Humanitarian Aid - a Tool of Imperialism?

[Soseloshvili]

I do a lot of work with the organization Free the Children, a humanitarian organization that provides aid to a lot of colonized countries. But recently I read this little tidbit by Thomas Sankara, the leader of the revolution in Burkina Faso in the 1980s, in one of his five speech's in Pathfinder Press's book "We are the Heirs of the World's Revolutions";


...Of course, we encourage aid that aids us in doing away with aid. But in general, welfare and aid policies have only ended up disorganizing us, subjugating us, and robbing us of a sense of responsibility for our own economic, political and cultural affairs...

This raises a valid point. Is humanitarianism, something I considered a product of class solidarity and proletarian ideals, a tool of Imperialism? It is completely possible, when we provide aid to "developing" countries it gives people in the developed world this sense of having done something, while meanwhile because that aid is being provided it could cause the a population to be entirely dependent on foreign help.

If Sankara was right, a whole lot of people have been duped real bad. That would seriously depress me, I've always assumed I was doing a lot of good.

[Robocommie]

A lot of aid organizations are anything but. In particular, the IMF. They loan money to countries in dire need of debt relief, but only on the condition that the borrowers adopt certain economic policies, policies which just so happen to be more favorable to wealthier nations. The IMF therefore acts as the battering ram of free market capitalism, forcing nations to let down any protectionist guards which serves to ward off the worst of neo-colonialist exploitation by wealthy foreign investors. There's a lot of groups that work this way, they offer aid, but only on conditions. A lot of nations will offer poor nations developmental aid, but they expect it to be paid back, and if it can't be, then they take something else, like trade concessions.

This is actually how the British got into Egypt and stayed there; France and England both loaned huge sums of cash to Egypt to build the Suez Canal, and then when Egypt couldn't pay it back for various reasons, Britain just seized the country, like a banker foreclosing on a home mortgage.

This is probably the kind of thing Sankara was referring to. But charity groups, genuine charity groups, I don't think are really in opposition to the principles of socialism. Giving things to people simply because they need it and can't get it, like food, clean water, or clothing, isn't exploitative. The key though is to understand that charity and humanitarian groups are NOT a long key solution to the economic problems facing these countries, they need long term economic development to solve their problems.

But I support charity groups and I support those who contribute to them because frankly, people who are starving and dying because of a lack of food or medicine shouldn't be ignored just because feeding them isn't going to end the need for charity. It's almost Randian to talk about sincere donations of aid making things harder for the poor.

[Sosa]

Does OP mean Humanitarian Aid from one country to another? Like US giving aid to Haiti, for example or NGO's that are independent from the state?

[Soseloshvili]

Does OP mean Humanitarian Aid from one country to another? Like US giving aid to Haiti, for example or NGO's that are independent from the state?

Sankara never specified, so I guess it could refer to either. Though I suppose both state and NGO aid could be used as a form of domination, but in the same breath both could be used for good.

[empiredestoryer]

a tool of imperialism yes its an old dirty trick

[Barry Lyndon]

Sankara knew what was up. That's why the French decided to have him murdered.