A friend of mine who has been working around the world in poverty-stricken areas with the International Committee for the Red Cross recently sent me this
New York Times editorial. I do not agree with everything in this article, but the author makes some interesting points. My friend, who has worked for years in Africa, Palestine, and is now being sent to Afghanistan for a year, is frustrated with how NGOs (organizations that try to help developing countries deal with poverty) treat the problems that they face. His view is that providing charity and money is not the solution but rather part of the problem. His experiences working in villages in Chad and Senegal in Africa have shown him that in order to help people in very poor areas, you need to change poor economic and social habits that have developed over time. Basically, my friend argues that many people in poor countries where he works need help with basic life skills.
In Haiti, for example, part of the reason that the earthquake caused so much damage is because so many buildings in the city were poorly-constructed and did not follow important safety rules. This is because building developers are often corrupt and want to build quickly to make more money, sacrificing safety and security. My friend would argue that this is one of the major problems of Haitian society - too many people are corrupt and too many people accept corruption as just the way things are.
I do not know how I feel about this because it seems to blame Haitians for what happened. However, I do think that the way American organizations try to help poorer countries has to change. What do you think? What is the best way to offer help to struggling nations? And do you agree with the editorial above?
2 comments:
I have mixed feelings as well. Trying to teach "life skills" or replace cultures with "cultures of achievement" smacks a little of the imperialist sentiment of the early 20th century when many of our leaders said that we needed to help poorer nations by going in there, and imposing our cultural values. I know that we are not talking about "taking over", but we do so through economic imperialism anyway, which is less overt, but perhaps as damaging anyway.
This also touches on our first essential question, "Who should we help and how much?" Can we really help nations or people that are not ready to accept help or unable to accept it? Is the only way to "save" such countries to impose our will on them (e.g., commit Andy to a psych ward)? One of the principal arguments made for pulling our troops out of Afghanistan is that we cannot be responsible for their society. They have to do it, ultimately, themselves.
I agree, which is why I take issue with the second half of Brooks' editorial. Also, that he cites the Harlem Children's Zone as an example is problematic because I don't know how great it is - more of a big name than a true educational success.
However, I think that every society has progressive elements at work and his point about finding them and cultivating them is important. And I think that is different from "going into" a country to control it, using "aid" as a way to cloak imperialistic intentions. Specifically, I am thinking of NGOs and organizations such as the UN or the ICRC. My assumption is that their intentions are well-meaning, even if a little self-serving. I think most people working for these organizations do want to help. However, so much money goes into these aid organizations without really having an impact. I wonder if the problem is similar to the problem in public schools today - too many well-meaning people who don't truly understand public education and who do not have the time to find out.
However, there are development models out there that work. For example, one organization that I have donated money to in Haiti is Gheskio, a private clinic at the epic center of the quake. This clinic is connected to Cornell Medical Center but has been working in Haiti for decades and provides both health care and health education to combat the spread of AIDS. No one in the organization tells Haitians how to live, but rather shows ways Haitians can protect their health and lives. The people who work for the clinic live and study there. To me it's a better model for a development organization. It gets resources from an American hospital, but provides care based on what people actually need.
But of course, if it were so simple, then poverty would have been eradicated by now, right?
Post a Comment