“Conventional readings of human rights violations fail to draw on current understandings of the social determinants of a wide variety of ills, leading a random appearance to what is, in fact, a highly predictable set of outcomes.” - Paul Farmer
“Imagine it’s a shock to pay poor people for their labor.” Paul Farmer’s method of getting Rwanda healthier involves a holistic approach where the entire community is involved in keeping themselves and their neighbors taking medication and… in increasing their vegetable intake? Sounds like what my mother always told me. Well, this basic strategy is working. “Accompaneros” (villagers, modestly trained in health care) have increased medication compliance rate to percentages higher than in the United States. Citizens of Rwanda are managing to keep themselves healthier than one of the most advanced countries in the globe.
Holistic doctors frequently prescribe to the benefits of a healthy diet to restore to health to individuals suffering from planter’s warts to cancers. Plus, its possible to save money when vitamins and minerals supplant long hospital stays. In Rwanda, an agricultural expert is on hospital staff, providing a short course to parents with malnourished children on how to make their vegetable garden more productive. A family’s ability to grow healthy crops leaves more to sell at local farmers markets, improving another economical issue, namely, incidence of poverty. Farmer’s model takes “a man who was once a terrible drain on society and makes him a productive member of society.” I’ve noticed this repeating theme in Sturz’s logic. To “take people who are part of the problem, and make them part of the solution” seeks to improve the living situations of those who have kicked into survival-mode, while only quietly imposing on capitalist ideals.
Paul Farmer describes the Guatamala locals’ reception to a workshop given by “slender” girls in “jeans” who “looked a lot like those of us who had come from Boston” : “They were being asked to respond to an agenda imported from capital cities, from do-gooder organizations like ours, from US universities with the “right” answers to every question.” The paradox here is that successful programs have been implemented from programs started in the United States. We have the time and utilities to research, to travel, to make house calls. That is part of the reason we go into other countries proposing a solution and greatly insist they work on it. (Naturally, we’ve also had our share of miscalculated efforts. The media-driven society we are, these are the efforts most frequently cited.) The question I want to raise is, after we’ve done our research, made our house calls, and proposed a solution, how do you convince an abused, skeptical population that we’re here to give more aid, so eventually, they’ll need less aid? How do you convince them its not that we want to get in their business; “it’s not charity, its solidarity”?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Danielle indeed brings up an important point. Whether or not it is critiqued as patriarchical, and thus demeaning, one of the few ways in which resources are redistributed from the prosperous to the impoverished are through charitable organizations and NGOs. Resources include time and knowledge, as well as goods: knowledge that can be applied to existing cultural schemas for prosperity and survival that indigenous peoples often lose as a result of military occupation, political corruption, or sanctions imposed by our own and other governments. I try to think of the work that people like Farmer do as a kind off restorative justice, an attempt to rebalance resources and return them to their rightful owners.
Today, I read an interesting article about Haiti, which we have been talking about because of Farmer’s work there after the hurricane. A large scale initiative is being undertaken to attract big money for-profit investors to Haiti, in hopes of sparking a capitalist movement of sorts to the island. As part of the initiative, the United Nations has declared Haiti “safe” and has pledged to fight the political bureaucracy; to enable U.S. businesses to develop oversees arms without fearing either the collapse of the Haitian infrastructure, or just incapacitating day-to-day violence. Corporations say they see an opportunity to greatly increase the standard of living in Haiti by bringing thousands of jobs to the island. With unemployment at 70%, Haiti is ripe for the corporate intervention.
How do you feel about this? It’s certainly not charity. It is not a “help people help themselves” model. It is capitalism pure and simple, and it might offer a chance for growth and economic opportunity that smaller scale initiatives cannot. But we would not be students of history if we did not also fear that these corporations might engage in egregious labor practices that did little to help people pull out of poverty, as well as crushing their own culture in some ways.
Is there anything that can be done without unintended bad consequences?
There has been so many “unintended consequences” over the history of foreign relations that it would take the same amount of time that has elapsed to right them. We have proposed so many solutions to other countries but in the process forgot that no two people share the same exact outlook on what life is suppose to be. Paul Farmer is an extraordinary man from what I have read. His accomplishments are nothing short of amazing. Listening to professor Waterston speak about him in class made me think “o my god we need more people like him in this world”! However I started to think. How bad is the world we live in when need an individual earning two degrees simultaneously from one of the most accredited universities in the world in order to go out an make a ripple in an ocean of tears?
The evils that have been happening around the world aren’t a coincidence. Other than greed, there is no one source to point a finger. There is large scale corruption in most if not all of these governments along with great influence from outside forces. In scenarios such as the one that is to be attempted in Haiti, there should be a review of the cost benefit analysis that comes with U.N, or U.S occupation. I believe in general the country in need should benefit far more than the other. If we are going to make the claim to help these people climb out of their 70% unemployment rate then that should be our first goal. However if we are in it for business then that needs to be stated and the Haitian government as corrupt as they might be must also come to a consensus to what kind of deal would be most beneficial to “The People”.
I’m all for the U.S being strong and prosperous country, for god sake this is my home. The citizens of these countries deserve the same thing. The people of the impoverished countries around the world deserve a higher quality of life and standard of living which a blind eye is turned to when money is involved. I am no economist but a system must be made where underdeveloped countries are able to reap a higher yield for their goods and services while still allowing the other to profit. One of the things we accept every day in life is the inability to achieve perfection, there will always be unintended consequences but I’m all for them as long as in our imaginary scale they don’t out weigh the benefits. I stand firm in my belief that changes must be made in the morality in the politics of our foreign relations, as well as governments all around the world.
I stand for the U.S aiding underdeveloped countries and making progress, yet many times this is the excuse given to enter another country and conduct businesses. For the most part, the United States' main priority is achieving economical and financial benefits for itself, undermining their argument that they are in that country to provide help. For example, if we take a look at the issues/problems occurring in Honduras, one is able to see that the US' intentions are not to lose power and dominance in that country so their businesses don't suffer from it. The Hondurian citizens removed their former president as their leader, yet the U.S fights back to get the man the citizens from Hundoras removed from leadership position. One may wonder what is the U.S' objective with trying to force the former president back into the Hondurian white house. On one hand it may be that their economical and financial relation with Honduras may be affected by the decision of the citizens. However, the US argues that it enters other countries with the intentions of helping underdeveloped countries prosper anc achieve democracy; Nevertheless, why not respect the decisions of that country and focus in other areas the country needs help?
On the other hand, it is the nonprofit organizations that achieve the best results in other foreign countries. Why is this? It may be because nonprofit organizations do not have a poilitical agenda or ideolgy to fulfill, or greed is not part of their mission statement. Research-based organizations are most likely the few organizations that truly show solidarity to the poor and needy people of other countries. These organizations' objectives vary between finding information, forming a hypothesis, and achieving results as to why these poor countries cannot provide for their people, or in other terms, why these people cannot get themselves out of extreme poverty levels.
I believe and support US intervention in other countries, but it has to be for something else than self-interest. I feel that if the US stopped for a while and looked at the situation(s) in terms of providing/dfinding solutions for these countries' economical and social unrest, the US would find their shortcomings and flaws. If one is willing to help others, one has to look at the problem from the roots and find the best way to tuckle these problems to obtain results. It is not only saying "we will but we never do."
“… to make a ripple in an ocean of tears”
I would first like to say that, Mason8787, you are a great writer and I found the above statement very poetic and inspiring. To “make a ripple in an ocean of tears,” to move people, does it really take such a dedicated scholar and established persona to do so? I don’t think so. Here in John Jay, although we do not have a Partners in Health charter, we do have a Keep A Child Alive charter/club which collects funds to help treat children and people in Africa who are battling with AIDS. Ordinary simple college and high school students are making a collective effort, starting a movement, “rippling through the oceans of tears” to begin some healing through Keep a Child Alive.
It is only natural that these countries are “skeptical,” I am always skeptical when I hear of the United States presence in another country. I agree a lot with Elias’ comment. Clearly we have done a lot of damage to our neighbors and perhaps nonprofit organizations truly are more successful at change “because nonprofit organizations do not have a political agenda or ideology to fulfill, or greed is not part of their mission statement.” We have to admit that the US has gotten their way through a curtain of charity, while exploiting the actual resources or extracting some sort of profit or benefit from their presence in a foreign country.
I do not know how we can convince an “abused skeptical population” that an American presence is there to “give more aid” since usually people do not do thing selflessly, there’s always a motive behind people’s actions, even if it is to feel better about oneself, there is still reciprocity involved and getting something back.
Elias asked why the US cannot respect a country’s decision to deny “aid” and have the US off their soil. Why don’t we focus on our own backyard before we try and clean someone else’s? It’s one thing trying to help those who do not want to be helped and saving human lives when degenerate massacres and genocide such as Darfur or situations like the holocaust take effect. Even in those situations, there is a high chance that a political backlash might result, and so no, I don’t think that anything can be done without avoiding “bad consequences” Someone will always get hurt.
Ask I’m reading the posts of the other fellows, I realize how much I don’t know about the world around me. In just a month at Vera, I’ve learned so I didn’t know about the history of New York, just from reading Robert’s book. Recent genocides in countries, anything involving the word “capitalism”…these aren’t the topics discussed in addictions counseling or psych and law classes. I watch the 8am news with Matt Lauer but I’m only vaguely familiar with the issues Marling, Elias and Professor Stein have mentioned. When I think about my posts in relation to these, I realize I sound pathetically hopeful, bordering ignorant. Mason, you said in class that any time Thomas Giovanni tells you something, you look it up. How do your viewpoints change? Do you feel more jaded or more aware? Is there a relationship between innocence and effectiveness? Did Paul Farmer’s logic -- improving health would improve the economy -- come from obtaining two degrees from a prestigious college? Again, by funneling his achievement into one sentence, am I just being ignorant to all the legwork for which his degrees were necessary?
Another lesson from such a short time at Vera: we’re always going to have way more questions than answers.
As I read the second paragraph of Marling's comment, I notice that I may have misled some people with my comment that the US should respect other countries' decisions. As I wrote my previous comment, I meant that the US should respect the decisions of other countries in terms of political decisions, not other countries rejecting aid. In other words, the Hondurian people removed their former president from leadership position, yet the US refuses to accept the peoples' decision and keeps insisting that the man be placed in power again. I think that the US should respect the decision of these people in regards as to why they rejected their former elected president to run the country's government. It may have been corruption, who knows? However, in the end it is these peoples' decision, and just like the US, their form of governement is a democracy.
I am sorry if I misled people with my comment. I think that a country that rejects the help of the US in terms of financial help needs a recheck of their social values and political philosophy. The US has the resources available that other countries do not have to prosper and offer a better lifestyle to their citizens. Of course, I agree with Marling that if a country willingly decides to reject the help of the US, The US should respect their decision and not infiltrate their presence where it is not wanted, unless it is inevitably necessary to maintain public order.
Nations like the U.S. have a lot of power that can be used to either help or hurt other countries. However, often times what happens is that there are some progressive movements that occur in the country in terms of government policy or technology but mostly the powerful nation uses the other country for their own purposes. For example, much of the European countries during colonization could have aided and cooperated with the countries they came in contact with but instead they took them over and sucked much of the wealth and resources out. It is not surprising that people in other countries are suspicious and afraid of people from the U.S.--especially those who come claiming they are there to help. I'm sure that's what the English said in India and Africa and many other nations before they divided the people, took control, and labeled the natives as savages. Although some great things also came about because of colonization like building of roads and bridges and advances in technology, a lot of times nations were left with nothing at all after being sucked dry by a colonizing country and even worse, were sometimes left divided and separated. This has lead to much of the poverty, inequality, and violence in nations throughout the world.
Even here in the U.S. where we are a nation of immigrants, we are often wary of outsiders. This is apparent from our treatment of those who come seeking solace at our shores. We treat them as leeches, trying to steal our wealth and take advantage of our resources while failing to contribute anything when in fact, this is not at all the case.
I think the key in trying to aid other countries is to show them that we respect their culture and ideas and that whatever way we are proposing to help them will not change who they are as a culture. So perhaps we can put away our jeans and wear Guatemalan attire which might put the natives more at ease and comfort them that we are not there to take something away from them or impose our culture onto them. With sensitivity, awareness, and understanding of the people we are working with, we can better achieve cooperation and success.
I'm dizzy trying to absorb the incredible comments posted this week. Thank you Danielle for getting everyone going. I've been checking the blog daily to see student responses, and am happy to see that (finally) more of you have posted. And what incredible things you are saying!! I'm not sure where to begin, but guess I'll try to organize my thoughts in list form.
Topics raised in this week's blog:
1.The relationship between capitalism and greed. In this week’s Nation magazine, there is a wonderful interview between Naomi Klein, author of the must-read “The Shock Doctrine,” and Michael Moore, documentary film maker. I will post (in a separate "comment" entry) an excerpt from that interview that touches directly on the question of the relationship between capitalism and greed.
2.The difference between US aid and US military and political intervention. The history of US military and political intervention (covert and overt)throughout the 20th century is truly horrific, and includes Haiti (for more on this, see Farmer’s succinct, well-documented book, “The Uses of Haiti”), Dominican Republic, Chile, etc, etc., the wars (Korea, Vietnam) and now US occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. One question I have is, Why are some places “selected” for US attention and intervention, and others not when the purported reasons for intervention may exist in all those places? In terms of where the US has intervened, we might ask why, for example, the US facilitated the ouster of Aristide, the first democratically-elected president of Haiti (not a dictator installed by the US as had been the situation in the past)? Or in Chile, why did democratically-elected President Salvador Allende get ousted in a US-supported coup d’etat on 9/11, 1973 only to see that country be headed by the brutal military dictator, Pinochet (our man in Santiago)? Why did Saddam Hussein, our man in Baghdad, become persona non grata at the historical moment he did? What’s going on around all those places that we don’t know about? Here’s another question (related to aid and diplomacy versus military intervention): why has the budget for US AID shrunk enormously over the years and why has the US military budget increased astronomically over that same period?
3.Young people organizing a social movement for change, to make “a ripple in an ocean of tears.” Yes, Yes, Yes!!! If the passion is there and the moral courage, then the next step is, how to do it? how best to do it? This question is, I think, at the core of our seminar, and so we will continue to think and talk about the implications of what we do on the ground, in the field. In what ways have NGOs helped or harmed? And once we figure out what helps and what hurts, how do we change course of what we do? What truly constitutes respect for an-other about whom we may not know anything but our own assumptions about them? How do we find out what those in need really need, what they want?
I agree with Danielle--the more we learn, the more we realize what we don't know! At the same time, the more we learn, the more we know what we need to find out about.
Please see the next comment for the excerpt of the interview between Michael Moore and Naomi Klein.
NK is Naomi Klein; MM is Michael Moore talking about his new documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story. You can hear or read the whole interview online: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091012/moore_podcast
NK: ...I saw you on Leno, and I was struck that one of his first questions to you was this objection--that it's greed that's evil, not capitalism. And this is something that I hear a lot--this idea that greed or corruption is somehow an aberration from the logic of capitalism rather than the engine and the centerpiece of capitalism. And I think that that's probably something you're already hearing about the terrific sequence in the film about those corrupt Pennsylvania judges who were sending kids to private prison and getting kickbacks. I think people would say, That's not capitalism, that's corruption.
Why is it so hard to see the connection, and how are you responding to this?
MM: Well, people want to believe that it's not the economic system that's at the core of all this. You know, it's just a few bad eggs. But the fact of the matter is that, as I said to Jay [Leno], capitalism is the legalization of this greed.
Greed has been with human beings forever. We have a number of things in our species that you would call the dark side, and greed is one of them. If you don't put certain structures in place or restrictions on those parts of our being that come from that dark place, then it gets out of control. Capitalism does the opposite of that. It not only doesn't really put any structure or restriction on it. It encourages it, it rewards it.
I'm asked this question every day, because people are pretty stunned at the end of the movie to hear me say that it should just be eliminated altogether. And they're like, "Well, what's wrong with making money? Why can't I open a shoe store?"
And I realized that [because] we no longer teach economics in high school, they don't really understand what any of it means.
The point is that when you have capitalism, capitalism encourages you to think of ways to make money or to make more money. And the judges never could have gotten the kickbacks had the county not privatized the juvenile hall. But because there's been this big push in the past twenty or thirty years to privatize government services, take it out of our hands, put it in the hands of people whose only concern is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders or to their own pockets, it has messed everything up.
NK: The thing that I found most exciting in the film is that you make a very convincing pitch for democratically run workplaces as the alternative to this kind of loot-and-leave capitalism.
So I'm just wondering, as you're traveling around, are you seeing any momentum out there for this idea?
MM: People love this part of the film. I've been kind of surprised because I thought people aren't maybe going to understand this or it seems too hippie-dippy--but it really has resonated in the audiences that I've seen it with.
But, of course, I've pitched it as a patriotic thing to do. So if you believe in democracy, democracy can't be being able to vote every two or four years. It has to be every part of every day of your life.
But we spend eight to ten to twelve hours of our daily lives at work, where we have no say. I think when anthropologists dig us up 400 years from now--if we make it that far--they're going to say, "Look at these people back then. They thought they were free. They called themselves a democracy, but they spent ten hours of every day in a totalitarian situation and they allowed the richest 1 percent to have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined."
Truly they're going to laugh at us the way we laugh at people 150 years ago who put leeches on people's bodies to cure them.
As you all will no doubt get tired of hearing about, I'm teaching Charles Dickens's novel BLEAK HOUSE this semester. He criticizes one of his characters, Mrs. Jellyby, for her "telescopic philanthropy." She is all about helping natives in Africa grow coffee while her own children are savagely neglected all around her (in her very messy house). While I love this high-octane conversation about foreign policy (and would argue that there are profound connections b/n things "here" and "there"), I want to bring the insights you've shared up above to bear more directly on what you are seeing with your agencies. What are some of the "unintended consequences" of the work your agency does or how do you think your own mentor would response to the critique about charity?
And one more question, if the US directed all of its resources for a period of time toward the inequities and crises in this country, would we solve them or would the same problems exist as in our attempts in other countries?
I was thinking about why the U.S decides to "aid" certain countries? Why are we promoting democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why didn't we aid Rwanda during the genocide? I guess the answer is that the U.S intervenes in countries when its own interest are being affected, or when they can politically or economically gain something from their involvement. Every time I listen to foreign news I hear about the greed of the U.S, and many times I think that they are right. Everything here is about money and the individual. Many people are so brainwashed with this materialistic and individualistic ideology that they refuse to acknowledge America's role in promoting poverty and abuse. I was in class when a classmate of mine said that the people of Guatemala or Honduras should be thankful for having a job that pays .25 cents per day in U.S factories. "If it weren't for American factories in their countries they wouldn't even get a quarter per day", and "a quarter is a lot of money in their country." I find this awful and it's sad that many people don't see the link between the consumer and the worker. Does the consumer has any responsibility about the abuses that factories commit in foreign soil? Is the consumer responsible for economic exploitation?
In relating this topic of charity regarding who and how we should aid people in need, I though of my first interaction with a client at the DV Shelter. I was supposed to ask a series of question to determine what type of legal aid the client needed. I am suppose to keep the conversation focus on the clients legal issues. As I was preparing for my first question the client said, "I want to tell you my whole story from the beginning because nobody wants to hear the whole story, and I want you to understand." It seem like everyone she had spoken with only wanted the facts relevant to their agenda, I guess that I wanted the same. So, are we only interested in the pieces or in the whole picture? This woman wanted to be heard and nobody wanted to listen. I stared to wonder how were we gonna help this women get her life together, if we were not listening to what was relevant to her. This brings me to Paul Farmer's article. When people decide to help people in need they should listen to the "victims" and figure out with them how to resolve the problem like the article suggested. It is wrong for those who offer the aid to assume that they know better, and this is the problem that the U.S haves when they try to address the problems of other nations. They assume their way is the right way, and they fail to listen to what the native population wants.
Thank you Professor Waterston for posting the interview of Michael Moore. I am a huge fan of his work and although he doesn't consider himself a sociologist, he is indeed. His new film that is coming out soon is about Capitalism and focuses how it is greed that is the root of the problem. Capitalism is all about increasing profit and nothing else. If companies need to outsource to another country in order to save money and increase profits, they will do it. When they do that, they are also exploiting those workers in foreign countries. As with Michael Moore's film "Roger and Me" we saw what happened when General Motors pulled out of Flint, Michigan in 1989, the unemployment rate skyrocketed while General Motors outsourced their jobs. Greed was their purpose as they did not care that they left the state of Michigan in ruins.
Did you know that the United States is the number seller of firearms in the world? Most of this is going to developing countries. As I can recall, the firearms that were sold to Iraq in 1990 were in turn used to fight the United States in 1990 and also during the Iraq war. I believe that it was greed and profit that blinded us and in turn it sparked violence and war. It all goes back to Capitalism. As Michael Moore stated in his interview, "Capitalism is the legalization of this greed" and I 100% agree with him.
As Moore also stated that a lot of our government services are indeed being privatized slowly. As our prison population increases significantly, corporations began to build prisons in an effort to privatize and earn profit. It's a win-win situation - The government needed more space to house prisoners and these cooperations had the space and needed bodies to fill the prisons for a per person fee.
To answer Professor Reitz' question on whether we would be able to solve the problems in other countries "if the US directed all of its resources for a period of time toward the inequalities and crises in this country"? -- I think that if we were able to use the resources correctly without looking for something in return and/or greed then it is possible... but I am quite skeptical.
I completely agree with Ana's comments on U.S. foreign aid. One important thing to consider with U.S. foreign aid is that it seldom comes from the U.S. government directly. Rather, it comes in the form of "trade agreements" such as NAFTA, which absolutely destroyed local communities in Mexico. American corporations promise employment and further investments in a nation and while they do help the macroeconomy in many cases, this usually comes at the cost of local economies which fail and become entirely dependent on the large corporations. Low wages and the exportation of pretty much everything these people produce leave communities with basically nothing. This is the epitome of exploitation and the sort of human rights violation that Paul Farmer alludes to. The workers reap no long term benefits and their communities' economic infrastructures are destroyed as small agricultural enterprises which tend to be the most significant sources of employment in such a scenario are pushed aside. This is the "war on the poor" that Paul Farmer is referring to. American corporations are simply pointed to an economically developing region and given free reign to make as much money as possible. Companies make the most money however by paying the lowest wages possible, having the longest work days possible, creating an absolute dependence, and violating worker's rights. This last point goes as far as the assassinations of burgeoning labor union leaders in Colombia by the Coca Cola Company!(Google "Coca-Cola in Latin America". PBS' Frontline also ran a story on that).
As long as economic development and aid come in the form of neoliberal economic policies, the harm caused will far outweigh any good and the U.S. will keep being a villain in the eyes of the world.
By the way, Prof. Waterston, I picked up Pathologies of Power at Barnes and Noble. I'm only about 25 pages in and it's mindblowing. I can't wait until I get most of my work done this semester so I can read for leisure once again.
You raise and interesting question, “how do you convince an abused, skeptical population that we’re here to give more aid, so eventually, they’ll need less aid?” Its hard trying to convince people they need help, but when a country like Haiti that has economy and overall nation has been plummeting for years, I think that they wouldn’t mind help. Although the catch here is help with out interference with their culture. The problem that I see here is that the kindness of the U.S. capitalism can sometimes have alternative motives. By pumping jobs and money into Haiti we have the power to control a lot. For example we could easily say, “We don’t like your President or system,” if there is no change we could threaten to pull our funding, which will be the same as pulling out the foundation of a building. Another aspect can be seen as the United States becoming a crutch for Haiti. I mean look at Africa for years people have been pumping money for AIDS victims and other needs, but yet improvements are extremely slow. I love that there is improvements with schools and more medication given out, but there is so much corruption that it becomes hard to appreciate these changes. Also, I can’t help but think that the corruption involved is done behind close doors of those who say they are trying to help this beautiful continent. I don’t think the problem is convincing people of help. I think there are two points of the problem, on one hand the aid given could be used as a corrupt advantage and on the other we can become a crutch for the country. I like it when individuals like Paul Farmer step in to help, but when a nation does it, like the US for Haiti, I become worried and skeptical.
Post a Comment