Foreign Aid

[Spasiba]

Why do the US and other rich countries give aid to poorer ones? I understand the Marshall Plan was so that the US could strenghten Europe against the USSR, but what about modern day aid? In particular I'm looking at several Pacific states that were got their independence from the US not long ago (another odd thing, why would the US allow that?). The Marshall Islands for example get aid from the US for at least another decade and a half. There is a missle base there that the US rents out. But why this seemingly benevolent behavior? Why do they care about these places enough to give them millions, why do they rent a place if they could easily just rule over the islands and use it at their own leisure? And finally, the people living there, would they suffer without this help? A lot of jobs are made at bases like this around the world. I'm not trying to sound as if I'm praising imperalism throughout the world, but from what I see it doesn't look to be the iron fisted monster in these areas. I mean, this info is from wikipedia, so take that as you will, but still.

[Pogue]

Why do the US and other rich countries give aid to poorer ones? I understand the Marshall Plan was so that the US could strenghten Europe against the USSR, but what about modern day aid? In particular I'm looking at several Pacific states that were got their independence from the US not long ago (another odd thing, why would the US allow that?). The Marshall Islands for example get aid from the US for at least another decade and a half. There is a missle base there that the US rents out. But why this seemingly benevolent behavior? Why do they care about these places enough to give them millions, why do they rent a place if they could easily just rule over the islands and use it at their own leisure? And finally, the people living there, would they suffer without this help? A lot of jobs are made at bases like this around the world. I'm not trying to sound as if I'm praising imperalism throughout the world, but from what I see it doesn't look to be the iron fisted monster in these areas. I mean, this info is from wikipedia, so take that as you will, but still.

There are different types of aid, conditional and unconditional. The aid countries like the US give is conditional. The countries that receive the aid will be bound to the US in terms of voting in major institutions like the UN. The receiver conuntry is reliant on the donor country, and so, either by the strings attached to the aid (such as, we'lll tell you how to spend it, or interest on it, like a loan) or more 'under the table' agreements such as 'We're friends, right? You agree with us, right? Becuase we're happy to give money, to our friends..."

Basically, the 'aid' is conditional and so allows the donor country to effectively control the country that receives the aid, allowing them to get the country to vote in favour of them, allow the donor country (like the US) to build missile/military bases on the country's land, etc.

[JimmyJazz]

But why this seemingly benevolent behavior?

Because:


For every $1 in aid a developing country receives, over $25 is spent on debt repayment.

Based on World Bank data (accessed March 3, 2008) as follows:

Total debts of the developing world in 2006 (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20394689%7EmenuPK:1192714%7EpagePK:6 4133150%7EpiPK:64133175%7EtheSitePK:239419,00.html ): $2.7 trillion
Total official development assistance in 2006 (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20394658%7EmenuPK:1192714%7EpagePK:6 4133150%7EpiPK:64133175%7EtheSitePK:239419,00.html ): $106 billion

from here (http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats).

So-called "development" loans (this is Newspeak of the highest order; more honest people at least call them "aid" loans) are only given with conditions. And these conditions, which stipulate a free market stance towards the rest of the world and no protectionism whatsoever, are literally designed to prevent undeveloped countries from developing their own industrial sectors. We give out a little aid; in return we remain the only major manufacturing players in the world and prevent new competitors from cropping up. Instead of developing their own capital, we ensure that these countries simply serve as cheap labor for Western capital. It's a pretty sweet deal for the lenders. And occasionally the people in the debt-bearing countries do catch on to the scheme, which is when we have to send some School of the Americas-trained generals in to create a bloody mass repression and install themselves as a military U.S. puppet government (as opposed to the usual liberal-democratic U.S. puppet government, which works fine when the people aren't revolting).

I've summarized them a few times before on this board, and don't really feel like doing so again, but Ha-Joon Chang's books Kicking Away the Ladder: Development in Historical Perspective and Bad Samaritans are crucial reads for any lefty.

Here's a summary (http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm) by the author himself.

[Spasiba]

There are different types of aid, conditional and unconditional. The aid countries like the US give is conditional. The countries that receive the aid will be bound to the US in terms of voting in major institutions like the UN. The receiver conuntry is reliant on the donor country, and so, either by the strings attached to the aid (such as, we'lll tell you how to spend it, or interest on it, like a loan) or more 'under the table' agreements such as 'We're friends, right? You agree with us, right? Becuase we're happy to give money, to our friends..."

Basically, the 'aid' is conditional and so allows the donor country to effectively control the country that receives the aid, allowing them to get the country to vote in favour of them, allow the donor country (like the US) to build missile/military bases on the country's land, etc.
I see, and the reason for their independence and not being part of the empire is more away of pleasing them and letting them deal with their crap, and not having to make sure they are living to the mainland's standard of living? I don't recall any violent revolution from the Pacific islands that have recently gained independence (Philippines being both something I don't know much about and wasn't that recent, so let's not bring them into this), the US pretty much seemed to grant it, so it wasn't the work of the people there to realize 'freedom'.

Because:

from here (http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats).

So-called "development" loans (this is Newspeak of the highest order; more honest people at least call them "aid" loans) are only given with conditions. And these conditions, which stipulate a free market stance towards the rest of the world and no protectionism whatsoever, are literally designed to prevent undeveloped countries from developing their own industrial sectors. We give out a little aid; in return we remain the only major manufacturing players in the world and prevent new competitors from cropping up. Instead of developing their own capital, we ensure that these countries simply serve as cheap labor for Western capital. It's a pretty sweet deal for the lenders. And occasionally the people in the debt-bearing countries do catch on to the scheme, which is when we have to send some School of the Americas-trained generals in to create a bloody mass repression and install themselves as a military U.S. puppet government (as opposed to the usual liberal-democratic U.S. puppet government, which works fine when the people aren't revolting).

I've summarized them a few times before on this board, and don't really feel like doing so again, but Ha-Joon Chang's books Kicking Away the Ladder: Development in Historical Perspective and Bad Samaritans are crucial reads for any lefty.

Here's a summary (http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm) by the author himself.
Thanks for this. This works, I think, more for larger countries that get aid, I'm not sure how industrially developed those islands can become- though they've never really had a chance to show what they can become. Would there ever be a time when, say through outsourcing, larger countries would allow actual development? Or would that be too 'dangerous' for them, if the countries realize what power they now have?
This reminds me of hearing about one of the universities in central Asia, where a US backed school was opened sometime in the 90's. I can't find what it was right now, but it's there. I believe there are a few places like this around the world, what's the motive there, if you know?

Finally this brings my to the recent events involving Kyrgyzstan and it ending the leasing of a base to the US. I'm guessing it wasn't of much importance if the US isn't really trying to get it renewed. But the question here is about Russia- they have interests there, I'm wondering for what? With the USSR, were Kyrgyzstan and other like countries, that is to say less developed, held in any different way than those Pacific islands are to America? And is Russian interest any different either?

[JimmyJazz]

This reminds me of hearing about one of the universities in central Asia, where a US backed school was opened sometime in the 90's. I can't find what it was right now, but it's there. I believe there are a few places like this around the world, what's the motive there, if you know?

To create a cheap white collar labor force, I assume.

The School of the Americas thing I referenced is totally different though, it's a training camp for state terrorists (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/SOA.html). They train Latin American military officers and secret police in tactics of torture, interrogation, assassination, etc.


This works, I think, more for larger countries that get aid, I'm not sure how industrially developed those islands can become- though they've never really had a chance to show what they can become. Would there ever be a time when, say through outsourcing, larger countries would allow actual development?

Not really sure what you mean here.