Originally posted by deessell
I have finally come to the conclusion, after ten years in developing countries, that the corporations do MORE for the development of third world
countries. Yes, more to modernize and develop than any of the aid agencies that have been here for what seems like forever.
All things are relative. If you take Tanzania as an example, there, a great deal has been invested in developing the industrial infrastructure,
providing irrigation systems, communications and sanitation and therefore ensuring employment both for the present and the future. However, very,
very little has been invested in health and education. The native population of Tanzania is currently beset by both HIV and Malaria, and without
effective education and health programmes it will continue to be so. And furthermore, without education, the local populaton will not be meeting the
needs of the modern society that is being created there. The technical expertise to develop Tanzania has been imported. Their children are educated
in private schools, and treated in private hospitals. Obviously, there is a downflow of economic prosperity, but most of the native population of
Tanzania are still reliant on assistance, it just means that that assistance is coming direct from corporations and not being channelled via aid
agencies. An NGO that is funded by corporate funds, is still, to all intents and purposes, a hand out. In the meantime, the population continues to
succumb to AIDS and Malaria leaving more room for none natives to move in and exploit Tanzania's natural resources, and given the lack of emphasis on
health care, and more importantly, birth control, they also continue to reproduce and thereby provide an uneducated and needy workforce ripe for
It is not the place of an aid agency to 'develop', it is the role of aid agencies to respond to crisis. While I can see what you may be implying, the
corporations while seeming to improve conditions, are not doing so across the board, they are merely applying a veneer that make the prospect of
redeployment for their western personnel and their families more attractive and hospitable. Those at the bottom, remain there, but they are simply
less obvious, and usually, in the case of places such as Nigeria and the Congo, hidden away in enclaves.
Originally posted by deessell
I was an idealist like you, now I am a realist. Yes, some of the conditions are bad for workers, but you have to understand that their life before
the factory was much worse. People want work, not handouts.
I think that you have that arse backwards. You seem to be the idealist here, or at least, you seem to believe the glossy brochure. Yes people want
work, not handouts, but they also want a future that is sustainable. Another example, and one most suited to the argument that you have given. The
Carpathian mountains are incredibly rich in minerals, currently the mining companies, using the very same argument that you are, are promising jobs to
the local population if they allow them to buy their land and support their concessions. Given that there is gold in some of those thar hills, the
benefits will be massive, and of course, the economy will boom. And boy do those people need a boom. But, look at the small print. The operations
proposed have a life expectancy of 20 years...and all the technical expertise will be imported, not to mention the fact that the process by which the
gold is to be extracted involves a highly environmentally toxic arsenic effulent that will likely decimate what is the most biodiverse area in
Europe.... What happens after 20 years? Bust and most definately broken.
I don't lack realism, I can assure you.
edit on 29-8-2012 by Biliverdin because: grammar