan Africa, pay $1 billion per day in interest on debt (World Bank).

• For every $1 African (developing) countries receive in grants, they pay $13 in interest on debt (World Bank).

• African countries spend up to three times more on debt repayments to wealthy countries and institutions in the West than they spend on health care, food, and education for their sick, illiterate, and hungry millions.

Is debt repayment more important than life

I think that the push by the USA get creditor nations to cancel Iraq;s debt burdens is admission that such debts stifle economic growth and prosperity and the ability to rise out of poverty. However, Iraq having the second largest known oil reserves in the world and only 20 million citizens, is certainly in a much better position than African nations to repay its debts. Yet, Africas debt burden and relief from it, is not zealously being pursued by America, but likely, to the contrary, just the opposite as the USA essentially dominates the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which lends money to Africa.

Certainly Africa has had its share of dictators, yet there was no push to cancel these nations debts after the dictator lost power. Why is Iraq so special? Is it because Iraq sits in a region that is growingly hostile to the USA and has OIL, while African nations present no such current threat? Does such policy then send the message that the only way to get help is to be a threat? Is this why in America, money and programs pour into communities after episodes of civil disobedience or riots? Should Africans become terrorist, just so that they can get some actionable attention and assistance from the West?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,153 • Replies: 17

No top replies

You have got to be kidding...

I can't think of any country in Africa that would want America to do for them what we did for Iraq.

Let's see.. 10 years of crippling sanctions causing tens of thousands of deaths. This being followed (and preceded) by the dropping of tons of bombs leading to thousands of deaths and the destruction of the infrastructure. This being followed by an invasion then a military occupation with the resulting chaos, and the complete disruption of any kind of civil life.

To which African country are you saying we should give this "special" treatment?

I am sorry but the situation in Africa is not at all comparable to the situation in Iraq - and frankly any sane person would agree that the Iraqi's have it much worse. It seems reasonable the US has a special responsibility to a country after it has invaded and caused so much upheaval.

I am all for debt relief for African countries ... but narrow-minded whining really bothers me.

0 Replies

Hey Noah, you're not the only one who finds these policies hypocritical and short sighted. This isn't even the first time I've seen the comparison.
When it comes to Iraq I don't think the american administration sees anything clearly and there policies in Iraq and elesewhere are bound to cause more and more worldwide friction. Most of us can only sit back and wait for the fallout.

I don't think a rise in terrorism will help any cause. Many other nations are attempting to eradicate african debt regardless of the american aim. The US is one country not everything.

0 Replies

I think that if one looks empirically at the data, the USA has a tendency of promoting security via promoting prosperity. The USA helped to rebuild nations that once threatened America and the world, such as Japan and Germany. The USA correctly believes that prosperity reduces the risk of violence. However, the USA is not intensely proactive in this approach until these nations become a threat to the USA or its interest.

Iraq never attacked America. Iraq has never actually been a threat to American safety, rather, it was perceived as a potential FUTURE threat. Be that as it may, every nation is a potential future threat whether friend or foe currently. The Iraq war was more about the region and the Arab or Muslim world, than it was about Iraq. It was the new Domino theory being applied to the Middle East. The USA believes that if it can make a success out of Iraq via capitalism and democracy, then it will have a domino effect in the region and reduce the breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism against the west.

This Iraq situation is a case study of what policies need to be taken when to really want to improve nations viability. It is obvious to me that the USA and the powerful nations of the West have no real interest in seeing African nations rise from poverty. The USA wields the most power in international monetary institutions should as the World Band and IMF. These institutions present PRECONDITIONS to African nations that is predicated on them ALWAYS servicing the interest debt on their loans, as well as, certain political and social conditions before they can get current loans and assistance.

0 Replies

First, I agree that the US (and other Western nations) have a responsibitity to help African nations economically.

However, I don't think that it is worthwhile to compare the situation in Africa with the other examples you have given.

Every nation you mentioned was defeated militarily by the United States with devestating effects to their own people. Germany was destroyed by the Allies including devestating firebomb attacks. Japan faced the only nuclear attacks in history.

So I would correct your observation by saying "the USA is not intensely proactive ... until they soundly defeat these nations militarily".

Whether this is a good thing or not is a matter for debate.

So the model seems to be, America attacks a nation, deposes the current regime, destroys the infrastructure in a violent military action. After this America provides the money energy and support to rebuild the nation in a form that is acceptable to American interests.

This is what happened to German, Japan and Iraq.

What African country would you care to add to this list?

0 Replies

You see destruction only in terms of bombs and missiles. Africa was destroyed by the slave trade and of European colonization and manipulation and the USA cold war policies against the Soviet Union, which destabilized and propped up dictatorships in the continent. All things precipitated by OUTSIDERS FROM THE WEST. The idea that Africans owe the West, after the west for centuries took human lives from the continent, extracted valuable minerals from the ground and colonized nearly all the people of the continent is truly nefarious. Those debts should be written off immediately as Europeans have taken more from Africa, than they have ever given.

0 Replies

For those who may be interested, National Public Radio's weekday "Talk of the Nation" program is doing a review of the foreign policy challenges for 2004, and today they are zeroing in on Africa, Latin America and Europe:

Talk of the Nation[/color]

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

For those who may be interested, National Public Radio's weekday "Talk of the Nation" program is doing a review of the foreign policy challenges for 2004, and today they are zeroing in on Africa, Latin America and Europe:

Talk of the Nation[/color]

will they present this program through the prism that American white people are responsible for every ill ever visited on the black man?

If not, don't waste Noahs time.

0 Replies

Noah The African wrote:

Africa was destroyed by the slave trade and of European colonization and manipulation and the USA cold war policies against the Soviet Union, which destabilized and propped up dictatorships in the continent. All things precipitated by OUTSIDERS FROM THE WEST.

I agree with all that you say here.

Noah the African wrote:

The idea that Africans owe the West, after the west for centuries took human lives from the continent, extracted valuable minerals from the ground and colonized nearly all the people of the continent is truly nefarious. Those debts should be written off immediately as Europeans have taken more from Africa, than they have ever given.

This simplistic "writing off debts" is a logistical nightmare. Do you see this as a one time thing, or does it mean all future debts as well. Doesn't this mean that Africa will be isolated from the world economy with no way to get future credit? Isn't this also unfair to the nations who lent to African countries in the past?

It seems to me that the best thing for all is for all regions of the world, including Africa, to participate in the world economy.

There should be help for developing regions (Africa, Latin-America and the Middle-East for example) nearly all who have all been treated unfairly in the past. At some point, the world must go on together.

0 Replies

ebrown you are as usual an oasis of reasonableness, a claim I can't make for myself. I admire your posts. Just wanted to throw that in.

0 Replies

Noah,

I am a bit curious about your use of the term "African". Africa is a very large continent is comprised of many very different cultures.

You speak of Africa as if it were one country. I have friends from Cameroon and from Kenya who identify much more closely with their nations than with their continent.

My friend from Kenya is very perplexed that African-Americans are always talking to him about the legacy of slavery. He points out that the slave trade was never prominant in Kenya and that slavery is no more a part of his history than the Spanish Inquisition is a part of Danish heritage.

I would feel quite odd about calling myself "Eric the Latin-American", "Eric the European" or "Eric the Asian.

0 Replies

You must remember this: Out of many became one people. African Americans lineage likely comes from all over West Africa. It would not make sense for African Americans to refer to themselves as Nigerian Americans, Ghanaian Americans, Angolan Americans or any other nation in Africa, because our genes come from ALL OVER WEST AFRICA. Maybe it would be more appropriate to say WEST AFRICAN AMERICAN. However, East African was colonized and Kenya was British East Africa. Slavery and colonization was born from the same phenomenon, which was western civilization. This is why African Americans feel that Kenyans should be able to relate. However, most Africans are less cognitive of the effects of history upon the present than are African Americans or West African Americans. It does not make them more right or more wrong or more righteous or unrighteous.

0 Replies

Slavery was first made into a commercial enterprise in Africa by Muslims, and not by Europeans. It had been established and running well as a profitable concern centuries before the Dutch began a large-scale slave trade to the New World. It might be attractive to you to make gross misstatements about history in order to prop up your screed, but you won't get away with it here for very long.

The West African Negroe became the "slave of choice" as the result of a physical anomaly not then understood. The quaternary stage of the life cycle of malaria involves the colonization of the red blood cells. Sycle-cell anemia is prevalent to a slight degree among West African Negroes--the Korean penninsula is the only other place in the world that i know of in which this is true, but they weren't being shipped out as slaves, the Japanese simply enslaved them in situ. Therefore, the West African Negroe was highly resistant to malaria. The Spanish who first came to the New World were largely drawn from veterans of Cordoba's campaigns in Italy at the time of the Wars of the Reformation. They brought malaria to the West Indies with them, it is originally from Italy. Malaria eventually killed off the Arawak, the Caribs, even the Chinese who were once imported to work in the sugar fields, and most of those Africans brought over as slaves who did have a genetic propensity to sycle-cell anemia. Slaves were first introduced into the English colonies of North America at Jamestown (1609) when a Dutch captain sold blacks destined for the West Indies in order to buy provisions for his "cargo" and crew. The great majority of slaves in what became the United States came from the West Indian slave trade, and hence the great prevelance of sycle-cell anemia among black Americans.

Your statement to the effect: "However, most Africans are less cognitive of the effects of history upon the present than are African Americans or West African Americans."--is a blatantly racist remark, regardless of your heritage, or the color of your skin. Your last post demonstrates, to my satisfaction at least, that they are not the only ones who might be described as "less cognitive about the effects of history upon the present." The most thoroughly researched studies of the slave trade which i have ever encountered have been produced by the Dutch, who have the best access to European records on the subject.

0 Replies

You raise some interesting issues.

You are wrong to say that slavery comes "from western civilization".

The first recorded system of slavery that I know of was from an African civilization well before "Western civilization" was developed. Slavery has been used throughout history by many cultures. It is wrong to label it as a product of an singular civilization.

Likewise colonization was being practiced in Africa (and Asia and Central America) long before the Europeans arrived.

I agree that "Out of many bacame one people." This to me represents the ideal of the American Melting pot. A large number of people in the United States now have both Eurpean and African anscestry (as well as Asian and Native American). Each culture has made its contributions, commited its crimes and suffered from others.

But assuming that you were born and raised in the US, you are a product of what you call "Western Civilization".

You benefit from its strengths. It is clear to me that you have a western education. You display a western view of the ideal of justice and a command of the western style of rhetoric. You are using the technology that was born from the "Western Civilization" to discuss this in very fluent English.

I would also presume, if you live in the US, you enjoy a higher standard of living than most of the rest of the world.

Here is my point. All of us have different ancestries (many of us are a mix of several). In the past each of our ancestors did great things and terrible things. And yes, this history does have an effect on our present.

Yet we all share a common civilization now. If you grew up in the US I would bet you have more in common with me, than with someone born and raised in Africa. This is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It is just the culture and civilization that we inherited.

What is important is how we live life in the present as we are now. I frankly don't have time to worry about which ancestors enslaved which of my other ancestors.

I don't much care about these discussions which races are good and which are evil because I know that people are people. Every time and every place have had their heroes and villians. I know this both from history and from today.

Let's live today and address the problems of today.

I am all for helping Africa - even with regard to the wrongs that European Contries and the US commited in the past. I think we should spend a lot more money and energy particularly with the current AIDS crisis.

But we should do this regardless of our anscestry. We have spent too much time being white, black, red, yellow and brown.

It is time for us to start being human.

0 Replies

My only response is to have some of you learn to use CONTEXT to gain understanding and not take phrases literally, so that you can have a rebuttal that repudiates. In the context of African/American relations, slavery was born from Western civilization.

0 Replies

Noah, did you not read the posts immediately above yours?

0 Replies

I understand perfectly the context of your remarks--you've got a big chip on your shoulder, and you will hear nothing which does not support your twisted thesis. You're willing to go to the extent of describing East Africans as devoid of the ability to understand history, unable to form an intelligent assessment of the lessons of history, just to prop up your hatefulness. You're a sad case.

0 Replies

I believe the after effects of slavery in the USA would possibly have long since faded, but for Jim Crow laws and white attitudes toward black Americans. If we could address the post civil war problems adequately, on both sides of the color line, I believe slavery would become a moot point. Then nobody would make it a personal issue to pinpoint the blame and scholars would have less reason to skew their information.

0 Replies

Hypocrisy: USA case study 10,001

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know