Foreign Aid and Colonialism?

[peter]

Is foreign aid ever morally neutral. Is it ever given with the dual incentives of reflecting back on the giver (eg simplistically, building roads in a country so that you can sell them cars down the line) and foisting western cultural systems and values onto people's who would better be left in continuance of their own societal models. Can much of the conflict and corruption in the non-western societies of the world be viewed as a direct result of the imperfect effects of such exportation - disrupting the development of existing social structures by superposition of an alien culture on top of the naturally evolved ones, better fitted to the geographic and other survival pressures (eg limits of space, food production etc) and creating car-crash results in the process. Is foreign aid simply colonialism in a more subtle from?

[Avatar]

Short answer, yes.

The long answer is a bit more complicated.

--A

[peter]

Africa's a good example isn't it Av? How much of the chaotic clusterfuck of the continent's modern history could have been avoided if we'd just left it the fuck alone!

(Simplistic wishful thinking I know but........)

[Avatar]

I think I can honestly say it would just be a different clusterfuck, but in general, I'm of the opinion that foreign aid can end up doing more harm than good unfortunately.

--A

[Skyweir]

Thats an interesting question. Does foreign aid do more harm than good? If so nations like the US are justified in their isolationist position re foreign affairs.

I dont know about your countries but here a case must be built for all aspects of government expenditure, foreign aid inclusive. We have a Department .. well in truth two to foreign aid and aid project delivery.

A friend worked for AUSAID and she was involved in a lot of significant aid projects to the Pacific islands, Indonesia and in some SE Asian countries. So I dont believe all foreign aid is bad at all.

I think British Imperialism was definitely not altruistic, nor other colonial exploits pretty much exploitative, the Spanish, the Dutch, the US etc etc all have their horrors.

[Vraith]

Thats an interesting question. Does foreign aid do more harm than good? If so nations like the US are justified in their isolationist position re foreign affairs.


I think British Imperialism was definitely not altruistic, nor other colonial exploits pretty much exploitative, the Spanish, the Dutch, the US etc etc all have their horrors.

On the first...I'd say aid can be, pretty much always is, "disruptive" [as peter said]. But that does not mean it MUST or always DOES cause more harm than good. And the harm/good is semi-independent of the selfish/altruistic axis/purpose. But that doesn't justify isolationism...because isolationism is a fast track to social/political/cultural death/extinction. [[as opposed to the slower, and hopefully advantageous, extinction via hybridization/adaptation/evolution]]

But...and moving on to the second...there are cooperative/interactive methods/means---that are less often used, and those you listed definitely failed to use them most of the time. The colonization/subjugation/pillaging was intended, any good accomplished mostly accidental. Collateral benefits as unavoidable as collateral damage.

[Skyweir]

I do agree with most of what you have said. Maybe non harmful intervention is merely a collateral benefit in sum.

I think there is no question that historical expansionism, colonisation and imperialism all fit into this category. The agenda was driven by the benefit to the State directing said expansionism, colonisation and imperialism.

So looking at contemporary times things had not advanced much farther imv .. with say America in the Phillippenes.. can we refer to that as contemporary history?

In modern times such continues re the US and the Middle East .. oil being the desired end goal. But as this dynamic has changed re profit .. we can still readily identify this very much alive and well desire towards expansionism re Israel v Palestine.

But there is one defining difference in such objectives and that is a global consciousness and global censure ... despite its inefficacy.

I think there are further considerations ie that are likely difficult to side step .. and that is the identification of benefit for investment, if you will. I dont think any nation ever achieves an altruistic endeavour .. there must be some national advantage to channeling aid. That advantage is no longer financial profit or economic opportunity... it can be heightened security outcomes, it can be greater economic stability, it can be a measure that will establish peace in the region etc.

When a country faces natural disaster .. many nations act on humanitarian grounds. Though Id like to see if all actions are indeed merely for the benefit of the recipient suffering nation. There may indeed be some.

Furthermore, some national benefits might be assistance with northward migration ie US and your southern border.

I think foreign aid cant be delivered without a degree of cost benefit assessment. But as noted not all benefits will be financial and economical.

[peter]

In the face of domestic problems and a limited budget any administration is going to have to justify monies spent abroad to the electorate - and the chances are that as the belt tightens at home the altruistic arguments alone won't cut it. So like it or not, if as a member of the governing class, you want (even for the most honourable of reasons) foreign aid to be maintained, then you are going to have to come up with sound cost/benefit analysis in order to justify it. But no country than does not share at least some of the same wants and desires as you is going to be of much use in terms of furtherance of your benefits - and thus hand in glove with any aid will be the necessity of exporting your culture and it's attendant values concurrently. So alongside foreign aid must by necessity, a form of back-door colonialism take place, in order that the aid be given at all.

As far as I'm aware there are virtually no indigenous peoples who remain in isolation such that western cultural values are not seeping, be it ever so slowly, into their world. There might be some small pockets held so in the form of a sort of anthropological 'Jurrasic Park' style experiment (think the indigenous tribal people's of the Andaman Islands or deep in the rain forrests of South America) but by and large the spread of Western culture is inexorable and impossible to stem/resist. Capitalism must - must - have two things to survive as an economic model......an expanding market and constant innovation. While ever we follow the capitalist doctrine, foreign aid will always be it's hand servant in preparation of the next market to be conquered. Capitalism must see the world's societies homogenised, and foreign aid offers the doorway into aceiving this ........ doesn't it?

[Skyweir]

Mmm... Im not convinced

[Skyweir]

Im messing with yer

I do get it but LOLLED when you noted capitalism only needs two things then proceeded to list three things after that .. it was LOL city.


Ok, ok .. so seriously so you are positing thAt foreign aid is a tool in modern day economic colonislisation and expansionism. Sure markets do tend to growth. So yeah sure .. lets go with that

[Vraith]

The biggest error peter makes is to suggest that "western culture" and "capitalism" are different/unique in regards to colonialism/expansionism and all the crap that comes from such.
They aren't. Not even close.
Merely the most successful so far...partly by luck, because they are NOT part of a unit..."western culture" and "capitalism" conflict deeply, in irreconcilable ways.

[[but let's not forget omni-racial, multi-continental genocide, radical Islam, and Communism [both the pure "philosophy" AND the instantiated slaughterous tyrannies] are ours, too.]]

[peter]

Yes V, that's a fair point (and it occurs to me to wonder if it is not the case that capitalism has only ridden to the success it has on the back of social democracy and that left to it's own devices it might simply have failed and failed again).

But the question remains; to foreign aid or not to foreign aid? I (in my fantasy musing) have this vision of how the world might have been without colonialism, empire building, exportation of culture etc, and it looks something like a version of the recent Black Panther movie (without the Superhero stuff) with different but mutually respecting cultures of totally different type coexisting in a world where the need to expand ones own way was absent. Bullshit I know, but how fascinating would it have been to have seen it. What we have now, or fast approaching at least, is the equivalent of taking your Sunday roast and liquidising it. Naive, but might it not now be better to just get the fuck out of eachothers faces a bit - and perhaps foreign aid is a place to start or at the least rethink.

Talking of exportation of culture, it seems entirely possible that we in the west might soon be about to get a dose of our own medicine; at least one thinker on the subject has said that in the coming decades (breifly ignoring the climate change thing) it will not be China that will be westernised, but the west that will be sinicised; that'll be a turn up for the books methinks!

[Skyweir]

Im not so sure rescinding foreign aid is a recipe for mutual respect and paradoxical coexistence.

Some. nations require support .. and to deprive aid could have negative impact .. at least in the short term.

Yes foreign aid has been used as an in ... to certain nations and a bargaining chip to exploiting their natural resources.

Nevertheless... I am thinking locally .. if Australia refused to aid those countries in the South Pacific and SE Asia that we do .. the impact would be lessened security in the region .. particularly in the areas of capacity building which we do a great deal of.

That would negatively impact all sorts of things for us .. trade, economy, security, immigration etc.

[Avatar]

I guess that, as with so many things, it all depends.

Certainly much harm has been done by foreign aid being used to prop up corrupt and failing dictatorships for example, and much foreign aid has been used for purposes other than intended.

--A

[Skyweir]

All true

Some has been used to support nations, trade partners etc. The Marshall Plan after WWII help put Europe back on its feet. It was to provide for European stability .. but of course not altruistic. There is always some benefit to get out of it for the donor .. whether that be trade deals, resource exploitation or purely regional stability and enhanced security.

And it is as inevitable that foreigners aid is very often used to support foreign policy. Thats kinda unavoidable to at least some extent imo.

[Avatar]

Not to mention the "conditions" that are almost always attached...

--A