Tuesday, June 11, 2013
(Kenyan Activist and Economist) James Shikwati, Unplugged
1) Why do Europe's developed countries impose their environmental ethics on poor countries that are simply trying to pass through a stage that they themselves went through?"............2) "Why do they tell poor countries to follow sustainable development doctrines that really mean little or no energy or economic development?"............3) "A sharp contrast exists between many developed countries' NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) and the people they claim to represent. Wealthy countries want the earth to be green, the underdeveloped want the earth fed."............4) "After taking numerous risks to reach their current economic and technological status, why do they (the developed countries) tell poor countries to use no energy, and no agricultural or pest control technologies that might cause some conceivable risk of environmental harm?"............5) Corporate social responsibility ought not to be used to impose policies that kill people. It should not be used to render poor populations sick, unproductive and perpetually destitute. For rich countries to tell poor nations to ban chemicals that help control disease-carrying insects - and then claim to be responsible, humanitarian, and compassionate - is to engage in hypocrisy of the most lethal kind."............6) “Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the foreign aid money), corruption and
complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to
be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets
everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so
desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of
the reasons for Africa’s problems. If the West were to cancel these
payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice. Only the functionaries
would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop
turning without this development aid.”............7) Rather than improving African economies, foreign aid only worsens their situation. 70 countries are poorer than they were in 1980, and 43 are worse off than they were in 1970. The anti-globalization crusaders could help Africa more if they would advocate for the promotion of free trade and abolition of subsidies in the West. Lift the protective barrier in the developed countries and allow consumers to sample African products. To empower the poor economically, give them a chance to trade."............8) “If they (the developed countries) really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt
development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own
survival. Currently, Africa is like a child that immediately cries for
its babysitter when something goes wrong. Africa should stand on its own
two feet.”................................................................................Wow, now this is somebody who I WOULD give a phony American birth certificate to (and, no, I am NOT a "birther" - it's a joke).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
In these policies is an echo of the loathesome "white man's burden" idea and old European colonalism/arrogance/imperialism.
And dead on on free trade. It would have great benefit. Those who oppose it tend to be a sort of reactionary afraid of letting the power of the State erode. Or , as we have seen plenty of times in the past here from certain comments, they are ignorant and arrogant megalomaniacs who believe that their personal preferences should be forced on others. The free trade opponents are paternalistic control freaks afraid of letting people control their own lives and gain prosperity.
Oh absolutely, Wll, because we all know how much better big business is at protecting the rights of the individual, protecting the environment, preventing fraud and corruption, preventing pollution, and providing for the health and welfare of people. They will lift everyone out of poverty and desperation. It is only government that exploits people.
Free markets have a much better record of not just stimulating economic growth but protecting the environment than do the centrally planned economies. Just compare East and West Germany, North and South Korea, etc.. And what's the country that has most reduced its carbon emissions over the past decade? Yeah, that's right, US.
Jerry said: " It is only government that exploits people."
Not "only". But, historically, it is the government that invokes the worst exploitation/violation/atrocity MOST of the time.
Will: That is true. And in too many of these comments, Jerry, who seems like a smart guy, seems to defend the idea of the divine right of the rulers to run our personal lives in a knee-jerk fashion....he always comes out in favor of authoritarianism.
"Question Authority" is a good idea, IMHO. Businesses (which are cooperative efforts based on everyone making their own decisions without coercion) of course have a better record on most things compared to governments, which are based on force and threats, and even at their best, are throwback to a primitive idea of the alpha male weilding a bloody branch as he reigning over a tribe using terror and brute force "might makes right".
And yes, Jerry, about ".... preventing pollution....". The socialist countries (where the government is strong and businesses of all sizes are very week) have far and away the worst record on the environment.
And I'm not against all regulations. Hell, I'm even in favor of a limited (i.e., not one which engages in overkill) EPA.
Exactly, me too. But I will surely never embrace the mindset some have of that everything should be completely controlled by government as the "Default", and only all the people some freedoms begrudgingly.
I agree that the NGOs are ruining Africa. However, if they weren't there, millions would be starving. Do we risk millions starving for the cameras or do we do something about it.
I've kind of become a small l Cato style libertarian (as opposed to large L Mises style Libertarian). I.E., it's not that I'm totally against government, I just want it to work better.
Lisa, the sad fact is that precious little of that foreign aid money actually gets to the people. Most of it simply goes to bureaucrats.
It is clear that Shikwati is interested in the well being of all workers... including Africans. Even if it cuts into the profits of bureacrats. Opposition to free trade is jingoistic at best and racist at worst. Those who oppose it put such profit ahead of people. People they condemn and crush for being in the wrong country, or brown-skinned.
I respect the rights of those who oppose free (fair) trade. If they feel Mexicans are foreign devils they can act accordingly. But they have no right to force their policies on people through government.
No, but your hatred of these people and your numerous insults of them and contempt for them is not far off.
Again, WD, I support your right to make your own trade choices based on your perceptions. Time for you to grow up and take off the megalomaniac hat and respect the right of others to make their own decisions. These people know their lives. You do not, and you come across as a complete a**hole for insulting them and wanting to run (or ruin) their lives.
wd had clearly never even heard of Mr. Shikwati prior to this post and his understanding of his concepts is even more limited, but, nope, that hasn't stopped the moron from thinking that he knows better what's better for Africans than an actual African does.
Will: It's a perfect example of "white man's burden". The mindset that was alive in the 19th century in which outsiders thought they knew what was best for Africans is alive in his mind also.
wd,
I must applaud your ability to illicite inane comments. You are a master. Well done.
I would even go as far as to call him an idiot savant, Jerry, like the mentally retarded kid who could play Mussorgsky and Smetana on the piano.
Just for the record, gentlemen, I didn't mean to imply here that Mr. Shikwati speaks for ALL Africans, just that a) he IS an African and b) the dude seems to have more of a regard for the actual people of Africa and not nearly so much for the bureaucrats and politicians (the 2 groups to which most of the foreign aid money goes to).
Jerry: What was inane? Other than WD's hatred of Africans and their choiceS? Be specific.
I get the impression that you, Jerry, often say crazy things not because you believe them, but just to troll for comments.
I've never considered Jerry quite as leftist as wd and as a person who engages in devil's advocacy myself, I really can't hammer him too badly on that account, either (though, yes, the inane comment I cannot entirely explain).
Please excuse the misspelling. Illicite should have been elicit -- to draw or bring out or forth; educe; evoke.
No need to apologize, Jerry. My misspellings are probably far too numerous to even count (not to mention my grammatical errors).
You are right about Jerry. He is fairly level headed.
Post a Comment