New British Glory
27-12-2004, 02:12
Band Aid was voted the top Christmas moment by the British viewing public but I am at a loss why it did. Surely people must see that reactionary aid does nothing?
The UN and most advanced economic powers have large aid programmes. Each year a considerable amount of taxpayers money is sent to African nations who are suffering from plaques, war and famine. So why aren't they recovering? Well all this government aid does not go to the people of the villages nor does it go into progressive social welfare policies. The leaders of these 3rd World countries use it to fund their armies, pay for bribery and hiking up government salaries. Most of the government aid pumped into 3rd world nations ends up being squandered by greedy and corrupt politicans.
But of charity organisations like Band Aid? Well certainly you are going to save a few lives, this time round. But all it will do is temporarily disguise a far greater problem. Soon the next famine will come or the next war will explode or the next epidemic will run riot. And once again, people will be compelled by guilt to help. Giving charitable aid is not a solution to the African problem because in the end you are simply prolonging the problem. Your aid will help people, perhaps even solve the current crisis. But then the government of these people would see no need to act. Their problem has been solved and they can continue with their corrupt practices. Until the next crisis comes along.
And even if you think your aid goes to something long lasting, it is still a waste. A school is a building to be burnt by warring militias. A well could be fouled by disease.
There are two solutions to the African problem and neither will sit well with people:
1) No aid be given. The people will then starve to death. They will no longer be able to provide taxes to the government. They will no longer be able to fight in its armies. They will no longer be able to sow crops or keep cows. Trade will dry up. No babies will come about so even more potential tax revenue is lost. Soon the government of these people will have to act in order to preserve itself if for no other reason. Soon they will be forced to implement social welfare programmes in order to protect trade and revenues. This is how a country evolves: death is the solemn price of progress. Every time we interfere, we push back the progress that is so desperately needed. This is the way most of modern Europe has evolved: through painful progress.
2) Imperialism, which is a far quicker and less painful solution. If a country like modern day Britain were to invade Sudan and claim it as a colony. Do you think the government of Britain would let the Sudanese strave? Do you think the government of Britain would let Arab militias run rampant throughout the countryside? No, because public opinion in Britain would not allow it - the government would be compelled to aid these countries in order to keep the voters happy. Within 10 years, irrigation systems could be in place to prevent the harmful effects of drought. A police force could be set up. Within 20 years there could be hospitals and schools. Within 50 years, a full constitution with well laid laws could be set out on the basis of a sound burecracy. Within 100 years, out could emerge a modern state. The schools would provide a middle class willing to run the political, legal and industrial systems left in place. The irrigation would mean increased crops and increased live stock leading greater prosperity in the countryside. The police could keep back local militias and insurgents. Workers would no longer need to rely on the countryside for employment: thriving industrial centres run by the educated middle classes would provide amble employment and amble money. With a government like Britain in control there would be no child labour tolerated or substandard wages. The prosperity of the workers would feed the economy as they use their new found wealth to buy luxuries therefore helping the export trades. They would use their new found wealth to buy better houses, causing an increase in demand for better housing rather than mud hovels and shanty towns. Luxuries would improve living conditions. Hospitals would improve child mortality so the population would increase therefore creating a continuous labour market and future government revenues.
Once all this was done, there would be no need for British soldiers or British occupation. They could leave and the two countries would be bound by gratitude.
What about expense? Well even Sudan in its current states produces revenues. With British direction these revenues could be directed into the policies that are desperately needed: schools, hospitals and advanced agriculture. With British expertise, these systems could be set up ready for the new educated middle classes. The imperial masters would be teachers, ready to impart their knowledge on.
And this applies to any modern country. America could do this with ease if it would abadon its foolish anti imperialist past. Britain, France, Spain, Italy and Germany could all do this.
The UN and most advanced economic powers have large aid programmes. Each year a considerable amount of taxpayers money is sent to African nations who are suffering from plaques, war and famine. So why aren't they recovering? Well all this government aid does not go to the people of the villages nor does it go into progressive social welfare policies. The leaders of these 3rd World countries use it to fund their armies, pay for bribery and hiking up government salaries. Most of the government aid pumped into 3rd world nations ends up being squandered by greedy and corrupt politicans.
But of charity organisations like Band Aid? Well certainly you are going to save a few lives, this time round. But all it will do is temporarily disguise a far greater problem. Soon the next famine will come or the next war will explode or the next epidemic will run riot. And once again, people will be compelled by guilt to help. Giving charitable aid is not a solution to the African problem because in the end you are simply prolonging the problem. Your aid will help people, perhaps even solve the current crisis. But then the government of these people would see no need to act. Their problem has been solved and they can continue with their corrupt practices. Until the next crisis comes along.
And even if you think your aid goes to something long lasting, it is still a waste. A school is a building to be burnt by warring militias. A well could be fouled by disease.
There are two solutions to the African problem and neither will sit well with people:
1) No aid be given. The people will then starve to death. They will no longer be able to provide taxes to the government. They will no longer be able to fight in its armies. They will no longer be able to sow crops or keep cows. Trade will dry up. No babies will come about so even more potential tax revenue is lost. Soon the government of these people will have to act in order to preserve itself if for no other reason. Soon they will be forced to implement social welfare programmes in order to protect trade and revenues. This is how a country evolves: death is the solemn price of progress. Every time we interfere, we push back the progress that is so desperately needed. This is the way most of modern Europe has evolved: through painful progress.
2) Imperialism, which is a far quicker and less painful solution. If a country like modern day Britain were to invade Sudan and claim it as a colony. Do you think the government of Britain would let the Sudanese strave? Do you think the government of Britain would let Arab militias run rampant throughout the countryside? No, because public opinion in Britain would not allow it - the government would be compelled to aid these countries in order to keep the voters happy. Within 10 years, irrigation systems could be in place to prevent the harmful effects of drought. A police force could be set up. Within 20 years there could be hospitals and schools. Within 50 years, a full constitution with well laid laws could be set out on the basis of a sound burecracy. Within 100 years, out could emerge a modern state. The schools would provide a middle class willing to run the political, legal and industrial systems left in place. The irrigation would mean increased crops and increased live stock leading greater prosperity in the countryside. The police could keep back local militias and insurgents. Workers would no longer need to rely on the countryside for employment: thriving industrial centres run by the educated middle classes would provide amble employment and amble money. With a government like Britain in control there would be no child labour tolerated or substandard wages. The prosperity of the workers would feed the economy as they use their new found wealth to buy luxuries therefore helping the export trades. They would use their new found wealth to buy better houses, causing an increase in demand for better housing rather than mud hovels and shanty towns. Luxuries would improve living conditions. Hospitals would improve child mortality so the population would increase therefore creating a continuous labour market and future government revenues.
Once all this was done, there would be no need for British soldiers or British occupation. They could leave and the two countries would be bound by gratitude.
What about expense? Well even Sudan in its current states produces revenues. With British direction these revenues could be directed into the policies that are desperately needed: schools, hospitals and advanced agriculture. With British expertise, these systems could be set up ready for the new educated middle classes. The imperial masters would be teachers, ready to impart their knowledge on.
And this applies to any modern country. America could do this with ease if it would abadon its foolish anti imperialist past. Britain, France, Spain, Italy and Germany could all do this.