Is Rumsfeld trying to provoke North Korea?

Lash

My protest was only with your apparent claim that the majority of foreign aid was directed to prevention of weapons construction (though I do acknowledge that there is foreign aid which is undoubtedly returned to America via weapons purchases by receipt countries from American weapons salesguys). Tons of data on foreign aid here... http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/ercdesk/foreignaidFARQ.html

As to why the US gives aid to so many countries with bad guys in charge...well, that's not very often for humanitarian reasons at all, but rather to protect the investments of American financial interests or to have pawns in play for the power chess games which imperial powers are wont to engage in.

If more (much more) of the percentage of foreign aid and even military investment actually went towards humanitarian causes rather than what it does go to, I'd be a happier fella - and the US wouldn't have quite so many folks in the rest of the world rudely giving the US the finger.

Nothing there to dispute.



timber

blatham, That's makes two of us! What is really sad is that our government never learns from history. We keep shelling out all those billions for the wrong causes, and oftentimes the people in power only pocket the money for themselves. c.i.

ci

Oftentimes, I think it is clearly understood that those people in power will keep much of the money for themselves (Marcos, Noriega, the Shah, etc). Forwarding democracy and alleviating suffering are noble and worthwhile motives, just not the ones most commonly in play. How much aid do we suppose would have been marked for North Korea's starving millions if the glorious leader was merely odd?

OOOP! .... wrong thread. Carry on, pardon the interuption, please.



timber

\

You've come around to my point, but squewed it. Can you see how we may give money to produce certain behavior (i.e. which seems to be at the time to aid democracy in an unstable country), but the reality is the money is not used for the purposes we sought due to corruption of the leaders of the country or the money's later use in something that was not on the horizon when we made the transaction. Do you think we wanted Imelda Marcos to have all those damn shoes? You make your best play for propping up Democracy, which we ALL benefit from. We are denounced for trying. But we are trying for the UK, for Israel, for Canada, Italy, the freakin' French (I'm still mad about their short memory)...
The US is not to blame for the corruption of African leaders, of Noriega, of Marcos, or the inability of the Arabs to climb out of the Stone Age. THEY are responsible.

I wish Humanitarian Aid went to feed and shelter people, but as you admit in your post, it goes to protect American investments...you think financial assets. It is for law enforcement protection for American Embassies, citizens abroad in hostile countries, intelligence, and to pay them off for not joining in with the global mob mentality.

We are increasingly living in one town together. The have nots want our stuff. It is not our fault they are in the predicament they are in, but they don't care about that. Try having a philosphical discussion with a mugger. We are, in essence paying off would-be muggers.

The Mafia calls it "Protection Money". We call it 'humanitarian aid.'

There was a 'town hall' meeting at New York University on the subject of 'how can we help the people in third world countries?' last night. If you can travel to country x, and meet individual m, how would you try to help him? Most of the students thought they needed to help them develop an individual such as Gandhi, who can make dramatic changes of the whole populace. Some thought we needed to help them improve their educational system. Others thought we needed to learn more about their culture, and less preaching about American democracy. One student said, unless we are willing to share our wealth, we can't have everybody in third world countries advance to our stage of economic development, simply because there is a limit to natural resources. Now, where does this fit into this discussion? It just goes to show that any foreign aid that the US gives to leaders such as the one that now represents the North Koreans will do no good. The leaders will only use it to advance their military while the average North Korean continues to suffer depravation/starvation. Our government only exacerbates these problems for ourselves and the world. c.i.

A cogent, and very troublesome in it's implication, observation, c.i.
Indeed, getting "Foreign Aid" to improve the lot of foreigners is a difficult proposition. The structure of society being as it is, Administration is required of any activity conducted among governments. Bureaucracies and entrenched power systems being what they are, a great deal of Foreign Aid gets no further than The Administration charged with its dissemination to the intended populace.

The concept itself calls for re-examination. As observed on another thread, there are great similarities between our systems of Foreign Aid and of Domestic Welfare. Neither accomplishes its goal, and the two engender resentment both of and from their intended recipients.



timber.

And, because timber types abominably, while ignoring "Spellcheck", this post was edited upon timber's first reading of its publication to the forum.

If I weren't so technologically challenged, I'd paste a related article that came out on the AP this morning. "US offers aid to Turkey in the Event of War."
Turkey says they think they need 28 BILLION. (You NEED a certain amount of 'humanitarian aid?'?)
Sure, we'll pay. We have to pay for their support. We have to pay for almost everyone's support.
And this is an example of The Ugly American. What if Mrs. Turkey goes out and buys 3,000 pair of shoes? What if four years from now, Turkey gets a wild hair and goes to war with a neighbor, fueled by this money we're giving them? The world will point their collective, jealous finger of blame to....Turkey? Not when it's so much more fun to blame America.

Why is no one complaining about the Frenchies' military build up on the Ivory Coast? I guess it's OK when other countries meddled in foreign affairs.

In the mean time, the citizens of this country are losing their jobs and unemployment benefits. Our government is not only "crazy," but heartless toward its own people. Ever wonder who gets elected into office? We have found the enemy, and they is us. c.i.

Lash Yes, I think exactly that. Of course, what she spent her money on is irrelevant, but that she and hubby would get it (tons of it) to spend is precisely what was wanted. Humanitarian concerns in Indonesia were NOT high on the US's list of priorities (East Timor, just for starters) and frankly, they seldom are. Corruption is commonly enhanced and supported by the US (and other western states) because peasant uprisings and unpredictable election results are likely to be bad for business, or to some presently fashionable notion of strategic balances. The 'humanitarian' word enters in here as spin. Not always, but probably usually. Of course, this is not merely morally repugnant, it is stupid in the way that hubris always is. You suggest the 'have nots' want what we have. Sure. For example, the folks in Bhopal have, after all these years, yet to see a penny. I suspect there are not a lot of American flags waving in those neighborhoods.

If your point is that 'humanitarian aid' is a euphemism, or more correctly, a lie, as a term to describe where US money mainly goes, then we are agreed.

If your point is that we (in the west) shouldn't give aid because it will just end up in the hands of bad guys, then, no, I don't agree with you.

In historic times in North America, the attempts to "buy" land or to "lease" land with the provision of on-going gifts of "aid" (i.e., blankets, pots, hatchets, beads, etc.) was seen simply as the payment of tribute. Those who currently wish to rewrite history by insisting that Amerindians had no concept of land ownership are playing fast and loose with the truth. The Iroquois confederation quickly and correctly assessed European notions of polity and ownership, and "sold" the lands upon which those tribes known to the Dutch and English as the Delaware had lived--saying that the land was theirs by right of conquest. Similarly, tribes which refused the rights of hunting, or even of passage on certain tracts to other tribes definitely displayed a concept of "ownership." When given amounts of goods (such as the $1250.00 in goods distributed by W. H. Harrison at Fort Washington {Cincinnati}--a huge sum in that day) by Americans, they quite well understood the concept of the rights to land use being leased. The problem came with the treaty provisions for on-going aid; this was interpreted as tribute, and the "sale" in the eyes of the Americans was a "lease" in the eyes of tribes, which did not entitle the Americans to make settlements.

A similarly "un-consonant" view of foreign aid arises between all the parties in a modern foreign aid agreement. The American diplomat and the tin-horn dictator probably see these payments in the truest light--basically, either protection money for American economic interests, or support to shore up that dictator as a bulwark against those elements in that nation's polity which are seen as undesirable or threatening by America. The people of the nation recieving the aid may well have had expectations which will go unfulfilled--or they may have had no illusions initially, and they will have seen this money as either a subvention of the corrupt regime, or have seen it as "tribute," in the sense of money paid to keep them quiet, if by no other means, than by the oppressive machinery of the regime. The American public may likely regale itself with visions of hydroelectric projects, agricultural development aid, infrastructure projects--all the things which would make foreign aid a laudable transaction; all the things which it is most unlikely that they will get.

It is interesting to see how the Ibn Saud family has handled this sort of "blood money." Knowing very well how the clan and tribe structure of their region works, they have carefully paid to have housing built, or desalinization plants, or irrigation projects--which projects will be aimed at a particular group, and will be understood by all concerned for exactly what they are. The local government will take as much credit as the situation allows for having got what the people need or want; the local social and religious leaders will understand that this functions as a bribe, or as a form of "protection" money (freely offered to those who pose no direct threat to the Ibn Saud clan, but offered to help prop up a regime in whose survival the Saudis take a close interest); the Ibn Saud clan will wrap themselves in the green flag of Companions of the Prophet, as they seek to assure their continued position as the legitimate caretakers of the holy places of Islam, willing to share their wealth with less fortunate muslims. I don't suggest that the US can behave exactly as does the Ibn Saud clan; but we could certainly take some lessons in real politik from them, and make an effort to get some real value from foreign aid, and not simply be seen to prop up oppressive regimes in order to facilitate the greed of American capitalists.

ci and timber

You guys are getting into an area (economics theories and justice issues related to the huge disparity of wealth in the world) which is no small potato.

If you head there, I'll follow. But perhaps a separate thread might be more orderly (we liberals LOVE order).

Nihilistic Reformed Drunken Irishmen, however, revel in the great stew of competing voices, shouting over the din of the late-night hubbub in some seedy, out of the way shabeen.

c.i.--
I read the article you refer to: 800,000 to lose jobless benefits Saturday. The Senate failed to take up the business of an extension because, as usual the Dems wanted too much, and the GOP believed there should be criteria for those recieving an extension.

After reading the whole article, I agree with the GOP. One woman stated, "I guess I'll just have to work at night, so my husband can work during the day and we can stay home with our children. (!) Yes, she certainly should work if she is able, which she is.

There are plenty of us who worked a nightshift because it was all that was available. There are plenty of people on the unemployment rolls who are waiting around for the job they want, instead of taking the job they need. When unemployment runs out, they run out and get a job.

Setanta-- I was in complete agreement with your observations until the last few words. Does it always have to be due to the greed of American capitalists? You don't think the US can ever be working in the interests of the safety of Democracy?

blatham, You are absolute right! We need to watch how much we tend to deviate from the primary issue. Your reminder is appreciated. c.i.

I was wondering how this got off onto unemployment insurance (which should be a new thread) but I might remind anyone that even though an employer pays that insurance, it's clocked into how much they pay an employee. I suggest that one pays much more into the insurance over a lifetime than they are ever able to collect so a little leniency in their finding a job similar to the one they had is not a handout.

No, it does not. But this is what i mean by the several voices in the transaction not being consonant. What Americans as a people may aspire to is not necessarily a part of the real politik of the administration which in fact distributes American largesse. I would much prefer to see our foreign aid go to the support of democratic institutions overseas, and working in the interests of the safety of democracy. I am very sceptical that this will be the object of the administration which disburses these sums.

One last comment on unemployment insurance. IMHO, both Lash and LW has provided some 'truths' about UI. It's not all or nothing. c.i.