• The Legacy of European Colonialism
  European colonialism had a devastating impact on Africa; the artificial boundaries created by colonial rulers as they ruled and finally left Africa had the effect of bringing together many different ethnic people within a nation that did not reflect, nor have (in such a short period of time) the ability to accommodate or provide for, the cultural and ethnic diversity. The freedom from imperial powers was, and is still, not a smooth transition.
  
  
• The natural struggle to rebuild is proving difficult
  The natural struggle to rebuild is proving difficult and the transit from colonialism to a so-called modern society is not an easy, short one and it can not be overcome in just few years.
  
  "We must remember that the European agreements that had carved up Africa into states paid little attention to cultural and ethnic boundaries and ethnic groups had little opportunity or need to form political alliances or accommodations under repressive colonial rule."
  Richard H. Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism
  
  
• Unequal International Trade; Comparative Disadvantage
  Colonialism had thus transformed an entire continent. Vast plantations and cash crop-based, or other extractive economies were set up throughout. Even as colonial administrators parted, they left behind supportive elites that, in effect, continued the siphoning of Africa's wealth. Thus has colonialism had a major impact on the economics of the region today. Colonialism in the traditional sense may have ended, but the end results are much the same.
  
  
• Cold War by Proxy; Supporting and Arming Dictatorships in Africa
  Throughout the Cold War, major powers such as the USA, the Soviet Union and others supported various regimes and dictatorships. Some possibly promising leaders in the early days of the indepence movements throughout the Third World were overthrown.
  
  
• Corporate Interests, Exploitation, Corruption and Other Issues
  Corporate interests and activities in Africa have also contributed to exploitation, conflict and poverty for ordinary people while enriching African and foreign elites. Just an easy acess to vast natural resources and to fuel rebellions with arms sales.

• There are around half a billion military small arms around the world
  
  
• They are the major cause of civilian casualties in modern conflicts
  
  
• Some 300,000 to half a million people around the world are killed by them each year

The Arms Industry

From 1998 to 2001, the USA, the UK, and France earned more income from arms sales to developing countries than they gave in aid.

The arms industry is unlike any other. It operates without regulation. It suffers from widespread corruption and bribes. And it makes its profits on the back of machines designed to kill and maim human beings.

"We can’t have it both ways. We can’t be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of arms."
Former US President Jimmy Carter, presidential campaign, 1976

World Policy Institute

• The United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflicts
  
  
• More than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world (13) were defined as undemocratic by the State Department
  
  
• When countries designated by the State Department’s Human Rights Report to have poor human rights records or serious patterns of abuse are factored in, 20 of the top 25 U.S. arms clients in the developing world in 2003—a full 80%—were either undemocratic regimes or governments with records of major human rights abuses.

A Ban on Private Ownership of Military Weapons Including Assault Rifles and Grenade Launchers? Bush Administration Just Says NO!

John Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control, bluntly told the delegates that “The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” He also said the United States, the largest supplier of arms worldwide, would not support moves to outlaw any arming of rebel groups, nor would it help fund a campaign by human rights groups to raise awareness of the trade. He also said the U.S. would not support a ban on private ownership of military weapons, including assault rifles and grenade launchers.

UN Conference on Small Arms

The Conference, held July 9-20, 2001, began on a rather sour tone with the statement of U.S. Under Secretary of State John Bolton, who expressed the U.S. position on the issue of small arms and the Conference in no uncertain terms. Bolton stressed that the Conference should address only the illicit transfer of military style weapons, excluding firearms and non-military rifles (the weapons responsible for terrible carnage and destruction around the world every year).

Bolton bluntly stated the position of the United States in front of the ministerial-level portion of the meeting, describing the U.S. “redlines,” items unacceptable for inclusion in the Conference plan. Bolton stated that the United States could not support a final Conference document that included:

• restrictions on the legal trade and manufacture of small arms and light weapons;
  
• promotion of international advocacy by NGOs and international organizations;
  
• restrictions on the sale of small arms and light weapons to entities other than governments;
  
• a mandatory review conference; and
  
• a commitment to begin discussions on legally binding agreements.

Meeting the Challenge of Poverty Reduction

Some Northern governments have stressed that “trade not aid” should be the dominant theme at the [March 2002 Monterrey] conference [on Financing for Development]. That approach is disingenuous on two counts. First, rich countries have failed to open their markets to poor countries. Second, increased aid is vital for the world’s poorest countries if they are to grasp the opportunities provided through trade.

Net ODA in 2004 as US dollar amounts

Monterrey : US Will 'Seek Advice On Spending Aid

"Commenting on the latest US pledge [of $10 billion], Julian Borger and Charlotte Denny of the Guardian (UK) say Washington is desperate to deflect attention in Monterrey from the size of its aid budget. But for more generous donors, says the story, Washington’s conversion to the cause of effective aid spending is hard to swallow. Among the big donors, the US has the worst record for spending its aid budget on itself—70 percent of its aid is spent on US goods and services. And more than half is spent in middle income countries in the Middle East. Only $3bn a year goes to South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa."

Myth: More US aid will help the hungry

• First, US economic assistance is highly concentrated on a few governments. Its focus has nothing to do with poverty
  
  
• Second, aid is used as a lever to impose structural adjustment packages on the third world. Since the 1980s US foreign assistance worldwide has been conditioned on the adoption of structural adjustment packages designed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
  
  
• Third, food aid often does not target the hungry. When they hear about foreign aid, many people automatically think of ships loaded with food, but such aid constitutes only a fraction of total U.S. bilateral foreign aid, hovering around 9 percent during the 1990s
  
  
• Fourth, food aid can actually forestall agricultural development that could otherwise alleviate hunger. The inflow of food aid-even in many emergency cases-has proved time and again to be detrimental to local farm economies. Cheap, subsidized, or free U.S. grains undercut the prices of locally produced food, driving local farmers out of business and into cities
  
  
• Fifth, through military aid, the United States contributes directly to armed conflicts around the world-which are a major cause of hunger and famine. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. military aid has declined, yet in 1998 it still totaled $6 billion, outweighing development assistance by a six-to-one ratio
  
  
• Sixth, “good” aid projects serve a public relations, “window dressing” or “fig leaf” function that obscures an uglier reality. Focusing on the best projects funded by USAID can be misleading as to the overall impact of foreign aid
  
  
• Finally, even most “development assistance” fails to help the poor and hungry. Only 18 percent of U.S. bilateral aid is even called development assistance
  
  After years of studying our foreign aid program, we have learned that foreign aid is only as good as the recipient government. Foreign aid only reinforces the status quo. It cannot transform an antidemocratic process working against the majority into a participatory government shaped in its interests.
  
  
  12 Myths About Hunger
  

Puppets of Purse Strings

Thus, status quo in world relations is maintained. Rich countries like the US continue to have a financial lever to dictate what good governance means and to pry open markets of developing countries for multinational corporations. Developing countries have no such handle for Northern markets, even in sectors like agriculture and textiles, where they have an advantage but continue to face trade barriers and subsidies. The estimated annual cost of Northern trade barriers to Southern economies is over US $100 billion, much more than what developing countries receive in aid.

Poverty Facts and Stats

• Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day
  
  
• The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined
  
  
• Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names
  
  
• Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen
  
  
• 51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations
  
  
• The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation
  
  
• The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money
  
  
• 20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the world’s goods
  
  
• The top fifth of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment — the bottom fifth, barely more than 1%
  
  
• In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much
  
  
• The lives of 1.7 million children will be needlessly lost this year [2000] because world governments have failed to reduce poverty levels
  
  
• The developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants
  
  
• A few hundred millionaires now own as much wealth as the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people
  
  
• The 48 poorest countries account for less than 0.4 per cent of global exports
  
  
• The combined wealth of the world’s 200 richest people hit $1 trillion in 1999; the combined incomes of the 582 million people living in the 43 least developed countries is $146 billion
  
  
• Today, across the world, 1.3 billion people live on less than one dollar a day; 3 billion live on under two dollars a day; 1.3 billion have no access to clean water; 3 billion have no access to sanitation; 2 billion have no access to electricity.
  
  
• The richest 50 million people in Europe and North America have the same income as 2.7 billion poor people. The slice of the cake taken by 1% is the same size as that handed to the poorest 57%.
  
  
• The world’s 497 billionaires in 2001 registered a combined wealth of $1.54 trillion, well over the combined gross national products of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa ($929.3 billion) or those of the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and North Africa ($1.34 trillion). It is also greater than the combined incomes of the poorest half of humanity
  
  
• A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World

Do Not Give the Needy Money: Build Them Industries Instead

With the record of corruption within impoverished countries, people will question giving them money. That can be handled by giving them the industry directly, not the money. To build a balanced economy, provide consumer buying power, and develop arteries of commerce that will absorb the production of these industries, contractors and labor in those countries should be used. Legitimacy and security of contracts is the basis of any sound economy. Engineers know what those costs should be and, if cost overruns start coming in, the contractor who has proven incapable should be replaced—just as any good contract would require…. When provided the industry, as opposed to the money to build industry, those people will have physical capital. The only profits to be made then are in production; there is no development money to intercept and send to a Swiss bank account.

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I think part of the point here is if you saw images on TV of Irish or Italian (insert your own heritage here) kids that are 4 feet tall and weigh 20 lbs, with flies buzzing their mouths, you might be singing a different tune ?

maybe ?

maybe you wouldn't say, essentially, they are too stupid and lazy, with no morals or science, to help themselves , so why should we bother ?

So are you in favor of further colonialism in Africa and other places?
It sounds like it.
It sounds like you want to take up The White Man's Burden because they are not able to take care of themselves.

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I think part of the point here is if you saw images on TV of Irish or Italian (insert your own heritage here) kids that are 4 feet tall and weigh 20 lbs, with flies buzzing their mouths, you might be singing a different tune ?

maybe ?

maybe you wouldn't say, essentially, they are too stupid and lazy, with no morals or science, to help themselves , so why should we bother ?

So are you in favor of further colonialism in Africa and other places?
It sounds like it.
It sounds like you want to take up The White Man's Burden because they are not able to take care of themselves.

Agreed. Why should we have to step in and fix everything for them? As Americans our forefathers gathered behind great leaders to revolt versus what they perceived as injust rule. Can those who live on the continent of Africa not do the same? And if they cannot, why do they deserve its rewards? If people cannot throw down petty differences to join and create for themselves a better government then they do not deserve to reap its rewards. Africa will continue to have it's current problems until they decide as humans that they should band together to create a better society. And this is only something that Africans can do themselves.

- Attero

Causes of Hunger are related to Poverty

• Over 9 million people die worldwide each year because of hunger and malnutrition. 5 million are children
  
  
• Meanwhile Food wastage is HIGH:
  * In the United Kingdom, "a shocking 30-40% of all food is NEVER eaten"
  * Overall, £20 billion (approximately $38 billion US dollars) worth of food is THROWN AWAY, every year
  * In the US 40-50% of all food ready for harvest NEVER gets eaten
  
  
• The Effect impacts of this waste is not just financial - Environmentally this leads to:
  * Wasteful use of chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides;
  * More fuel used for transportation;
  * More rotting food, creating more methane — one of the most harmful greenhouse gases that contributes to climate change

They die of diseases because they have not developed the Vaccines and other medicines that the European, Americans and others have developed.
They also haven't developed ways of purifying the water like the Europeans, Americans and have have done. Dirty water is one of the reasons people die.

The White Man's Burden

The White Man's Burden may be read as supporting the U.S. colonization of the Philippines and other former Spanish colonies in his poem or, alternatively, as a warning to the United States of the cost of imperial adventure. Although Kipling's poem mixed exhortation to empire with sober warnings of the costs involved, imperialists within the United States latched onto the phrase "white man's burden" as a euphemism for imperialism that seemed to justify the policy as a noble enterprise.