RE: Bush budget has 0 dollars for Afghanistan

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed Feb 19 2003 - 10:08:48 MST

  • Next message: Rafal Smigrodzki: "RE: Performance enhancement with selegiline"

    Lee Corbin wrote:

    >
    > The problem with dumping money on third-world countries
    > is shown by the messes that the World Bank and the IMF
    > create every time that they try to do so. The nations
    > of Africa (for one) are worse off than if they'd been
    > left alone. And that stands to reason when you think
    > of the money going to corrupt politicians or disrupting
    > incipient wealth producing aspects of the economy.

    ### I fully agree with you that dumping money on the corrupt rulers of the
    poor people is highly counterproductive. In this context, American
    occupation of Afghanistan (and later Iraq) offers the opportunity to give
    real help, not to be diverted to nefarious schemes and Swiss bank accounts
    (well, at least not all of it). Instead, basic education, sound fiscal
    policy, support for the legal systems, protection of the free markets,
    building of protected free trade zones in areas under US control, giving the
    locals an economic stake in the benefits of the zones, expansion of the
    orderly way of business across the land, access to information, and even, in
    some special cases, limited humanitarian help, could eventually make a
    difference.
    -------------------
    >
    > It's easy to wave one's hands and say "schools, infrastructure,
    > and investment", but, as the old saying goes, you can't teach
    > someone how to fish by throwing a fishing pole his way, especially
    > if he'd rather do something else, like fight other tribes.

    ### This is a slow process, to be sure.

    ---------------
    > I think that the crucial difference is that Japan and Germany
    > were already extremely developed nations, and had the talent
    > to assimilate the habits of democracy. Surely you don't
    > suppose that Afghanistan is as capable as they were.
    >
    ### You are correct, I think, but we are not talking about transforming
    Afghanistan into the new economic tiger. A small absolute improvement from a
    low point can be a large improvement in relative terms, and a big change in
    the likelihood of terrorism.

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 19 2003 - 10:10:19 MST