A Case Against International Aid

[Susi]

Well I wrote this a while ago for my English class when we were told to support or refute a thesis. It uses the Aral Sea as an example, but I wasn't sure where to put this thread, so I put it under "politics" since it deals with international aid. If I've made a mistake, I hope one of the moderators moves this topic.

“The Aral Sea: An Example of International Aid Gone Awry”

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”[1]. In his essay “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, Garrett Hardin argues against providing international aid to the poor nations of the globe; I would have to agree with him due to the case of the Aral Sea. By providing aid to the poorer countries their population will continue to increase; consequently, an increase in population may further damage the environment. For example, Soviet later Russian aid to the now independent state of Uzbekistan’s agriculture has led to the production of cotton, rather than food crops, in the region. Cotton production uses great quantities of water, to the detriment of the Aral Sea and its tributaries. The irrigation channels from the cotton crops have caused the Aral Sea’s water level to drop from 57 metres above sea level in 1965 to 30.5 metres above sea level in 2002, and the water is 2.4 times saltier than normal seawater[2]. This has led to poverty and ill health amongst the local population. In fact, the region has an abnormally high cancer rate, especially that of the oesophagus; malnutrition is common; and anemia and tuberculosis occur frequently[3]. The increase of the cancer of the oesophagus is due to the thorough use of herbicides and pesticides on the colossal cotton crops, according to Dr. Spencer Wells of the National Geographic Society[4]. These pesticides may cause genetic mutations[5] which can be passed down from one generation to the next, for many generations, and clearly the root cause of the entire problem is the original Soviet agricultural aid. So what conclusions can be drawn from the Aral Sea case? One conclusion is that irresponsible management of aid to other countries without proper assessment and methodologies employed may destroy the environment. A consequence of environmental ruin is often the destruction of human health. The increase in disease rates in the Aral Sea region is associated with the increase in salinity of the water, as well as the excessive use of pesticides on the abundant cotton crops. In this case, Hardin seems correct: foreign aid to poor nations is detrimental to both the environment and human health, and therefore to their long term economic status.

[1] http://www.samueljohnson.com/road.html

[2] http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3947

[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3846843.stm

[4] See footnote 3 for reference

[5] http://mutage.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...tract/18/2/201

[Menydh]

This topic should fall under a sub-category of ethno-environmental politics. But seriously, no. It is fine under Politics. Or, under the sub-category of Geopolitics even if not strictly.

It adds a new dimension to an issue which I raised some time ago, "Neo-colonialism as a possibility?" Although from another perspective.

Very good article.

[Susi]

Random note: My purpose was to argue with the thesis given as the assignment, rather than to evoke emotion or action.