Should the West intervene with more aid and peacekeeping forces to stem the stream of young men leaving their homelands?

Twas always the way, but we still have to try and make a difference, for I believe that forces for good sometimes prevail, never give up.

there are Trumps, but there are Mandelas.

Wyllow3

Twas always the way, but we still have to try and make a difference, for I believe that forces for good sometimes prevail, never give up.

there are Trumps, but there are Mandelas.

👏👏👏👏👏

It’s a real dilemma isn’t it. What happens in Africa affects all of us. I read people from Sudan are listed as fifth in the nationalities seeking refuge in the UK. That’s likely to increase as the war worsens.

The discussion on this thread about the risks involved in continuing to pour in aid despite lack corruption etc and dependency is one of the factors that led to little public opposition, even support for reducing our foreign aid

I have witnessed corruption first hand in an African country.

Perpetrated by the very people/organisations receiving the aid, so that they could help and assist others.

I was shocked but after being there for a month, not in the least surprised.

Whilst I acknowledge that aid is needed in many countries, I am conflicted on how it could be given in such a way that it reaches the people in need as opposed to lining various pockets?

The problem is that 'aid' is just a sticking plaster on a gaping wound which cannot solve poor countries' problem of poverty and exploitation by 'the West'.

While these countries are paying out large percentages of of their national incomes on servicing international debt they don't have enough money left to develop the infrastructure they need to grow independently of western exploitation or provide the services needed to keep their citizens healthy and well educated.

Someone mentioned the partial debt relief they were given some time ago. I'd be in favour of a far greater initiative to write off their debts to give them a better chance to provide the needed infrastructure.

I have been saying for a long time that no one is tackling the source of the problems, why are these people travelling thousands of miles in terrible conditions to come to Europe? Any aid that has been sent to them in the past has been siphoned off by corrupt leaders. I am not sure how we can tackle the mind set that now seems instilled in these society's to keep leaving .

Looking round the world, there seems to be too much to tackle.
☹

MaizieD

The problem is that 'aid' is just a sticking plaster on a gaping wound which cannot solve poor countries' problem of poverty and exploitation by 'the West'.

While these countries are paying out large percentages of of their national incomes on servicing international debt they don't have enough money left to develop the infrastructure they need to grow independently of western exploitation or provide the services needed to keep their citizens healthy and well educated.

Someone mentioned the partial debt relief they were given some time ago. I'd be in favour of a far greater initiative to write off their debts to give them a better chance to provide the needed infrastructure.

Most of these countries have had their independence for well over 50 years. If we were to blame our current problems on post war condotions and marshall Aid (which we misspent) we would be laughed out of court.

The main cause of the problems of these countries, most of whom are in Africa has been continuous bad government by elites who see Aid as their own private bank accounts.

The various colonial powers did not just have colonies in Africa, they had them in Asia and elsewhere. The many Asian ex-colonies are prosperous and doing well. As, some Arab countries. We really need to ask ourselves why it is that it is mainly the African ountries that are still basket cases.

As with slavery, it may be necessary to face unpleasant truths - like the extent of slavery in West Africa before the Europeans industrialised it and the extent to which African rulers enthusiastically helped collect slaves and enjoyed the money they brought them. We now need to look at failing countries and ask why, when so many colonies elsewhere are prosperous and well governed, they are not.

Iam64

It’s a real dilemma isn’t it. What happens in Africa affects all of us. I read people from Sudan are listed as fifth in the nationalities seeking refuge in the UK. That’s likely to increase as the war worsens.

The discussion on this thread about the risks involved in continuing to pour in aid despite lack corruption etc and dependency is one of the factors that led to little public opposition, even support for reducing our foreign aid

There are more Sudanese refugees in Egypt and Chad than there are Sudanese asylum-seekers in the UK or in other European countries. (Similar situation with Syria.)

If the aim (as per the OP) is to reduce asylum-seekers to Europe, one solution could be to give "aid" to Egypt and Chad (maybe via the UN). Neither country is exactly delighted to have an influx of so many refugees, but it's inevitable, unless they build high walls to keep the refugees out.

If refugees could be supported to create proper communities, they will eventually integrate, although there will be ethnic tensions. That support needs money, which is where the West could help and incidentally provide an incentive for young men (and others) to stay away from Europe.

I think GG13’s OP was excellent.
Also agree and have said on other threads that the West’s turn at the top table is over (good way of putting it).
Can’t agree that aid should be stopped because not enough gets to the people it’s intended for. We have been brought up better than that.
We should def stop selling arms to unstable and undemocratic regimes.

growstuff

Iam64

It’s a real dilemma isn’t it. What happens in Africa affects all of us. I read people from Sudan are listed as fifth in the nationalities seeking refuge in the UK. That’s likely to increase as the war worsens.

The discussion on this thread about the risks involved in continuing to pour in aid despite lack corruption etc and dependency is one of the factors that led to little public opposition, even support for reducing our foreign aid

There are more Sudanese refugees in Egypt and Chad than there are Sudanese asylum-seekers in the UK or in other European countries. (Similar situation with Syria.)

If the aim (as per the OP) is to reduce asylum-seekers to Europe, one solution could be to give "aid" to Egypt and Chad (maybe via the UN). Neither country is exactly delighted to have an influx of so many refugees, but it's inevitable, unless they build high walls to keep the refugees out.

If refugees could be supported to create proper communities, they will eventually integrate, although there will be ethnic tensions. That support needs money, which is where the West could help and incidentally provide an incentive for young men (and others) to stay away from Europe.

Supporting refugee camps is a thought

Those in them are closer to their homes, cultures and hopefully in time it would be easier to return to their routes.

To not support these refugee camps could leave those there open to radicalisation which could be dangerous for the west.

Academics/medics leaving the countries of their birth is compounding the problems (mind you it happens in the western world, Brit’s going to Australia/New Zealand and vice versa)

I'm glad we're thinking along the same lines GG13.

M0nica

MaizieD

The problem is that 'aid' is just a sticking plaster on a gaping wound which cannot solve poor countries' problem of poverty and exploitation by 'the West'.

While these countries are paying out large percentages of of their national incomes on servicing international debt they don't have enough money left to develop the infrastructure they need to grow independently of western exploitation or provide the services needed to keep their citizens healthy and well educated.

Someone mentioned the partial debt relief they were given some time ago. I'd be in favour of a far greater initiative to write off their debts to give them a better chance to provide the needed infrastructure.

Most of these countries have had their independence for well over 50 years. If we were to blame our current problems on post war condotions and marshall Aid (which we misspent) we would be laughed out of court.

The main cause of the problems of these countries, most of whom are in Africa has been continuous bad government by elites who see Aid as their own private bank accounts.

The various colonial powers did not just have colonies in Africa, they had them in Asia and elsewhere. The many Asian ex-colonies are prosperous and doing well. As, some Arab countries. We really need to ask ourselves why it is that it is mainly the African ountries that are still basket cases.

As with slavery, it may be necessary to face unpleasant truths - like the extent of slavery in West Africa before the Europeans industrialised it and the extent to which African rulers enthusiastically helped collect slaves and enjoyed the money they brought them. We now need to look at failing countries and ask why, when so many colonies elsewhere are prosperous and well governed, they are not.

Well written and thought out comments.

Allira

Looking round the world, there seems to be too much to tackle.
☹

There is, and despite billions of aid some countries are no further forward than they were in the 60’s.

M0nica

MaizieD

The problem is that 'aid' is just a sticking plaster on a gaping wound which cannot solve poor countries' problem of poverty and exploitation by 'the West'.

While these countries are paying out large percentages of of their national incomes on servicing international debt they don't have enough money left to develop the infrastructure they need to grow independently of western exploitation or provide the services needed to keep their citizens healthy and well educated.

Someone mentioned the partial debt relief they were given some time ago. I'd be in favour of a far greater initiative to write off their debts to give them a better chance to provide the needed infrastructure.

Most of these countries have had their independence for well over 50 years. If we were to blame our current problems on post war condotions and marshall Aid (which we misspent) we would be laughed out of court.

The main cause of the problems of these countries, most of whom are in Africa has been continuous bad government by elites who see Aid as their own private bank accounts.

The various colonial powers did not just have colonies in Africa, they had them in Asia and elsewhere. The many Asian ex-colonies are prosperous and doing well. As, some Arab countries. We really need to ask ourselves why it is that it is mainly the African ountries that are still basket cases.

As with slavery, it may be necessary to face unpleasant truths - like the extent of slavery in West Africa before the Europeans industrialised it and the extent to which African rulers enthusiastically helped collect slaves and enjoyed the money they brought them. We now need to look at failing countries and ask why, when so many colonies elsewhere are prosperous and well governed, they are not.

Why are you completely ignoring the identified causes of
poverty in many 3rd world countries. Most notably them being so indebted to 1st World countries that they cannot improve their conditions because they don't have enough money left?

Did you read the article I posted the link to? If you did, are you saying that the problems identified in it don't really exist or are not significant?

These countries are indebted because so much of the money they were given did not go to the projects they were intended for.

They were also often for projects that were vanity projects, not ones that were directly useful. In the early 1980s I worked, briefly, for a big American engineering company in the division that built things like aluminium plants, and car factories in countries that really needed roads, power stations and water mains. The company knew they were vanity products for the ruling elite, who both took money from the projects themselves and took more in bribes from the contractors who paid to get the jobs.

At one point my heart bled as much as anyone elses for these poor benighted country, but as I have seen so many other countries with the same backgrounds in other parts of the world build successful economies, my blood as gradually dried up. I now think channelling vast amounts of aid to these countries actually makes the situation worse not better.

I am all for charities, like Practical Action, taking small scale technology to farmers in their villages: new seeds, better tools, wells and sewing machines, but above that level I now believe that the sooner all cash aid stops, the better.

These countries are indebted because so much of the money they were given did not go to the projects they were intended for

Sorry? Were these funds given (in which case there is no debt) or loaned?

You seem, in effect, to be saying that all these poor countries with enormous foreign debt to service are hopelessly corrupt so really not worth bothering about.

I can't believe that is so.

African and MiddleEastern countries don’t want western influence they want to run their state in their own way. They don’t care about our problems, in many cases the migrants are dissenters who they are glad to be rid. Birth rate is high why bother with more health care

Africanization is the policy of most countries even SA where whites are being demoted to make way for black bosses, it’s the same in other states. NGOs and aid workers are very restricted now. They will take the money but don’t want any interference, corruption is a way of life, they may have laws to the contrary but it’s just window dressing

Why should they bother with the west, China will pay for resources and commercial access no questions asked, arms, a new road, a new power station or a Swiss bank account no problem

David49 Are you really so defeatist that you're happy for China to extend its influence and power even more than currently?

MaizieD

^These countries are indebted because so much of the money they were given did not go to the projects they were intended for^

Sorry? Were these funds given (in which case there is no debt) or loaned?

You seem, in effect, to be saying that all these poor countries with enormous foreign debt to service are hopelessly corrupt so really not worth bothering about.

I can't believe that is so.

Both gifts and loaned were hoovered up by the elite people aat the top. Remember all the stories about Robert Mugabe's second wife and her spending?

I am not saying these countries are not worth helping. I am saying exactly the opposite. I am saying that as it is all the gifts and loans that have turned these countries into the corrupt inefficient countries they are , we must now try some tough love and istead of pouring money into them we should offer practical grass roots aid, such as that of Practical Action and similar charities, giving only non-monetary or marginally monetary aid, so that they are forced to manage their countries so that they live on the income they generate through efficient businesses, and good governance.

Yes, we, the world, need to find a way to get help, of whatever description, to get through directly to the folk in genuine need.
How to get past the greedy elites?
But if we are looking for 'soft power', then Leaders have to be involved.