Have western governments asked themselves the simple question, “Is the poverty in some of these countries contributing to or causing terrorism?”
The United Nations seems to think so. Or, at least that's what a recently released report -- The Inequality Predicament: Report on the World Social Situation 2005-- says.
According to the report, the growing violence associated with "national and international acts of terrorism" is the result of stark economic and social inequalities and competition over scarce resources.
It also points an accusatory finger at the allegedly harmful effects of market and trade liberalizations, privatization and private enterprise.
As an antidote to this, the United Nations predictably prescribes more foreign aid.
For example, earmark more foreign aid for frontline states in the war against terrorism. Countries like Afghanistan are desperately in need of infrastructure after decades of war. Foreign aid, if used to build basic capacity structures -- like roads, bridges, sanitation and power plants; the type of things that we in the developed world take for granted -- would greatly assist in stabilizing a country like Afghanistan.
2 comments:
Find poverty, find violence. If you combine poverty with lack of oppurtunity and a represive government (regime) you will see violent extremism.
There is no way this country, or any coalition of countries can or should attempt to pour philanthropy at the fire of extremism.
To your point these funds never get into the grassroots, and invariably prop up ever increasing repressive regimes. This places the US and the west in the position of always aiding the wrong groups.
I dislike the poverty of our world, and dislike the violence and repression associated with it.
Good post.
I beg to differ. Just read an interesting article highlighting the change of Muslim public opinion as a result of American aid, which I'll post tomorrow.
In brief "For the first time since 9/11, both the Indonesian and Pakistani people - the largest and second-largest Muslim populations in the world - expressed a favorable opinion of the US, and at the same time, turned against support for Mr. bin Laden and terrorist attacks."
Granted, if the Bush administration has done anything right along these lines, it's more a fluke than anything.
Post a Comment