I have a pet theory:
It seems that all formalized human organizations (whether business, nonprofit, government or community) are simply a thin disguise for an underlying chaos.
The G8 is preparing to meet next month and discuss, among other things, poverty in Africa and global warming. This summit is an informal meeting of the seven leading industrialized countries (US, UK, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and Canada) and Russia. I am glad that rich nations are working together to solve these issues, however I wonder what will happen beyond just surface talk. While our nations disagree about the very essence of funding underprivileged nations, will we really be able to make progress to help human beings? Or is it just a platform to air our differences?
I hate to think that an entire continent is used as political fodder in a debate that affects the ability for African countries to escape from poverty. For instance-the US disagrees with the UK on the mechanism to finance debt relief. While I understand that procedure is immensely important to actually enacting change, I hate to see real issues delayed by bureaucratic ideologies.
As a follower of Christ, I am convinced that my first responsibility to my neighbor (local or global) is to meet immediate needs. While it shouldn't be done unwisely, that work should not be delayed. The systems can be put into place to support and sustain the work, but -for heaven's sake- feed the hungry! I am certainly personally responsible to meet those needs as I encounter them, but I want to support a government that sees immense value in that first stage of healing.
posted by Erin 12:20 AM
3 Comments:
I just read through the opinions of the Brits over on the BBC posting page. People are very split on this. Sometimes I wonder if the governmental level really doesn't matter. It's bloated, slow, and self-serving. But then again, there are definitely policies in place and biases that are so hurtful to the developing world. Can't there be a flipside?
When I read the comments from the naysayers to the Live 8 initiative and so on I wonder if they are merely protecting themselves from the immense challenges - if the aid is being done wrong in the wrong manner, why not jump in and turn the titanic around?
Then again, many are against the initiative because they don't see the long term benifits. I guess if they are looking for world peace, the end of terrorism, immortality, or indefinite propserity for all, it might be done for the wrong reasons...
Don't forget the church in your formalized human organizations. It is amazing to me how people can take the humanity of others out of the "talks" about those same humans' welfare.
I wonder how you might further your theory into a course of action that is both wise and expedient, and meets both the long-term and short-term needs of those in need...
grace and peace
Thanks for your comments Dan and Jason.
Dan, I am intrigued by your idea about a flipside. What a concept! I hope that a positive shift could result in a bias toward the wellbeing of developing nations. The problem remains in the humanity that is part of that process. (Back to my chaos theory.) It is not that we do not individually support a better world and an end to these global crises. The failures come when we squeeze good intentions through the inevitably flawed systems of human plans.
Cue Robert Burns here: “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Go of awry / An leave us naught but grief an’ pain, / For promised joy!”
The obstacles arise at every level. Rich nations trap developing countries in webs of debt. Africa’s debt is compounded by corrupt government officials who siphon off the aid that is provided.
Jason, yes- church is a primary player in the disguising-chaos game. I am challenged by your question about solutions, and I quake to try and answer with anything either “wise” or “expedient.” I am far from claiming global financial management as one of my areas of expertise. However I will say this: I think the most quickly implemented answer is personal responsibility. We must begin serving others, giving sacrificially, and prodding political action that meets the same goals.
I was glad to see that Bush and Blair have agreed to mutually promote debt relief tied to government reform; however I am curious to see the details of those reform requirements. I think it is realistic to say that there may not be an absolute right or wrong here.
It’s the long-term needs that get me. It is very difficult to devise a system for long-term benefits without neglecting those that are needy in the moment. I guess I have to return to the inclinations of my faith which urges the body of Christ to see past the bottom line in favor of helping the disadvantaged in their moment of need. I am not advocating irresponsibility, but we cannot ignore those that are going without food right now.
Let’s forget my chaos theory for a moment and pretend that there are some organizations that have it all together. Perhaps a viable solution would be to fund international NGOs to provide aid in accordance with immediate need while implementing social reforms. That would take the money out of the hands of the problem governments and put it (more) directly in the hands of the needy.
These are my initial thoughts. I’d love to hear any other ideas out there.
Erin
Post a Comment
<< Home