I’ve Got Them on a List and There’s None of Them Be Missed
The
above is a line of a song from Gilbert and Sullivan’s Mikado.
Most of what pops up during our web explorations or un-wished
for e-mail does not generate a second thought let alone an impulse to download
the “link “and either read or watch it.
The other day however, I saw the introduction to a picture-essay
claiming to deal with “Failed Sates “and
as I have had a multiple decade career working in many developing or
under-developed countries (yes, there are differences) I took the bait and
downloaded the piece aptly titled “Postcards from Hell”.
The findings presented were not unexpected or startling but
nonetheless emerged as truly disquieting at least for me and I imagine for many
others also. (Thinking of what I just wrote, that is perhaps an example of
self-acknowledged quixotism and certainly not my first.)
Nonetheless I am not naive enough to believe that the majority
of people in the self-defined developed world really care about the majority of
the countries identified as failed states unless for some personal, particular
or peculiar reason: hands-on experience, nationality, business needs,
commercial goods etc.
I could be pejorative and say that most of my fellow citizens
have never heard of any number of these fellow members of the “family of nations” (whatever
that phrase means).
Not unexpectedly, a disproportionate number of the named
countries are in Africa. Considering cause and effect arguments, it is simple
for us to ignore that for many leading economically developed countries,
ourselves included, a part of their current well-being has a historical base
built in part on and by the people, goods and wealth extracted from this
troubled continent essentially
with no regard to the long-term
effects of their actions.
Anthropologists and others are quick to place the culpability
for slavery on black Africans themselves. However, by doing so, it totally
ignores the fact that if there were not a market for these captives, there
would not have been a slave trade. There might have been tribal conflicts but
nothing to the extent of the millions of human souls that were torn from their
homes and transported to the other side of the world.
Supply is based on demand; even in human trafficking.
Putting the slavery issue aside (if that is possible), we can
and do tend to look at the colonial powers as the principal evil-doers and
unquestionably in places like the former Belgian Congo (now the DRC) that is
the unquestionable truth. Consider that in a twenty year period that included
the first ten years of the 20th century,
Leopold II, as absolute ruler of the Congo, is estimated to have directly
caused the deaths of 20 Million people in his quest to dominate the world’s
rubber production.
When looking at the largest colonial powers in Africa, and,
showing my personal bias, it appears that the British did a marginally better
job than their French cousins if only that most of its colonies were managed
with better attention to areas such as schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc.
Sadly, such progress did not continue after independence.
It was also demonstrated in the peaceful hand over of power by
the British in the majority of East Africa nations to leaders who had a degree
of education and training in running an emerging nation. What maltreatment did
occur in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, is dwarfed by the actions of the
Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique as well as the French in Algeria and most
of West Africa.
The continuing genocidal horrors of Rwanda and Burundi and the
Congo remain a lasting testament to abandonment of a colony to people who had
no understanding of consequences.
Ironically, there are countries today like the Philippines and
Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Haiti where cheap labour has become a commercial item
to be exploited not unlike the indentured peoples of their own past.
Speaking of Haiti: let’s remember that this was the first slave
dominated country to win independence: in its case from France. The French
demanded that this new nation, devoid of almost every trace of government or
civil service etc, pay back for supposedly lost income that France would have
enjoyed had they remained. The Haitians agreed to something that no other
country ever did.
It demonstrates how desperate people are for freedom and how
often unequipped they are to use this new found gain.
That was in 1801 and was it was finally paid in full in the
early 1950’s. A century and a half of virtually all positive economic gains
being sent back to the mother country. Add to that the fact that America,
frightened at the prospect of its slaves revolting as had the Haitians, forbade
any trade with the island and used its growing naval forces to convince others
to do the same. That continued till the end of the Civil War in 1865.
So do we wonder why Haiti is the poorest country in the Western
Hemisphere?
And the dictatorships whose power surely in part resulted in
significant profits for those international companies who choose to convey
weapon systems to keep despots in power and called it good business practice
and increased profits for shareholders. Just think of Zimbabwe once the bread
basket of southern Africa and now impoverished by 30 plus years of Robert
Mugabe. His power is maintained at the point of a gun. Likewise in Syria where
the adage of the apple not falling far from the tree truly defines Al Assad.
In both these countries and countless others, the strength of
government comes not from the democratic process but from the will to use
military force on their fellow citizens and a supply of weapons being readily
available.
We easily point fingers at China and Russia but sometimes
mirrors have a purpose. Ask Mexico.
We hear about radical fundamentalists and Islamists and we
circle the names of Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, and add the weirdoes like
North Korea and some of the “Stans”.
There is the ever popular corruption perhaps best exemplified by
Nigeria and those who seem forever to be at conflict, domestic or cross-border:
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Côte d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Uganda and others. Catching the
pattern? The tribal issues that sent enemies into slavery now send them into
poverty or worse. Ask the Tutsi and Hutu peoples.
The Arab Spring has brought a hope of change but Yemen, Libya,
Egypt and Lebanon, are on the list because of the current vacuum of leadership.
Close behind are the two lands where we and our allies have waged war for a
decade or more: Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that all our fault? Of course not but
some of it must relate to decisions to keep martinets like Hamid Karzai and
Nuri al-Maliki in power irrespective of their unambiguous welcomed acceptance
of graft and corruption.
Lord Acton wrote: “"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely”. He
added: “Great men are almost always bad men."
Interesting thoughts.
Assuming corporations are really people; perhaps their role
models are Halliburton, Bechtel and the myriad of other contracted civilian
companies, many of whom profited to a degree that even they could not imagine.
Think Blackwater.
Continuing, we have the “usual suspects”: Sudan, Liberia,
Somalia, Mali, Niger, and Mauretania. Poor? yes; Corrupt? yes; Genocidal? at
times. Does anyone truly care? Buono and Clooney maybe.
Most countries care if they have a need to be seen as caring. We call it “sphere of influence.” Oil
comes to mind.
Also notice that is the first time the word “poor” has entered
this discussion. Why? because it is so widespread and also because it is
subjective and at times simply a matter of geography. Try growing commercial
agriculture in Chad or East Timor or the Comoros. Not going to happen.
The developed world can feed the world if it so wishes. Once
again there is that annoying “sphere of influence”.
So we have covered the alphabet of nations from Angola to
Zambia. The essay holds 59 countries and even has a statistical scoring matrix
(if that is even remotely possible or even necessary).
Think of it: there are no South American countries except for Colombia
and its drug issues. Mexico and Central America are not there and yet “we” see
them as failed. Or do we?
Interestingly there are no Middle Eastern lands except for Yemen
so one has to ask what “failed” really means; should it maybe include
Bahrain? It does include Djibouti which seems pretty immaterial compared to the
Gulf but the parameters are different I guess.
That is for sure as Russia is not there; neither is China.
Accordingly, let’s assume the “we“ of the self-defined
developed world do care. That would mean mainland Europe (most of it excepting
some of the Balkans), but including Scandinavia, and the British Isles plus
North America (north of Mexico), Australia and New Zealand. That is a very big
assumption.
Now: is there a definitive answer to the question: “What can
be done?”
I don’t know; I’m not even sure where to start.
Maternal child health? Cures for HIV and Malaria? Clean water?
Sure, all of those and a handful more resulting in a higher population surge
while remembering that we cannot feed the current numbers of people.
Could we add improved agriculture techniques? Sounds easy but go
to Togo or the Central African Republic and show me where.
Let’s dream: Assume we can eliminate graft, corruption,
despotism, war, tribalism, religious persecution, profiteering, piracy, lack of
education, climate change (yes, the Sahara is moving south), gender disparity,
lack of health resources and masses of other dreams.
Idealism gone viral!
Still, do we start like the ant that moved the rubber tree plant
or do we ignore it and bury are heads symbolically in the sand and hope it goes
away or at least does not directly bother the collective “us”.
If that is the choice, what do we do when we are on the list?
The essay can be found at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles
Most of what pops up during our web explorations or un-wished
for e-mail does not generate a second thought let alone an impulse to download
the “link “and either read or watch it.
The other day however, I saw the introduction to a picture-essay
claiming to deal with “Failed Sates “and
as I have had a multiple decade career working in many developing or
under-developed countries (yes, there are differences) I took the bait and
downloaded the piece aptly titled “Postcards from Hell”.
The findings presented were not unexpected or startling but
nonetheless emerged as truly disquieting at least for me and I imagine for many
others also. (Thinking of what I just wrote, that is perhaps an example of
self-acknowledged quixotism and certainly not my first.)
Nonetheless I am not naive enough to believe that the majority
of people in the self-defined developed world really care about the majority of
the countries identified as failed states unless for some personal, particular
or peculiar reason: hands-on experience, nationality, business needs,
commercial goods etc.
I could be pejorative and say that most of my fellow citizens
have never heard of any number of these fellow members of the “family of nations” (whatever
that phrase means).
Not unexpectedly, a disproportionate number of the named
countries are in Africa. Considering cause and effect arguments, it is simple
for us to ignore that for many leading economically developed countries,
ourselves included, a part of their current well-being has a historical base
built in part on and by the people, goods and wealth extracted from this
troubled continent essentially
with no regard to the long-term
effects of their actions.
Anthropologists and others are quick to place the culpability
for slavery on black Africans themselves. However, by doing so, it totally
ignores the fact that if there were not a market for these captives, there
would not have been a slave trade. There might have been tribal conflicts but
nothing to the extent of the millions of human souls that were torn from their
homes and transported to the other side of the world.
Supply is based on demand; even in human trafficking.
Putting the slavery issue aside (if that is possible), we can
and do tend to look at the colonial powers as the principal evil-doers and
unquestionably in places like the former Belgian Congo (now the DRC) that is
the unquestionable truth. Consider that in a twenty year period that included
the first ten years of the 20th century,
Leopold II, as absolute ruler of the Congo, is estimated to have directly
caused the deaths of 20 Million people in his quest to dominate the world’s
rubber production.
When looking at the largest colonial powers in Africa, and,
showing my personal bias, it appears that the British did a marginally better
job than their French cousins if only that most of its colonies were managed
with better attention to areas such as schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc.
Sadly, such progress did not continue after independence.
It was also demonstrated in the peaceful hand over of power by
the British in the majority of East Africa nations to leaders who had a degree
of education and training in running an emerging nation. What maltreatment did
occur in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, is dwarfed by the actions of the
Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique as well as the French in Algeria and most
of West Africa.
The continuing genocidal horrors of Rwanda and Burundi and the
Congo remain a lasting testament to abandonment of a colony to people who had
no understanding of consequences.
Ironically, there are countries today like the Philippines and
Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Haiti where cheap labour has become a commercial item
to be exploited not unlike the indentured peoples of their own past.
Speaking of Haiti: let’s remember that this was the first slave
dominated country to win independence: in its case from France. The French
demanded that this new nation, devoid of almost every trace of government or
civil service etc, pay back for supposedly lost income that France would have
enjoyed had they remained. The Haitians agreed to something that no other
country ever did.
It demonstrates how desperate people are for freedom and how
often unequipped they are to use this new found gain.
That was in 1801 and was it was finally paid in full in the
early 1950’s. A century and a half of virtually all positive economic gains
being sent back to the mother country. Add to that the fact that America,
frightened at the prospect of its slaves revolting as had the Haitians, forbade
any trade with the island and used its growing naval forces to convince others
to do the same. That continued till the end of the Civil War in 1865.
So do we wonder why Haiti is the poorest country in the Western
Hemisphere?
And the dictatorships whose power surely in part resulted in
significant profits for those international companies who choose to convey
weapon systems to keep despots in power and called it good business practice
and increased profits for shareholders. Just think of Zimbabwe once the bread
basket of southern Africa and now impoverished by 30 plus years of Robert
Mugabe. His power is maintained at the point of a gun. Likewise in Syria where
the adage of the apple not falling far from the tree truly defines Al Assad.
In both these countries and countless others, the strength of
government comes not from the democratic process but from the will to use
military force on their fellow citizens and a supply of weapons being readily
available.
We easily point fingers at China and Russia but sometimes
mirrors have a purpose. Ask Mexico.
We hear about radical fundamentalists and Islamists and we
circle the names of Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, and add the weirdoes like
North Korea and some of the “Stans”.
There is the ever popular corruption perhaps best exemplified by
Nigeria and those who seem forever to be at conflict, domestic or cross-border:
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Côte d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Uganda and others. Catching the
pattern? The tribal issues that sent enemies into slavery now send them into
poverty or worse. Ask the Tutsi and Hutu peoples.
The Arab Spring has brought a hope of change but Yemen, Libya,
Egypt and Lebanon, are on the list because of the current vacuum of leadership.
Close behind are the two lands where we and our allies have waged war for a
decade or more: Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that all our fault? Of course not but
some of it must relate to decisions to keep martinets like Hamid Karzai and
Nuri al-Maliki in power irrespective of their unambiguous welcomed acceptance
of graft and corruption.
Lord Acton wrote: “"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely”. He
added: “Great men are almost always bad men."
Interesting thoughts.
Assuming corporations are really people; perhaps their role
models are Halliburton, Bechtel and the myriad of other contracted civilian
companies, many of whom profited to a degree that even they could not imagine.
Think Blackwater.
Continuing, we have the “usual suspects”: Sudan, Liberia,
Somalia, Mali, Niger, and Mauretania. Poor? yes; Corrupt? yes; Genocidal? at
times. Does anyone truly care? Buono and Clooney maybe.
Most countries care if they have a need to be seen as caring. We call it “sphere of influence.” Oil
comes to mind.
Also notice that is the first time the word “poor” has entered
this discussion. Why? because it is so widespread and also because it is
subjective and at times simply a matter of geography. Try growing commercial
agriculture in Chad or East Timor or the Comoros. Not going to happen.
The developed world can feed the world if it so wishes. Once
again there is that annoying “sphere of influence”.
So we have covered the alphabet of nations from Angola to
Zambia. The essay holds 59 countries and even has a statistical scoring matrix
(if that is even remotely possible or even necessary).
Think of it: there are no South American countries except for Colombia
and its drug issues. Mexico and Central America are not there and yet “we” see
them as failed. Or do we?
Interestingly there are no Middle Eastern lands except for Yemen
so one has to ask what “failed” really means; should it maybe include
Bahrain? It does include Djibouti which seems pretty immaterial compared to the
Gulf but the parameters are different I guess.
That is for sure as Russia is not there; neither is China.
Accordingly, let’s assume the “we“ of the self-defined
developed world do care. That would mean mainland Europe (most of it excepting
some of the Balkans), but including Scandinavia, and the British Isles plus
North America (north of Mexico), Australia and New Zealand. That is a very big
assumption.
Now: is there a definitive answer to the question: “What can
be done?”
I don’t know; I’m not even sure where to start.
Maternal child health? Cures for HIV and Malaria? Clean water?
Sure, all of those and a handful more resulting in a higher population surge
while remembering that we cannot feed the current numbers of people.
Could we add improved agriculture techniques? Sounds easy but go
to Togo or the Central African Republic and show me where.
Let’s dream: Assume we can eliminate graft, corruption,
despotism, war, tribalism, religious persecution, profiteering, piracy, lack of
education, climate change (yes, the Sahara is moving south), gender disparity,
lack of health resources and masses of other dreams.
Idealism gone viral!
Still, do we start like the ant that moved the rubber tree plant
or do we ignore it and bury are heads symbolically in the sand and hope it goes
away or at least does not directly bother the collective “us”.
If that is the choice, what do we do when we are on the list?
No comments:
Post a Comment