From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Jun 27 2002 - 21:39:19 MDT
Anders Sandberg wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:25:18AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>>Anders Sandberg wrote:
>>It is not easy to convert sacks of rice to weapons if there is
>>no entity willing to trade weapons for rice or buy the rice or
>>if such diversion of the aid is forcefully prohibited by troops
>>that make sure the food goes to the people.
>
>
> Well, there have been several cases where rice brought the weapons
> needed to opress the people (and even more where aid money did it).
Which is why I delimited the point above.
> Sending in the troops would do it, but would of course require a
> *sizeable* investment of another nation's diplomatic capital, and quite
> likely leave it open for both internal criticism and attacks from the
> local thugs. This is of course why it is so seldom done, especially in
> places where the government is the thugs. Overall, this is just a
> short-term solution in any case.
If it was done in such a way that the transport lines and food
dispersion stations were simply kept open with minimal force
there would very little to complain about. The process of
starving to death *is* very short-term. Either you get enough
to stay alive another day, week, month or you do not.
>
>>>would welcome them. If not, they would fight them. And the UN and most
>>>relief organisations will not give help to regions if the local rulers
>>>claim this is unwelcome.
>>
>>Why should the leaders fight against their people surviving?
>
>
> Ask Robert Mugabe and the others. The most common (honest) answer would
> likely be that starvation is a great way of getting rid of groups you
> don't like or support the oppositon - give the food to your people and
> let the others starve, and you will be able to rule on.
>
Why would the UN support such means any more than any other kind
of "ethnic cleansing" or killing off of opposing groups outright?
>
>>If
>>the UN is an organization that cares about human welfare then I
>>believe it should bring in the aid regardless of what local
>>leaders say if the alternative is mass famine. I do not believe
>>this is a major reason the relief does not flow in the first
>>place. The coffers are very insufficiently filled to bring in
>>that much aid regardless of what the leaders say.
>
>
> Who sits in the UN? Represenatives of governments - and quite a few
> truly nasty ones like North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Iraq etc. The UN
> has a very strong comittment to the idea of soverign governments and has
> over its history seldom supported motions that circumvent local leaders.
> This is quite natural for an organisation that is so heavily based on
> the assumption that governments are the best represenatives of people,
> but it does not make it likely that it would support any "help
> regardless of what you say" activities even if it had the resources.
>
And the US is sometimes in the "nasty" camp. At least we have
opposed some of the most important global treaties and policies
proposed. We have simply repudiated others we had already
agreed to. Governments are logical representatives as long as
there is not an acceptable concept of and working world
representational democracy. We have to start with what is
available, no? The UN does have the power to overrule many
individual governments especially ones in blight and starvation
ridden areas.
>
>>>Institutional shifts does indeed take time. But it can be
>>>helped by certain tech (communications) and by clearly promoting
>>>certain memes (like freedom of the press; another interesting service
>>>that ought to be set up: something like a free web for dissident
>>>groups, linked to voice of america-like radio broadcasting stations on
>>>international waters).
>>>
>>
>>Yes. We should have a "nasty" movement to bring freedom of the
>>press back to the oppressed masses in America! Sorry, couldn't
>>resist. :-)
>
>
> Actually, it might be a good idea even if we leave out the popular idea
> here in Europe that you americans are poor, brainwashed servants to your
> terrorist corporate masters :-) If 911 has shown anything, it is that we
> need better protection for the open society from panic-stricken
> governments in times of crisis. Hence it might be a good idea to set up
> freedom-promoting systems aimed in *all* directions, not just at the
> places where open societies currently do not exist but at places where
> they exist but can be threatened. And that includes both the US and
> Sweden.
>
Oh yes!
>
>>>The idea that certain cultures are incapable of democracy and peace is
>>>very likely totally wrong. But it is hard and takes time to get out of
>>>bad institutions and vicious cycles.
>>>
>>
>>All this is all well and good, but before you can work on the
>>culture it first needs to stabilize to something well above the
>>starvation and massive disease level.
>
>
> This seems to be view of China - freedom of speech, democracy and all
> that are something that can be dealt with after everybody has got a good
> standard of living. Maybe not as much as a crisis zone as Zimbabwe, but
A good standard of living cannot be acheived without
significantly more freedom. Keeping people alive the next week
is a type of triage that is essential before you can even talk
to them about freedom or things like voting. The situations are
not equivalent.
> I think the one step at a time approach is not the right thing to do
> since it is essentially just saying "tomorrow, maybe" and postponing
> reforms indefinitely. Culture and institutions can be shaped *while*
Postponing immediately needed critical aid, postponing triage to
give a health class effectively, is much worse.
> trying to stabilize the situation - often they are the stuff that helps
> stabilize a crisis region in the first place. Education, pest control
> programs and setting up food distribution networks go hand in hand.
>
After a certain point. We are not there yet in many of these areas.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:04 MST