Exhibit A:
Wars tend to temporarily or permanently displace communities and to disrupt agriculture, resulting in crop failure and loss of livestock. Violent conflict leads to famine, disease, depopulation of arable land, migration to cities (where people survive by menial service jobs, sweatshop factory labor, prostitution, crime, dump-diving, or begging), indefinite containment in refugee camps, and mass flight across national borders in search of a livable life. Abject poverty, desperation, and displacement lead to more violent conflict. Even wars divided along ethic lines arguably come down to political and economic disputes over control of dwindling resources.
Exhibit B:Some weapons of war, e.g. cluster bombs and land mines, remain live in the forests and fields for decades after a conflict, so returning to work the land means to risk losing life, limb, and eyesight. Thousands of acres of arable land in Third World countries have been lost to munitions manufactured and supplied, if not directly deployed, by First World countries. Additionally, depleted uranium (a ‘dirty’ byproduct of nuclear energy) is used by the U.S. and U.K. militaries to harden metal in both vehicles and ammunition, gets embedded in the ground, buildings, and sometimes people when used as directed, and remains active for decades if not millennia, causing radiation poisoning in any living thing exposed to it. Unpleasant side effects include higher rates of cancer, leukemia, birth defects, mental illness, and the development of ‘biological deserts’ (areas that cannot support life for reasons other than inadequate rainfall). Iraq, among other places, is now littered with literally tons of this stuff.
Incidentally, the United States refuses to sign an international treaty that would make cluster bombs, land mines, and depleted uranium illegal even though most other countries have chosen to ban them. It also refuses to acknowledge the International Criminal Court (ICC) established to allow for the persecution of human rights violations committed by citizens of member countries while on the soil of other member countries.
Exhibit C:Effectively all of the weapons in Africa (I believe South Africa is the only exception, manufacturing some of its own) and most of the weapons in South America are supplied by First World countries—sometimes sold officially, sometimes on the black market, sometimes donated as foreign aid. The overwhelming majority of weapons exports (not counting weapons manufactured for use by each nation’s own military— just
exports) come from the 5 nations that hold permanent seats and veto power on the UN Security Council: the United States (1st in world at 38%), Russia (2nd at 19% ), France (3rd at 10%), United Kingdom (4th at 8% ), China (5th at 4%). More than half of these weapons are imported by ‘developing’ countries. (Figures from globalissues.org for total exports 2000-2007 measured in U.S. dollars and reflecting only official trade agreements; actual volume of weapons adjusted for taxpayer-subsidized discount rates, donations, and black market sales not reflected here. By some counts, the U.S. is responsible for closer to 50% of the weapons sold abroad in the past decade. Relative shares of the weapons market are constantly changing. Russia’s exports have doubled since 2000, bringing it closer to even with the U.S., and Israel may now be outpacing China.)
Incidentally, the U.S. spends over 20% of its federal budget on its own military and homeland security, and less than 1% on foreign aid (much of which is still military in nature, i.e. personnel deployed and weapons donated or subsidized rather than sold at defense contractor sticker price). U.S. humanitarian (non-military) foreign aid is the least of any industrialized nation. This reality is at a bit of a variance from public perception. Multiple surveys show that U.S. citizens guess on average that foreign aid accounts for more than 20% of the budget. What’s not to love?
Exhibit D:
Almost all of the wealth—minerals (decorative or instrumental), fossil fuel, lumber, coffee, and chocolate—extracted from Africa goes into products that will never be bought by Africans. Though many industries do ‘create jobs’ for Africans (usually in deplorable working conditions at sub-living wages), the extraction process profits primarily the multinational corporations that do the extracting. Much of the food grown in South America comes from vast ranches and plantations controlled by the aristocracy (made possible by the underpaid labor of the people who used to live on the land growing food for themselves), and goes to feed people who do not live in South America, mainly profiting multinational corporations and commodities traders. Much of the factory or cottage industry labor in Asia goes to assembling (and disassembling) electronics, sewing or otherwise fabricating clothing and shoes, molding and packaging plastic items of variable quality and usefulness, harvesting tea and spices, processing and wrapping chocolate and other candies, and handcrafting fireworks; only a small fraction of any of these products will be purchased and used in Asia.
Exhibit E:In Africa, South America, and Asia as elsewhere, the ‘development’ of land and ‘progress’ of industrialization displaces whole communities and poisons or depletes the commonwealth—water, soil fertility, and forests (needed for meat, fruit, nuts, greens, medicinal plants, shelter, and fuel). Native skills for hunting, gathering, and farming are lost, families are torn apart, and people are homeless and hungry. The First World can then generously step in to offer food (surplus yields from subsidized commodity crops) and other forms of foreign aid (incl. weapons and military training) with which either the ruling party or rebel militias (depending on political alignments of the moment) can discourage poor citizens from establishing stable communities that might prosper independently, thereby reinforcing Third World dependence on First World approval. The supply of humanitarian and military foreign aid is of course conditional on enterprises from the benefactor nation being allowed unconditional access to conduct ‘free trade’ with what is left of the beneficiary nation’s resources.
Does this sound fishy to anybody else? Can anyone spot the potential conflict of interest in the world police-and-welfare state of 21st century globalization? Why do they hate us?
