the economics of aid
Now you all know I stay away from this blog because I often get carried away, and my creative writing career starts to backslide like a minister in a strip joint. However, with this slave-to-US war triangle going on, it's hard to do anything. I keep thinking about all the children on all sides and what this nonsense will do to their dreams and imagination. As I have already said in a post on my other blog (
justice for ordinary people) I think all sides are at fault here, for a mix of provocation, disproportionate reaction, rejection of diplomacy, inhumane war tactics and plain stupidity. Bt the question that's been nagging me is the role of the US in all of this. Why they, and their mini-me (Tony Blair) refused to condemn Israel's actions and back a ceasefire for so long. And why is the US rushing arms to Israel to help them bomb some more, even when it is contrary to their own rules on the supply of arms to Israel? Is it because there are new weapons to be tested? I mean aggression is big business, yet the US gives Israel billions of dollars in aid - military aid - annually. Now, knowing how interested in the bottom line the US and its companies are (just think about retrovirals for HIV - imagine if billions of dollars worth of retroviral aid was given a year) there must be something in it for them right? Something to think about I guess because the balance sheets always come up black!
On the side, I did find a comment in a Thom Shanker article in the NYT quite interesting: "one American official said normal procedures usually do not include rushing deliveries [of arms] within days of a request. That was done because
Israel is a close ally in the midst of hostilities, the official said." (
read more) Hmmm, so the US
a) will NOT condemn the killing of civilians and indiscriminate destruction of facilities (in a country that could be rivalling them in the tourst trade)
b) will NOT support a ceasefire recommended by every country on the UN security council (except, you guessed it, the US and UK)
c) WILL, most definitely indeed thank you very much sir, rush weapons over to aid more effective destruction (oh yeah we love peace!). Well, what can I say? At least I know I'm powerless in all this, but I can speak my mind. One would think that coming from what is currently the most 'powerful' country in world, Ghana (ha, ha ha) - current chair of the UN security council (
link to news) and country of origin of the UN Secretary General - I would have some sway in matters, but NO. Seriously, I think we have some great statesmen, but as Nkrumah (the greatest of them all) predicted, the UN will only be effective if the nations that are within it recognise it as an ultimate authority. Now, considering that the UN is funded by 'dues' and are more reliant on certain countries for their money, we all know they don't have that respect...
I better end here. My pad and my pen await me; my tribe wants to quest.
Interesting/Related Links:On US Arms to Israel
Link 1
Link 2
additional article from 2002!
Other Links:
Recent Article by Lebanese-Canadian novelist Labels: economics, politics, united nations
