First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Why Developing Countries are Poor
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 3/19/10 , edited 3/20/10
I have to write an essay on how to solve the problem of global poverty, so I've been doing research on what has made modern countries developed or developing, and why developing countries don't seem to have any chance of becoming developed.

I already knew the root problem is colonization, and now it's imperialism/neocolonialism (I use them interchangeably), but I didn't have any of the details until now.

According to the UN, all the blue countries are considered developed:



These are the countries that have HDI's over 9:

1. Norway 0.971
2. Australia 0.970
3. Iceland 0.969
4. Canada 0.966
5. Ireland 0.965
6. Netherlands 0.964
7. Sweden 0.963
8. France 0.961
9. Switzerland 0.960
10. Japan 0.960
11. Luxembourg 0.960
12. Finland 0.959
13. United States 0.956
14. Austria 0.955
15. Spain 0.955
16. Denmark 0.955
17. Belgium 0.953
18. Italy 0.951
19. Liechtenstein 0.951
20. New Zealand 0.950
21. United Kingdom 0.947
22. Germany 0.947
23. Singapore 0.944
24. Hong Kong 0.944
25. Greece 0.942
26. South Korea 0.937
27. Israel 0.935
28. Andorra 0.934
29. Slovenia 0.929
30. Brunei 0.920
31. Kuwait 0.916
32. Cyprus 0.914
33. Qatar 0.910
34. Portugal 0.909
35. United Arab Emirates 0.903
36. Czech Republic 0.903
37. Barbados 0.903
38. Malta 0.902

Out of around 193 countries, only 38 are developed.


Obviously the distribution of wealth is concentrated on developed countries:





European colonization is the first factor. Pretty much the whole world was under their control, with very few exceptions who managed to escape it (like Japan). The problems caused by colonization are obvious, people were exploited in various ways and resources were stolen. This was the first cause of global inequality of distribution of wealth.

Skip to post-war neocolonialism if you're not interested in the the details of the history before decolonization.


Generally, the main areas of the world that were able to develop significantly by the 20th century were the US, Japan and western Europe. Since the 15th century, eastern Europe had already been like the modern day third world, just servicing the powerful west. Russia escaped the system early in the 20th century, and this allowed it to industrialize. That seems to be the way any country has been allowed to develop; only when they escape from the power system run by the state(s) ruling the world at that time. But more importantly, radically defying all orthodox economic doctrines.

Japan's situation was ideal; it was the only Asian country that escaped European colonization, and after WW2, adapted a mercantilist economic policy. Mercantilism had lost popularity since the late 18th century and all global economic doctrines were against it, but it exploded the Japanese economy and made it the second biggest today. Mercantilism requires lots of state control over the economy, so it's not exactly free market, and just focuses on growing it's own industries as much as possible while blocking outside industries.

Japan was a lot kinder than the European colonial powers and actually helped its own colonies develop as it did. That explains South Korea and Taiwan's development. Britain and other European countries on the other hand made sure their colonies would not develop.

So, Japan's methods of industrialization and reaching huge wealth is how most countries did it in the past. Through mercantilist, protectionist essentially anti-free market economies, which require strong government control.

Where did Japan get these ideas for its economic policy? Britain had extreme mercantilist, protectionist, anti-free market economic policies for centuries, and this is what kept it the wealthiest and strongest country in the world. Britain simply destroyed any competition for its industries by force, or placed high tariffs on them. India was supposed to be the leading world super power, and should have developed well before the US did. It had more advanced textile, steel and various other industries, but of course under Britain's rule, any Indian industry that beat Britain's was destroyed. Britain kept these types of policies right up to WW2; whenever the Japanese competition was simply better than British industries, Britain simply barred all Japanese imports. This was a precursor for Japan's action in WW2, and of course the US economic policies were as well.

The US did the exact same thing Britain did with its economy to get into it's current position. First, it escaped colonization. Then through genocide, slavery and protectionist, anti-free market economic policies for 150 years, it became the richest country in the world. One example of its policies is the huge tariffs on British steel, which effectively got rid of any competition and then allowed the US steel industry to boom.

Britain and the US and Japan eventually dropped their protectionist policies and (like all developed countries) began supporting liberal internationalism, and that brings us to the post war conditions and the free market global economy. The US is the most powerful, there are a handful of developed nations, and the rest of the world is just coming out of colonization and are relatively poor. Now, suddenly we have the UN, World Bank, Geneva Conventions; all the developed countries seem to be claiming they support human rights and helping the poorer countries. But if that was the case, most countries in the world today could have easily been developed. But in reality, after WW2, the colonialism was simply replaced with imperialism/neocolonialism, and instead of Britain running the world, the US is.


Post-War Neocolonialism




At this point, in summary, powerful European countries simply kept the world under their control, so they had all the wealth while exploiting everyone else. Japan avoided colonization all together and helped it's colonies develop (Korea, Taiwan). Soon Britain became the main power. Then colonies began winning their independence (US). Others were granted independence through some struggle (Canada, Australia). So all these countries so far have been allowed to develop and the rest are still poor and exploited. The 2nd world countries mostly seem to be the ones that rebelled against the global power structure but still are still developing (China, Russia).

This is the important part, why after having institutions like the World Bank implemented do we still have such horrible global poverty? The World Bank's stated goal is to reduce poverty and help countries develop. Well, from what I can see, it's all a joke, and the third world since WW2 has held the same position of the colonies during colonization. The powerful countries in the world have control over everything, the countries that have not escaped past power structures are now stuck in the new one. Third world countries are kept poor and developing by the powerful countries and their people and resources are exploited. That's the simple answer to the question, global poverty is the result of imperialist/neocolonialist policies of the rich countries.

The US has proven to be a very strict and unmatched imperial force. For example, almost all of south and central America is owned by the US under neocolonialism, this was already decided during the beginning of the 19th century by the Monroe doctrine. These countries' governments operate according to how the US wants them to operate. A lot of the things that began happened after WW2 were directly related to the emerging neocolonialist policies, like globalization. So central and south America are expected to give out all their resources and let their people be exploited for the benefit of the US. But this isn't traditional colonialism, the US can't send soldiers there to make this happen, so corporations being allowed to go global is very convenient. These countries are expected to stay developing, poor and have various conflicts while corporations exploit everything they can, and the countries' government do whatever the US wants in exchange for full US support for the regime and of course there's the constant US threat of punishing disobedience. That's neocolonialism/imperialism in a nutshell.

You see the same situation all over the world, in every third world country, with the US being the main imperialist force.

Any country that gets out of hand is dealt with with by force. So let's say a suffering country has a revolution and puts in a democratic government, and actually thinks about benefiting from its own natural resources and making the situation for its people better. The imperialist power, namely the US, will first try very hard to get rid of the new government. Maybe they'll support an insane dictator trying to get power through a coup, maybe they'll assassinate the democratic leader, or maybe put sanctions on the country. If nothing works, it's time to come up with an excuse. And this is where wonderful covers like the Cold War or fighting terrorism or drug control come in handy. Of course, lies and propaganda have to be fed to the public to justify the action. The US goes in, usually commits war crimes, does whatever it wants and puts back the established order.

Another situation is when a government that's already working for the imperialist power decides to rebel and do what it wants instead of following orders. This was the case with Saddam Hussein, and look what happened.

US post-war imperialism has been one of the most destructive tyrannical forces ever. Dictators, genocide, wars, torture, exploitation, oppression, poverty, etc. on massive scales, all over the world. All of it either implemented or fully supported by the US so it can keep its power over all its 'colonies.'


Let's see where the most corruption can be found in the world:



Everywhere except the developed countries. Because most of the developing countries are simply colonies of neocolonialist forces, their governments only job is to follow the established rules set by powers like the US. And the rules are, keep the people poor, keep the country developing, keep conflicts going, let us exploit your people and your resources and we'll make sure you stay in power.

The irony of course is the developed countries are the ones with relatively very little natural resources, while the poor countries have all the resources. And the more important the resources, the more imperialist control on the region (Africa, Middle East), and this means more conflicts and stronger blocking of development.

One example I find very interesting is Israel. Israel is a fully developed country, very industrialized and advanced with a well-established functioning government and it's very wealthy. Israel was created in 1948, from one of Britain's many Arab colonies. All of Britain's Arab colonies are now developing, have horrible poverty and corrupt governments because they're under US imperialist control, and therefore their development is blocked. Except for Israel, it's the only one that was allowed to develop. Now we know that whether a country develops has nothing to do with the competence of the people, or the resources the country has, it simply depends on if the countries in power let them develop or not. The US allowed Israel to develop, gave it lots of support; like money for infrastructure and military power. And Israel became industrialized and a first world nation in no time. This shows that if the US wanted a country to develop, it could have, very easily.

The World Bank system is so illogical and ridiculous, I really think its purpose is specifically to keep people poor and developing. Billions of dollars have been given to poor countries as loans, and usually at insane interest rates (like 30%). Of course, if the government of the country consists of a corrupt regime or an insane dictator put in place by an imperial force, it doesn't seem to make a difference. For example, Indonesia had one of the worst dictators of the 20th century: Suharto. If Indonesia is given millions of dollars in loans to help it develop, but the insane dictator uses the money on his military, buying some mansions, building a statue of himself, etc. The poor in the country never see it and are suffering and oppressed by the dictator's brutal regime anyway. The dictator doesn't care about paying anything back, and the debt grows ridiculously high. Then the UN's International Monetary Fund comes in, and asks the country's people to repay the debt. The people probably don't even know their country borrowed any money, and yet they have repay the debt somehow, which leads to them being even more exploited. I think it's so obviously illogical, that it had to have been put in place specifically to make sure poor nations don't develop.

And as for the rich countries giving money to developing countries, especially with regards to the US; the imperialist forces are simply maintaining their colonies. I remember hearing about a study that showed the countries that the US gives the most aide to tend to also have the worst government human rights violations. In the 1990s, Columbia was pretty much the worst human rights violator, massacres, torture, war on its own people. Of course, all fully backed financially and militarily by the US since the 1980s, and that's just one of many of examples. The money given to genuinely help poor people is not going to be allowed to do much with current regimes. If a developed country wants to alleviate poverty, it needs to do something about neocolonialism. Which means standing up to the US, which no one is about to do.

We're living in a completely deluded world system right now, we've simply replaced colonialism with neocolonialism, and the powerful countries talk about human rights and wanting to help poor countries when they're the imperialist force making sure people all over the world stay poor and suffering. At least Britain was open about it's policies during colonialism. It's like all these developed nations claiming to be benevolent and the UN are all acting; just trying to cover up the fact that colonialism essentially is still going on, just less obviously.

People in developed nations seem to have this idea that the developing countries are either just full of incompetent people who can't figure out how to develop or are just always going to be poor and have conflict no matter what because that's just the way things are in those countries. And then they accept the state of humanity now. A lot of post-war indoctrination had to have been implemented to have free people be this passive and ignorant as their governments tyrannically rule the world and while so many people are suffering as a result.

I think this is why Che Guevara is so revered as a hero and idolized, regardless of the bad things he may have done, he was one of the few people who saw what was wrong with the world and devoted his life to try to fix it. He clearly said the problems with the world are neocolonialism, imperialism and monopoly capitalism, so he knew what he was talking about. I think it was refreshing for many people that at least one influential figure saw how horrifying our world system really is and was frustrated that so many people are ignorant about how the world is run now.

My favourite quote of his says it all:

“We are overcome by anguish at this illogical moment of humanity.”
Posted 3/19/10
Norway ftw. I would like to live there since the average wage is so high and I like the wilderness.
222 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 3/19/10
Some guy from a second world country moved to where I lived. How are second world countries different from third world countries?
Posted 3/19/10
Quote the puppet that was Che Guevara all you want, but he was the best example of his own ideal of an anguish and illogical humanity. Therefore he was enslaved by his own desire to hate, when he wasn't even at peace with himself. For he's still human after all.

All of those institutions of methodology did exactly as they were designed to do. Therefore if you got a problem with them then take it up to the men and women who created those institutions, which were based on their unrealistic ideologies and desires.

In the meantime, do remember that you are human after all. And mopping on your own humanity's shortcomings won't help you to develop your own strengths. Which is precisely what I'm not seeing in your essay, when it's just an intellectual piss fest.

So is this an open-invite? Or strictly a Che Guevara orgy party?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 3/19/10 , edited 3/19/10

DomFortress wrote:

Quote the puppet that was Che Guevara all you want, but he was the best example of his own ideal of an anguish and illogical humanity. Therefore he was enslaved by his own desire to hate, when he wasn't even at peace with himself. For he's still human after all.

All of those institutions of methodology did exactly as they were designed to do. Therefore if you got a problem with them then take it up to the men and women who created those institutions, which were based on their unrealistic ideologies and desires.

In the meantime, do remember that you are human after all. And mopping on your own humanity's shortcomings won't help you to develop your own strengths. Which is precisely what I'm not seeing in your essay, when it's just an intellectual piss fest.

So is this an open-invite? Or strictly a Che Guevara orgy party?


What the hell are you talking about? If you got something against Che Guevara, I don't want to discuss it here, I just mentioned him briefly at the end.

And this isn't an essay, it's just my general findings. Dom, go troll somewhere else, I really would like this to be a topic without your random nonsense and arrogance. I bet you didn't even read it. And even if you did, it's on topics you probably have very little understanding of.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 3/19/10 , edited 3/19/10

OrangeAipom wrote:

Some guy from a second world country moved to where I lived. How are second world countries different from third world countries?


First, second and third world isn't the best way of dividing countries. Basically, first world are considered to be the US and its "allies" during the Cold War, second world is the Soviet Union and its allies, and the third world is everything else. So third world countries are the ones that don't have any power or influence
Posted 3/19/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Quote the puppet that was Che Guevara all you want, but he was the best example of his own ideal of an anguish and illogical humanity. Therefore he was enslaved by his own desire to hate, when he wasn't even at peace with himself. For he's still human after all.

All of those institutions of methodology did exactly as they were designed to do. Therefore if you got a problem with them then take it up to the men and women who created those institutions, which were based on their unrealistic ideologies and desires.

In the meantime, do remember that you are human after all. And mopping on your own humanity's shortcomings won't help you to develop your own strengths. Which is precisely what I'm not seeing in your essay, when it's just an intellectual piss fest.

So is this an open-invite? Or strictly a Che Guevara orgy party?


What the hell are you talking about? If you got something against Che Guevara, I don't want to discuss it here, I just mentioned him briefly at the end.

And this isn't an essay, it's just my general findings. Dom, go troll somewhere else, I really would like this to be a topic without your random nonsense and arrogance. I bet you didn't even read it. And even if you did, it's on topics you probably have very little understanding of.
I only super-condensed everything you've said into a single factor; Che Guevara's own bias opinion and subjective view on humanity, as the sole cause of global poverty. So what's wrong with that?

Furthermore, I never disagreed with anything you've said. When all I pointed out was the fact that neither you nor Che Guevara himself ever devise a working method to end global poverty. All because of your shared perspective on humanity being one of anguish and irrationality.

I'm someone who gets bored with the trivial facts, and that's only after I've disciplined myself to read through all of your so-called "findings". However if your findings was the sole of your essay, then what's not to say that it's only a copy-and-paste report? With an open-end structure and no originality.

And that's when it hits me, you really don't know how to end your essay with a positive note, do you? Well, that's for me to know and for you to ignore. And I can respect that.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 3/19/10 , edited 3/19/10

DomFortress wrote:
I only super-condensed everything you've said into a single factor; Che Guevara's own bias opinion and subjective view on humanity, as the sole cause of global poverty. So what's wrong with that?

Furthermore, I never disagreed with anything you've said. When all I pointed out was the fact that neither you nor Che Guevara himself ever devise a working method to end global poverty. All because of your shared perspective on humanity being one of anguish and irrationality.

I'm someone who gets bored with the trivial facts, and that's only after I've disciplined myself to read through all of your so-called "findings". However if your findings was the sole of your essay, then what's not to say that it's only a copy-and-paste report? With an open-end structure and no originality.

And that's when it hits me, you really don't know how to end your essay with a positive note, do you? Well, that's for me to know and for you to ignore. And I can respect that.


I already told you this isn't my essay. Look at what the topic's called, and read what i said at the beginning. This topic's about why developed countries are developed and why developing countries are developing. No originality? The reasons for global poverty haven't really changed over the decades. History hasn't changed either. I'd love to come up with my own original facts,but I really can't.

I'd say Che Guevara came up with the obvious solution, and that's a global revolution, mainly by the poor majorities in developing countries, that changes the fundamentals of how we run the world. But that's irrelevant to the topic.
Posted 3/19/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
I only super-condensed everything you've said into a single factor; Che Guevara's own bias opinion and subjective view on humanity, as the sole cause of global poverty. So what's wrong with that?

Furthermore, I never disagreed with anything you've said. When all I pointed out was the fact that neither you nor Che Guevara himself ever devise a working method to end global poverty. All because of your shared perspective on humanity being one of anguish and irrationality.

I'm someone who gets bored with the trivial facts, and that's only after I've disciplined myself to read through all of your so-called "findings". However if your findings was the sole of your essay, then what's not to say that it's only a copy-and-paste report? With an open-end structure and no originality.

And that's when it hits me, you really don't know how to end your essay with a positive note, do you? Well, that's for me to know and for you to ignore. And I can respect that.


I already told you this isn't my essay. Look at what the topic's called, and read what i said at the beginning. This topic's about why developed countries are developed and why developing countries are developing. No originality? The reasons for global poverty haven't really changed over the decades. History hasn't changed either. I'd love to come up with my own original facts,but I really can't.

I'd say Che Guevara came up with the obvious solution, and that's a global revolution, mainly by the poor majorities in developing countries, that changes the fundamentals of how we run the world.
But that's irrelevant to the topic.
What's that got to do with the fact that both you and Che Guevara still view humanity negatively? When that will only suggest that any plan will not be considered, as long as humanity as a whole is anguish and irrational. You might as well invite totalitarian tyranny on a global scale, where anger and irrationality are at the core of this movement.
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
63 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 3/20/10
There are other factors, but to know them you got to have historical viewpoint correrct: without it, you look at the world through the glasses of "today".
For instance: Russia - that country was huge, but it was not undeveloped because of "west". through Russian history it was always fight between king and nobility. Kings always tried to unite country, and to weaken the position of nobility and vice versa. The greatest russian rulers: catherine the great and peter the great were the ones who "won" their fights against the nobility and they modernized the country. They had weak successors, so nobility took their privileges back. So, in the time of revolution, they had weak ruler, who could not go against the nobility. Commies used that. It needs to be noted that it was nobility, not the king, who had power in this huge country. And their nobility was not thinking about the greater good, only for themselves.
Then there is eastern europe: until 18th century, those formerly great kingdoms were nothing but breeding and feeding grounds for Turkey. When they were finally defeated, those same countries developed greatly: in WW2, most of the nazi germany heavy factories that were still standing were in now backwards Romania and Bulgaria. They were raised in late 1944, early 1945. Later that great potential was directed toward building war machines for warshav pact - they did good job, but it was economical failure.
Then there is WW1 - it is there when europea lost its power. What was the cause? Germany, although it didnt had colonies, had great industry: greater even then Britain and France which were colonial powers. So, they had to be taken down. War started. European powers had less and less money, manpower and resources. And US was war profiteering.
Although all sides put bans on selling weapons and war materials, US was smuggling weapons, of course for lots of money, to britain and france. At the end of the war europe was exhausted, while us had money, and main powers owned them alot.
Then there are colonies: it is not true that they were kept backwards: lets face it, they were backwards. Even now, most of the roads and railways and buildings that are used were build during the colonial period, especially in africa.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 3/20/10

blancer wrote:

There are other factors, but to know them you got to have historical viewpoint correrct: without it, you look at the world through the glasses of "today".
For instance: Russia - that country was huge, but it was not undeveloped because of "west". through Russian history it was always fight between king and nobility. Kings always tried to unite country, and to weaken the position of nobility and vice versa. The greatest russian rulers: catherine the great and peter the great were the ones who "won" their fights against the nobility and they modernized the country. They had weak successors, so nobility took their privileges back. So, in the time of revolution, they had weak ruler, who could not go against the nobility. Commies used that. It needs to be noted that it was nobility, not the king, who had power in this huge country. And their nobility was not thinking about the greater good, only for themselves.
Then there is eastern europe: until 18th century, those formerly great kingdoms were nothing but breeding and feeding grounds for Turkey. When they were finally defeated, those same countries developed greatly: in WW2, most of the nazi germany heavy factories that were still standing were in now backwards Romania and Bulgaria. They were raised in late 1944, early 1945. Later that great potential was directed toward building war machines for warshav pact - they did good job, but it was economical failure.
Then there is WW1 - it is there when europea lost its power. What was the cause? Germany, although it didnt had colonies, had great industry: greater even then Britain and France which were colonial powers. So, they had to be taken down. War started. European powers had less and less money, manpower and resources. And US was war profiteering.
Although all sides put bans on selling weapons and war materials, US was smuggling weapons, of course for lots of money, to britain and france. At the end of the war europe was exhausted, while us had money, and main powers owned them alot.
Then there are colonies: it is not true that they were kept backwards: lets face it, they were backwards. Even now, most of the roads and railways and buildings that are used were build during the colonial period, especially in africa.


There are lots of other factors for many other countries, but I just summarized and focused on the richest and most developed. Russia in the 15th century was under west European control like other eastern European countries, but Russia obviously got out of their control, but was still never able to properly develop. And yeah, the US got into its position after WW2 because the European powers fell, but also because the 150 years of building itself through slavery and a protectionist economy.




DomFortress wrote:

What's that got to do with the fact that both you and Che Guevara still view humanity negatively? When that will only suggest that any plan will not be considered, as long as humanity as a whole is anguish and irrational. You might as well invite totalitarian tyranny on a global scale, where anger and irrationality are at the core of this movement.


Humanity right now is horrible, and it has been horrible for centuries. That's why we view it negatively. I do have relatively optimistic views of the future, though, but that's irrelevant.

I don't know what you're trying to say, viewing the world for what it is will make sure things never get better?
Posted 3/20/10 , edited 3/21/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

What's that got to do with the fact that both you and Che Guevara still view humanity negatively? When that will only suggest that any plan will not be considered, as long as humanity as a whole is anguish and irrational. You might as well invite totalitarian tyranny on a global scale, where anger and irrationality are at the core of this movement.


Humanity right now is horrible, and it has been horrible for centuries. That's why we view it negatively. I do have relatively optimistic views of the future, though, but that's irrelevant.

I don't know what you're trying to say, viewing the world for what it is will make sure things never get better?
There are only two factors in my view, when history had proved its worth by establishing the situation that is the global poverty of today. And they are humanity under human policies.

First off, between humanity and human policies, just who created whom? Second, who have power over whom? Third, who should come first? And finally, how will they work together?

And if you repeat history's mistake by putting human policies first, than all you'll ended up is the same result. Because you went and picked the easy step by you disregarding the state of humanity.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 3/20/10

DomFortress wrote:

There are only to factors in my view, when history had proved its worth by establishing the situation that is the global poverty of today. And they are humanity under human policies.

First off, between humanity and human policies, just who created whom?
Second, who have power over whom? Third, who should come first? And finally, how will they work together?

And if you repeat history's mistake by putting human policies first, than all you'll ended up is the same result. Because you went and picked the easy step by you disregarding the state of humanity.


That's a good question, maybe the nature of human beings will always cause a few selfish ones to oppress the rest. But I think it's very possible for humans to develop a much fairer world for themselves, so the current human policies are an assault on humanity. I agree with Gandhi when he said he saw human beings as a force for good, generally, people in the world have good consciences and want the suffering of others to stop. If all people in the world can connect with each other, start working to fix things collectively and not just be concerned with their own well-being, I think reforming things is very possible.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/20/10
Honestly I think developing nations are poor because their leaders want to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. My experience when I went to Haiti in 2007 was that the government is corrupt and abusive. They don't have ties or major trade between larger nations like the US, what they do have is many millionaires that live in one city and avoid taxation through Haitian tax laws. The government abused wealthy nations, it wasn't poor because they kept them poor. I saw for my own eyes a failed humanitarian aid project. The US and Canada sent millions to Haiti to build some public housing, they took the millions and spent almost none of it on the project. We saw these abandoned steel frames, and the government went back to the US and Canada and asked for more money because what was given "wasn't enough to build public housing, look for yourself, we need more money." In reality, the corrupt politicians pocketed the money and used the incomplete building as an excuse to try and milk more money from aid giving nations. Developed countries are crucial to developing nations, they are the ones that give aid and invest in the poorer nations, I think nations are poor because of their corrupt governments doing nothing for the people. In Haiti the government existed to keep the rich richer, and make the poor poorer, and I'm sure it's similar in other poor countries as well. There are many factors for nations being poor, I think the largest one is political corruption within that country. However, others would include communist regimes, dictators staying in power and abusing the people, a lack of a will to develop, the culture of the country, and debt problems.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 3/20/10 , edited 3/20/10

digs wrote:

Honestly I think developing nations are poor because their leaders want to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. My experience when I went to Haiti in 2007 was that the government is corrupt and abusive. They don't have ties or major trade between larger nations like the US, what they do have is many millionaires that live in one city and avoid taxation through Haitian tax laws. The government abused wealthy nations, it wasn't poor because they kept them poor. I saw for my own eyes a failed humanitarian aid project. The US and Canada sent millions to Haiti to build some public housing, they took the millions and spent almost none of it on the project. We saw these abandoned steel frames, and the government went back to the US and Canada and asked for more money because what was given "wasn't enough to build public housing, look for yourself, we need more money." In reality, the corrupt politicians pocketed the money and used the incomplete building as an excuse to try and milk more money from aid giving nations. Developed countries are crucial to developing nations, they are the ones that give aid and invest in the poorer nations, I think nations are poor because of their corrupt governments doing nothing for the people. In Haiti the government existed to keep the rich richer, and make the poor poorer, and I'm sure it's similar in other poor countries as well. There are many factors for nations being poor, I think the largest one is political corruption within that country. However, others would include communist regimes, dictators staying in power and abusing the people, a lack of a will to develop, the culture of the country, and debt problems.


Yes, that's true, the governments and people in power in these countries want to keep the people poor. But the reason why the people in the country can't change things, and why it's like that in the first place is imperialism. Haiti's a good example, because its situation is a result of pure US imperialism. In fact, I think Haiti has been subjected to the most imperialist policies by the US than any other US colony.

I'll go through Haiti's imperial history for this past century:

Woodrow Wilson was the initial US president to basically destroy any hope for Haiti's development. The US invaded Haiti, removed the parliament and government of that time because they refused to accept a US constitution (in 1915). The constitution the US wanted to implement in Haiti gave the corporations the right to do whatever they wanted with Haiti. They obviosuly refused, so the US sent in the marines and took out the government. They hired a dictator that would take control of the country and had a "referendum" where around 5% of the Haitian population got to vote, and their hired dictator won by like 99.99%. The US occupation of Haiti lasted until 1937, they had military bases all over and they essentially destroyed the country, tens of thousands of people who resisted the regime change were just massacred, it was a very brutal power display to force the Haitians to accept what had just happened to them.

When US finally left in 1937, it made sure the new regime was basically a well-armed oppressor of the Haitian people and it let the US pursue whatever corporate interests it wanted in Haiti. François Duvalier was one of the US's best implemented leaders in Haiti. From 1956 to 87 he murdered and tortured tens of thousands of people; anyone who went against him politically. The US gave aid to his regime generously, there was no chance for development under him and US interests were protected, so the murdering and torture and oppression was praised. Then the democratic disaster happened in 1990; the Haitian people miraculously managed to get a real democratically elected leader in power, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. This was a disaster for the US, this leader might start doing something for all the poor, so the reactions was to aim aide away from Aristide to other forces in Haiti that were encouraged to remove him from power; the rich business elites of the country.

Soon Aristide was forcefully removed by a military coup, by the same National Guard militia set up by the US when it was occupying Haiti and used by all the dictators. The world recognized this coup was a bad thing, but the US decided to violate the suggested embargo on the new murderous regime and openly traded with it and sent more "aide." At the same time the number of atrocities being carrying out increased dramatically. The AP reported that Clinton approved Texaco Oil Company sending oil to the militia in control to help them stay in power longer; the embargo from the rest of the world was making them run out of resources. Soon after, Clinton sent in the marines again, to "restore democracy."

Aristide was returned to power, but the condition was he had to carry out the program of the candidate that he beat in the 1990 election (a World Bank official) who had 14% of the votes. The policies were extremely neoliberal, which again, let any outside corporation come in and do whatever they please while anyone who wasn't already rich had no chance. So the economy was guaranteed to stay the way it is in every developing country; a few very rich and the majority in desperate poverty. The US successfully "restored democracy" which means "restoring neocolonialist control."

That was the punishment the Haitians in poverty got for daring to organize themselves to get a democratic leader elected that would represent them. Now they couldn't even feed themselves and were starting to be considered a failed state.

In 2000, the Aristide government came into power, but this time Aritistide was more brutal and wanted to make sure no military rebellion would carry out another coup, so he became guilty of more human rights violations. In 2004, the US needed to restore order again, so the same thing happened; US backed militias carried out a coup, and many soldiers had to occupy Haiti to put back the right government. France and Canada were largely involved in this as well, the meeting for how the Haiti situation would be handled happened secretly in Ottawa. But in the end, the right government was put in place to make sure Haiti stayed poor and would allow imperialist countries to do whatever they wanted.


Yes, the rich and powerful elite in Haiti get part of the blame. But they're all just a part of US imperialism in Haiti. Since it occupied Haiti in 1915 until now, a century of imperialist intervention that has made sure it can never develop.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.