Why is poverty so widespread?

A couple weeks ago my Issues in Development course was assigned to write, in under 1,000 words and based on our own opinions, an answer to the following question: Why, after millions of dollars of aid money has been invested in combatting poverty in developing nations each year, is poverty still so widespread? 

This is obviously a massive question that could easily take an entire course to answer, let alone one midterm assignment. At first, I had no idea how to even begin. Do you blame it all on capitalism? Racism? Neo-colonialism? Neo-liberalism? Climate change and the growing number of natural disasters? There are so many factors as to why poverty has continued to plague the global south, and it's extremely difficult to cram them all into a 1,000 paper. 

Below is an excerpt of the answer I came up with after a few days of brainstorming and narrowing down topics. It doesn't fully express my views - again, this is a huge problem with even bigger implications - but it does give a small snapshot of some of the reasons that poverty, in my opinion, is still so widespread. 

---

Despite the millions of dollars worth of aid that is funnelled through developing countries every year, poverty still proves to be a large issue faced by many people living in the global south. According to a recent report by the UNDP, titled Humanity Divided: Confronting Inequality in Developing Countries the "richest one percent of the world population owns about 40 percent of the world's assets, while the bottom half owns no more than one percent." This statistic demonstrates how the global inequality gap remains substantial despite efforts to eradicate poverty and ensure all people are able to live healthy, secure and comfortable lives. In the examples that follow, it will become evident that widespread poverty is still prevalent worldwide due to the self-interest fostered by nations. 

Many developed countries, such as Canada, give millions of dollars of Official Development Assistance (ODA) to various developing countries every year. However, this money is primarily given to countries of interest. Canada, for example, lists countries such as Haiti, Vietnam, Ukraine and Ethiopia as countries of focus, meaning that the majority of money funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD) goes towards development projects in these areas. In some instances, this money is being sent not only to help people in need, but also to benefit the interest of the Canadian government. As discussed in class, funding for Ukraine began during a Liberal election campaign, and has continued in order to keep the support of the Ukrainian population within Canada. This money is not filled with good hopes and intentions - it carries an attempt to keep Ukrainian-Canadians content with the actions of the Canadian government. It is clear that ODA funds have not always been intended as genuine aid for countries in need, not to mention regions where such money is needed, but rather, to help foster the political interests of the donor country. 

China, a newly developed country, is driven by the need to further develop itself at the cost os its own people. In order to compete with, and embrace, the rising tide of globalization, China turned to embracing illegal methods of production such as child workers and sweatshops. China's economic development has taken precedence over safe working conditions and concern for human rights. As the country continues to grow, many of its people remain in poverty. The vast amount of pollution throughout China, which results from their massive factories, also make everyday life almost unbearable for citizens, and greatly affect the agricultural production of farmers in rural areas. 

But projects at home are not enough to help boost its economy, so China also funds various infrastructure projects across the African continent. Many of these projects are established and managed by Chinese companies in order to bolster the Chinese economy externally, not from a humanitarian concern for the long-term prosperity of African economies and workers. As a result, China's continued economic expansion operates at the expense of its own people and those that it targets for external economic development. This once again demonstrates how international aid money can be the object of political self-interest. The self-interest of China to continue expanding its own economy greatly hinders both the capacities of its own people and those in developing nations it claims to be helping. 

The ways in which ODA are currently used has a great impact in ensuring that many people in developing nations continually rely on aid and relief, rather than gaining the capacities and knowledge to better their own lives. Large amounts of aid are used to supply 'band-aid' solutions to issues regarding poverty rather than providing a sustainable alternative. Rather than allowing aid money to be used to temporarily fix issues of poverty, donor countries should ensure that their ODA is being used for sustainable projects that will yield lifelong results. Due to the continuing pattern of 'band-aid' solutions, aid dependency has become rampant and allowed for a cycle of poverty to grow. Therefore, by holding donor countries accountable to implementing sustainable projects, this cycle has the potential to be broken, and poverty could be alleviated. 

All of these examples have shown the reality of growing poverty despite efforts of eradication. It has become extremely important for both developed and developing countries to set aside their own personal agendas and truly think about the future of the world as a whole. Systems of trade, governance and life itself are at risk when poverty expands, and self-interest will not protect our respected nations. In order to properly help those with the greatest needs, sustainable projects must be implemented with the sole intention of helping those whoa re suffering gain a better way of life, and not be based on prioritization or self-intertes. 

Remembering the realities of war

On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month we remember all those who fought and died during both WWI and WWII, the Korean War, the war in Vietnam, and now those in Afghanistan.

For me, Remembrance Day has always been a struggle: who exactly are we remembering and for what reason?

As a kid, I always went to Remembrance Day ceremonies and participated because that's what everyone else did. We went and sat and listened to stories from veterans, were as quiet as possible for the two minutes of silence, and then went back to class not actually understanding what had happened. Even while participating in my town's ceremony with Girl Guides, I could tell this was a much more serious event than what was shown in school, but I still had no explanation. 

In high-school, after finding my academic niche in history classes, I slowly began to understand why Canada has a day of remembrance for veterans. The tens of thousands of both men and women who served and fought should be remembered. However, once I began university and continued studying history, I became more frustrated with ideas surrounding Remembrance Day. 

I am in no way saying that we should not remember, as that would be utterly disrespectful. What irks me is that many people draw the line and pay homage only to Canadian soldiers. Yes, I understand that we are in Canada, and yes, it is extremely important to respect those who share our Canadian heritage, but at the end of the day, war boils down to people fighting people. 

Soldiers, whether fighting at home or overseas, all experience very similar things. They are away from their family and friends, they are forced into extreme, inhospitable conditions and contexts, and many must deal with the overwhelming emotions of taking another human's life.

At the end of the day, there are no "good" or "bad" guys. There are only those with the courage to fight for whatever it is they believe in. This level of devotion and sacrifice deserves nothing more than respect.

Who is to say that a German soldier, stuck down in the trenches, covered in filth, doesn't deserve any form of remembrance? Did he not also leave his family behind to go and fight? Whether by choice or conscription both loyalty and courage was displayed, both of which warrant respect.

At the end of the day, everyone involved in war is human, and these people all suffered horrible experiences that should be both recognized and remembered.

-----

There are also a number of articles that I would like to share without necessarily commenting on them.

This article by Dough Saunders touches on common characterizations of veterans, and whether or not this language should be continually used.

Some veterans across the country silently protested during ceremonies today due to poor policies implemented under the Harper government.

If you want to read more about veterans not being compensated by Veteran's Affairs, Bruce Moncur wrote about his experience serving in Afghanistan.

Harry Leslie Smith also shared his reasoning for choosing to pay respects in private, as the public has begun to skew the meanings of remembrance.

These are all important pieces of the puzzle that Remembrance Day has become. How we choose to pay our respects should be on a more personal level given the different contexts that everyone experiences. However, despite how you choose to pay homage, one thing should remain the same: only the utmost respect is given to all veterans. 

the gunpowder treason will never be forgot

Remember, remember, the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason, the gunpowder treason, should ever, be, forgot!

Today the United Kingdom is celebrating Guy Fawkes Night, also know as Bonfire Night. In North America, you may hear people reciting the rhyming lines above and talking about how they're going home to watch V for Vendetta.*

However, Guy Fawkes Night isn't celebrated because of a comic book. It's celebrated because Guy Fawkes, along with 12 other men, attempted to blow up the House of Lords and kill King James I. 

Their plan was dubbed the Gunpowder Plot, and Guy Fawkes Night is actually celebrating the plot's failure. 

A group of English Catholics - led by a man named Robert Catesby, and also including Fawkes - began meeting in 1604 to devise this plan. They decided to assassinate King James I on November 5, 1605, as that was the date when the State Opening of Parliament was to take place. (The State Opening of Parliament is a yearly event that marks the commencement of a session of Parliament and includes a Throne speech.) 

The main reason for wanting to kill James I was simply because he was a Protestant king. England, much like the majority of Europe during this period, was dealing with the repercussions of religious reformations. As a result, there were extremely high tensions between people of different faiths, and violence was not uncommon. While James I was tolerant of Catholics within his country, many were still wary of his Protestant faith, and preferred to see a Catholic sit on the throne. 

While the main goal was to kill James I, other notables of the royal family and parliament were also expected to be present and therefore killed, which made November 5 the most ideal date for their plan to unfold. After killing James I the Catholics planned on making his daughter, Princess Elizabeth, a Catholic, queen. 

All of the conspirators took an oath of secrecy so that their plot would not be discovered, and they began planning almost a year in advance. 

Fawkes, who had many years of military experience, was elected to take charge of the gunpowder. He began storing it in a cellar underneath the House of Lords, which was easy to do because the parliament buildings were usually full of merchants and workers who hauled around food and various other supplies. 

It was decided that Fawkes would be the one to light the gunpowder, and then quickly escape before getting caught. The explosives were wired to continue going off throughout the designated area. At the same time, a revolt in the Midlands was to begin to ensure that Princess Elizabeth was captured and could be put on the throne afterwards. 

However, an anonymous letter was sent to some men close to the king, and soon enough, James I discovered that there was a plot against him. It was decided that the Parliament buildings had to be searched in order to ensure safety, and this was when Fawkes was caught.

The piles of gunpowder were also discovered when Fawkes was arrested, which confirmed the details of the anonymous letter. On November 5, Fawkes was taken before the king and court. He had immediately used an alias, John Johnson, and upon questioning insisted that he had devised the plan himself and was working alone the entire time. 

However, James I suspected that this was a lie, and ordered for Fawkes to be taken to the Tower of London and tortured. He was subjected to torture on both November 6 and 7, and, according to records, by the end of November 7 had cracked and confessed everything. During these events, other members of the group were also being arrested and brought in for questioning. 

After the accused were revealed to the public, they were branded as Catholic heretics, charged with high treason, and sentenced to death. Fawkes, along with three others, were sentenced to be hanged as well as drawn and quartered. Their bodies, after being put in a noose, were quickly cut down before dying so they would still experience the physical pain of being quartered. However, many accounts state that Fawkes jumped off the scaffold in order to snap his neck and die immediately so he would not experience any further suffering. 

It was one year later, on November 5, 1606, that the "Observance of the 5th of November" was passed, allowing for official celebrations commemorating the failure of the Gunpowder Plot. This tradition has carried on to today, and is now more commonly referred to as Bonfire Night, or Guy Fawkes Night. It is also common for effigies of Fawkes to be burned on the fires as a form of protest against him and the Gunpowder Plot as a whole. 

Lighting fires and setting off fireworks on November 5 is rooted in celebrating the failure of the Gunpowder Plot, Robert Catesby, Guy Fawkes and the rest of the group; the celebrations are for the survival of King James I and a Protestant rule over England. So if you plan on celebrating today, please give some thought towards the history of this date, and don't just give in to the popular culture and practices that are far removed from the traditions. 

* V for Vendetta, by Alan Moore, is only very loosely tied to the story of Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot. Without giving too much of this fantastic plot away, the main character, V, who dawns a Guy Fawkes mask, is basically planning on overthrowing the repressive, totalitarian government that has developed in a futuristic, dystopian Britain. 

Sustainable Aid

What would happen if North America and Europe called up Africa and told them that in just five years they would stop sending aid money to help fuel development projects and the economy?

This is the main question that Dambisa Moyo poses in her book Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working And How There Is A Better Way For Africa. Her thesis is simple: millions of dollars worth of aid money being pumped into the African continent is actually doing more harm than good.

I'll admit that when I first began reading this book for class I was a little shocked. How could Moyo possibly say that aid money was slowing development in Africa? However, once I kept reading, and began to understand the fundamentals of her argument, it all came crashing down and made complete sense.

It's important to first understand the exact type of aid money that Moyo is lamenting against.

For instance, in her opinion, aid money given in lieu of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake or flood, is acceptable. In this case, I have to agree. When a catastrophic event of this nature takes place it is absolutely necessary to help fellow humans that are experiencing life-threatening danger. To just sit back and do nothing would be irresponsible. Now, I'm not saying that everyone should hop on a plane and rush over to wherever such an event occurs, but giving even the smallest amount can go a long way to ensure that a child has clean drinking water for a day.

However, with emergency aid and charity aid, Moyo advises people to be wary of where exactly money is going, because charities may not be spending money where they say they are.

While I understand that this is something to be skeptical about, I also understand that there are many overhead costs to running a charity, and not every dollar raised can necessarily go directly towards a development project or program. There are transportation costs involved, salaries, insurance payments, accommodations for staff and so on. To any respectful charity or NGO, these are realistic costs that must also be met.

However, charities or NGOs that simply hoard their money or find alternative and inappropriate ways to spend their fundraising dollars have no excuse. Moyo is absolutely correct in stating that these ventures should be avoided, because they are indeed helping no one.

The same argument, she argues, can be said about African governments that receive large monetary loans or transfers from rich, developed countries. Billions of dollars have been given to a number of different African countries, but issues regarding poverty, food and water supplies, education and numerous other basic human rights still loom over many people's lives. Mass corruption and civil wars are also present, and only make matters worse.

So why is it that Africa has been stuck in a cycle of dysfunction? If countries are receiving millions of direct dollars each year, why are so many life-threatening problems still present?

After completing Moyo's book, paired with my own knowledge and opinions, I believe that a severe lack of sustainable projects, couple with irresponsible governments.

For example, if a country receives, let's say, five thousand dollars to help alleviate hunger, and rations are given out to families, only a bandaid solution is provided. While those families may be fed for a week, what happens afterwards? Would it not be more sustainable to invest that money in agriculture tools and educational workshops to teach the families how to farm and feed themselves for a prolonged period of time? Then, not only would they be able to feed themselves, they would also be able to sell portions of their yields and create a small income for themselves.

By simply continuing the pattern of bandaid solutions, in various circumstances, people are becoming dependent on aid money. This is not a solution, but rather a corrupt system that forces people to live off of reliance. Systems such as these are not helping anyone.

Many governments, rather than helping their people, are also responsible for only making matters worse. Instead of using aid money to better their country and their people, some African leaders simply mismanage their country's economy, and take large sums of money for themselves and immediate family members, friends and close supporters.

Robert Mugabe, the leader of Zimbabwe, has been criticized both nationally and internationally for mismanaging monetary funds and running his country's economy into the ground. While he has a lavish lifestyle, his people are suffering.

This is not uncommon in many African countries. There are multiple leaders that take money and invest it only in themselves rather than bettering their country as a whole. While many Western countries and donors actively avoid proving aid to these leaders, it is difficult to completely avoid corruption.

This has become a sad reality when attempting to help people in developing countries. As a result, it has become extremely important to recognize where your aid money is going, and what exactly it is funding.

In order to properly help those in need, sustainable projects must be funded that target basic human needs. That is the first step developing countries need to take in order to become self-sustainable.

Should you really celebrate Columbus Day?

Today is Columbus Day, where many Americans celebrate Christopher Columbus arriving in the New World way back in 1492. Some even like to celebrate it as a day of Italian-American culture and heritage, but if you want to get technical, Italy wasn't a country until 1861, and Columbus was actually Genoese.

Columbus also didn't discover the New World, as many people celebrating today probably believe. There are records indicating that Norsemen (Leif Ericson) travelled to present-day Newfoundland around the tenth century, which was before Columbus sailed his Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria across the Atlantic.

In 1947, Thor Heyerdahl also embarked on his Kon-Tiki expedition, where he sailed on a raft across the Pacific Ocean from South America to the Polynesian islands to prove that ancient peoples, pre-dating Columbus, had the ability to travel across waters and inhabit new lands.

I'm also just going to point out that Columbus never stepped foot on the mainland of North America. His travels were focused more on the Caribbean islands and the coastline of South America -- no where near present-day America.

You can argue, as many have, that Columbus didn't discover the New World because, you know, there were already people living there before he arrived. And it's because of his interactions with these indigenous populations that so many different groups have begun movements against Columbus Day.

Why?

Well, I like to refer to it as "a horrible excuse to hide history and ignore all the genocide that was unleashed against indigenous populations." Because that's basically what happened. You just never hear about it because people don't want to admit to the atrocities that happened in the past, or they're too ignorant to attempt to understand why this disgusting holiday is still celebrated.

One of the largest movements against Columbus Day in the USA is lead by the American Indian Movement (AIM) who argue that his arrival brought absolutely nothing good to indigenous people that were already present on the land he supposedly discovered.

Europeans that came along with Columbus not only brought infectious diseases that killed off countless natives, but they also carried out acts of warfare, enslaved their populations, attempted to assimilate them, and if there was any opposition, the native populations were tortured and/or killed.

To put it simply, Columbus and his fellow Europeans brought a genocide onto the native populations that they stumbled upon.

On Columbus Day people are celebrating a history of colonialism and enslavement that ravished indigenous populations. So before you go out celebrating today, maybe you should stop and think about the history behind this so-called holiday.

Is this really something you want to be joining?

Maybe you could instead opt to celebrate one of the many alternative holidays that are emerging into the mainstream American culture. For example, in Berkeley, California, today is known as "Indigenous Peoples Day" and commemorates those that were living before Columbus arrived.

Instead of celebrating a part of the past ripe with imperialism, slavery and mass murder, stop to think about the reality of the situation.