maybe sharing a little of our wealth to guarantee those needs for everyone . . . could indeed ameliorate the ongoing nightmare
When there is hunger, there is power in controlling the distribution of food. When people have power from something, they do not simply allow outsiders to come in and take it away without a fight. You can ship all the food you like for free to African ports; the people of the country itself will still go hungry, because the people with guns will control the distribution to maximize their power.
If a man is intentionally starving and beating his children, you can’t solve their hunger and bruises by giving him material goods. You need to remove his power over the kids and put the kids in care of someone who won’t abuse them. If you want to grant the “the most elementary physical needs of individual destitute Africans (sustenance, health, peace)”, what you will have to do is overthrow their governments and install colonial governors.
There currently seem to be few volunteers for the job.
Yes, this problem is quite obvious, and yes, I’m in favor of full-scale colonialism, but couldn’t a heavier presence by UN/coalition-of-the-willing peacekeepers, with powers to override local authorities when it’s needed to prevent open violence and abuse, also keep the scum that floats to the top there in check? What’s the tactical record for peacekeeping operations that had a reasonably broad mandate for use of force? (Hmm, here’s one account. My cached thought that a “firm hand” brought decent results in Somalia appears to be confirmed.)
...Of course I realize how unlikely any international body would be to approve such powers against the protests of an “independent” local regime (Somalia being an unusual case in that regard), so such policing of aid-receiving countries would have to be carried out unilaterally and without foreign oversight by whatever nation could be willing to implement it. Which creates a power dynamic that’s basically colonialism. Which, again, would IMO be quite OK with purely selfish intentions and better yet with benevolent ones, but should be done openly anyway for clear generic reasons.
When there is hunger, there is power in controlling the distribution of food. When people have power from something, they do not simply allow outsiders to come in and take it away without a fight. You can ship all the food you like for free to African ports; the people of the country itself will still go hungry, because the people with guns will control the distribution to maximize their power.
If a man is intentionally starving and beating his children, you can’t solve their hunger and bruises by giving him material goods. You need to remove his power over the kids and put the kids in care of someone who won’t abuse them. If you want to grant the “the most elementary physical needs of individual destitute Africans (sustenance, health, peace)”, what you will have to do is overthrow their governments and install colonial governors.
There currently seem to be few volunteers for the job.
Yes, this problem is quite obvious, and yes, I’m in favor of full-scale colonialism, but couldn’t a heavier presence by UN/coalition-of-the-willing peacekeepers, with powers to override local authorities when it’s needed to prevent open violence and abuse, also keep the scum that floats to the top there in check? What’s the tactical record for peacekeeping operations that had a reasonably broad mandate for use of force? (Hmm, here’s one account. My cached thought that a “firm hand” brought decent results in Somalia appears to be confirmed.)
...Of course I realize how unlikely any international body would be to approve such powers against the protests of an “independent” local regime (Somalia being an unusual case in that regard), so such policing of aid-receiving countries would have to be carried out unilaterally and without foreign oversight by whatever nation could be willing to implement it. Which creates a power dynamic that’s basically colonialism. Which, again, would IMO be quite OK with purely selfish intentions and better yet with benevolent ones, but should be done openly anyway for clear generic reasons.