Friday, June 10, 2005

The ONE Campaign

Letter to President Bush to Fight Poverty from U2's one.org...

The ONE Campaign
Posted by hdhindsa at 3:58 PM

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is the purpose of the US Government to stop global poverty?

It really isn't.

If you want Americans to spend their money, just ask them and show them compelling reasons to. Give your lecture all over the country.

But throwing money at Africa isn't going to change the lack of property rights, human rights, and free markets that will bring their people out of poverty.

Its also stretch for me to commit our government to stop genocide, but because of the political ramifications, our government will not allow individuals to arm the oppressed people of the planet. If Americans had the collective will (which we don't: see Iraq), we could declare a "war on genocide" and, literally, tell the world to get along or the aggressors will be made to suffer.

One blond american woman in aruba.
800,000 in Rwanda.
How many in Darfur?

4:52 AM
hdhindsa said...

U.S. citizens have varied views as to the role of government in world affairs, including addressing global poverty. The One campaign simply asks the 8 richest countries to keep promises already made 3 years ago to contribute 0.7% of their income in aid. (Most estimates are that we give 0.16% currently) It also asks countries who promised 7 years ago to cancel unpayable poor country debts to take action on these prior promises.

I doubt that my lecture has much of a lasting impact on those who hear it. Even if it did, the scale of effect is minimal. If this was 1940 and I went around lecturing people about the slaughter of the Jews etc...I wouldn't have had much impact either. The point is that government interventions are necessary to deal with issues of such magnitude. (Obviously individuals with the resources of Bill Gates, Ted Turner ect...can have a tremendous impact, but these are very rare exceptions).

There is also an implicit assumption that nations, like individuals, are bound by certain moral constraints.

Even if you don't believe that the U.S. Government has any moral obligation to help starving people across the globe, I would argue that from a purely practical matter it would sure do alot of good to help the image of the U.S. government, which is now at a historic nadir, post Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo Bay. Why does this matter at a practical level? Well we might help breed a few less terrorists if we were to show ourselves capable of helping out starving people for a purely human itarian motive, esp. considering the minimal cost!

There also seems to be an implicit assumption in your statements that the U.S. government should only be concerned with matters within its own shores. Since the inception of this country we have been involved in the foreign affairs of other countries directly and indirectly and this will continue whether or not you wish it to be so...

Further, in a world that is becoming increasingly interrelated, and in a world where the number of people in extreme poverty is at an unprecedented number I would like to exercise my right to try and influence the U.S. government to intervene in the affairs of foreign countries in a positive way. If enough people in the developed world raise their voices collectively to ask the government of wealthy countries to do something about global poverty as outlined above, then perhaps some good will come out of it.

Regarding African corruption etc..., the package being brought to the table by Tony Blair ties aid to improved governance, i.e., gives incentive for such.

The issue of free markets is a bit more complex than it may initially seem. The fact of the matter is that a pineapple farmer in Africa can't compete with subsided pineapple farmers, like the Dole company...To sell a pineapple in the U.S., the farmer will be hit with a tariff of 32 cents. If it is in a can the tariff will be 54 cents. If it is in the form of juice the tariff will be 82 cents. Remember that the African farmer in all likelihood is trying to support his family on a dollar a day.

There are also high internal tariffs within Africa to transport goods as this is their main source of income. ((They are not getting to get a whole lot of money from income tax).

Your remarks regarding international genocide are interesting as well. I personally don't find it a stretch at all for our government to help stop genocide. In fact it makes me nauseated when we show indifference to genocide.

Since you brought up Rwanda, it must be remembered that the U.S. used its position on the UN Security Council to lobby for either the curtailing or complete abandonment of UNAMIR...the only force that could have helped stopped the slaughter. (To me this black mark on Clinton's tenure is of much greater import than the mark he left on Monica's dress). In terms of Iraq, it should also be remembered that Saddam Hussein, not to mention Bin-Laden would not been in the positions of power they attained without U.S. support. I.E., we may not be completely innocent when it comes to bringing to power those with genocidal and/or terrorist tendencies.

You state that our gvnmt will not allow individuals to arm the oppressed people of the planet. The absurdity of the proposition is evident. Yet, I agree with you that Rwanda and now Darfur genocide could have been prevented by arming the oppressed. However, I think this is a role that the U.N. has to fulfill. In fact Kofi Annan, who I am sure (hope?) has a heavy conscience from his decision as security council chief to repeatedly ignore Gen. Dallaire's numerous communiques to arm the UNAIMR when he was U.N. Security council chief, is calling for arming of the victims in Darfur. (I linked to an article about this several weeks ago in this blog).

I am not sure what your exact point was in your last paragraph. But I think it was Stalin who said that the death of an individual is a tragedy, but the death of a million is a statistic. Unfortunately, that axiom will continue to hold true for most people unless we can really understand our shared humanity. Your last paragraph also suggests the possibility of racism as a factor in the lack of action in Africa. It is in fact debatable whether or not the tragedy that is unfolding in Africa would be allowed anywhere else in the world.


The fact of the matter is that the intellectual absurdity and moral repugnancy of all the unnecessary death and suffering of people on this planet who are not all that different than you are I, in an age of unprecedented wealth, compel me and I hope others to ask our government to keep promises already made to fight global poverty.

I think you saw "Hotel Rwanda." If so you probably remembered the scene where When Rusesabagina becomes excited that two foreign journalists will broadcast into living rooms all over the West their footage of Tutsi being butchered in the streets, one of the journalists tells him, "People will see these pictures, say, I'sn't that awful?" and go on eating their breakfast." Well, I don't want to be one of those, and so I will try to influence anybody who will listen, governmental or non-governmental bodies included...

11:21 PM
Anonymous said...

Asking the people of the country to donate 0.7% makes sense. Asking the governemnt to tax the people in order to obtain the desired number does not.

That is the tenet of my position.

As far as some of your other points:

Comparing the Holocaust to Darfur seems logical. Are you also suggesting that starvation in Africa is systematic genocide?

While there are many citizens and members of the media that enjoy portraying Gitmo and Abu Gharaib in order to damage the current administration, the fact is that there have been many more disgraceful things done by the US government through history than these examples.

I don't know which countries are the pineapple producers. Certainly an Africa-free trade zone might help them sell their products locally.

As far as the UN goes, I'm sure we can go on for a long time debating the merits of this failed experiment.

9:12 PM
Anonymous said...

Hi Neddie,

Thanks for the personal attack. Kumbaya.

Freeze


May 6th 2004 | EDINBURGH
From The Economist print edition


Generosity seems to be on the rise

TOM HUNTER, a Scottish businessman, announced last month that he will give £100m—a fifth of his wealth—to charity. Donald Gordon, a property tycoon, said last year he was giving £10m to the Royal Opera House and £10m to the Wales Millennium Centre. City hedge fund managers last week stumped up £10m at a children's charity evening, a British record for a charity bash. Is lavish philanthropy making a comeback in Britain?

Charities certainly hope so. The British are reckoned to have donated £7.3 billion in 2002, 0.8% of GDP. It sounds impressive, but it is stingy in comparison with Americans, who are reckoned to have given away 1.8% of GDP. Raising British giving to American levels would result in an extra £9.5 billion going to good causes.

And a more recent one:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2963247

and another:

http://aafrc.org/press_releases/trustreleases/charityholds.html

12:42 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts with Thumbnails

ShareThis