Today in my Jordan and the Arab Israeli Conflict class our professor invited a bunch of his University of Jordan business students into our class so we could all have a discussion and share viewpoints. We were split into a bunch of groups of about 6 or 7, mixed Jordanian students and American CIEE-ers. The scenario we were given was as follows:
Country A doesn't like the new government of Country B that recently overthrew the previous dictator of Country B. Country A and B do not share a border. Country A funds guerrilla groups to overthrow the new government of Country B and these guerrilla groups are based out of Country A's military bases located in Country C--which neighbors Country B. Most of the attacks on Country B are on their civilian population--schools, roads, large retailers, etc. NOT the military and their bases.
"What did Country A lose with the new government that they had with the old government?" was one of the more interesting follow up questions we asked.
One of the questions we were given to discuss was "Is there terrorism occurring here? if so who are the terrorists"
We all agreed that Country A is committing an act of terrorism--if not an act of terrorism at least heavily heavily aiding an act of terrorism and if punishment occurs should be punished at the same extent as guerrilla soldiers. We also talked about Country C and whether or not letting the guerrilla groups set up HQ in their nation was also committing an act of terrorism. It's obviously aiding, but so is funding, why is funding so much more obvious than housing as a link to aiding the terrorism? Probably because the terrorism was initiated by the funding. To leave this hypothetical example for a little bit: What about foreign aid, which does not usually go towards anything as specifically negative as "initiating terrorism"? Ha! Here's the point I wanna make.
One of the Jordanian girls in my group said:
"Foreign aid is all about the intention: if there is good intention behind the foreign aid then it should be given, and if the aided country uses that aid to commit an act of terrorism then the country that gave the foreign aid shouldn't be held responsible. However the foreign aid is given with the intention of initiating terrorism, then the country that gave the aid should be held responsible."
I love it! What a cop out! How easy is it for aid to actually be given with bad intentions, then if the PR spin-doctors don't do a good enough job politicians can just say "well we had the best intentions, we weren't supposed to know that Saddam Hussein was a mad man when we gave him WMD's" Then along comes our judicial system to try to figure out if we did in fact know Saddam was a mad man, and then endless appeals...blah blah blah...lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians make money..
Is the intention behind the assistance (primarily financial assistance) of a third party to do their own business too far removed to be objectively judged as being with good or bad intentions? I'm thinking campaign finance. Is there a parallel here? foreign aid and campaign finance?
But when we're talking foreign aid we're not talking who can buy more TV ads, or who you'll take out to expensive dinners should you be elected. We're talking feeding starving babies, or starting wars, or big things! But campaign finance ultimately decides the leader of all these big things! oh what a can of worms. Money. love it. hate it. it's here to stay.
What can be done? What can I do about it/do I even want to do anything about it? What is it exactly? We'll we'll just have to wait and see on those. My Arabic homework isn't going to do itself!
Country A doesn't like the new government of Country B that recently overthrew the previous dictator of Country B. Country A and B do not share a border. Country A funds guerrilla groups to overthrow the new government of Country B and these guerrilla groups are based out of Country A's military bases located in Country C--which neighbors Country B. Most of the attacks on Country B are on their civilian population--schools, roads, large retailers, etc. NOT the military and their bases.
"What did Country A lose with the new government that they had with the old government?" was one of the more interesting follow up questions we asked.
One of the questions we were given to discuss was "Is there terrorism occurring here? if so who are the terrorists"
We all agreed that Country A is committing an act of terrorism--if not an act of terrorism at least heavily heavily aiding an act of terrorism and if punishment occurs should be punished at the same extent as guerrilla soldiers. We also talked about Country C and whether or not letting the guerrilla groups set up HQ in their nation was also committing an act of terrorism. It's obviously aiding, but so is funding, why is funding so much more obvious than housing as a link to aiding the terrorism? Probably because the terrorism was initiated by the funding. To leave this hypothetical example for a little bit: What about foreign aid, which does not usually go towards anything as specifically negative as "initiating terrorism"? Ha! Here's the point I wanna make.
One of the Jordanian girls in my group said:
"Foreign aid is all about the intention: if there is good intention behind the foreign aid then it should be given, and if the aided country uses that aid to commit an act of terrorism then the country that gave the foreign aid shouldn't be held responsible. However the foreign aid is given with the intention of initiating terrorism, then the country that gave the aid should be held responsible."
I love it! What a cop out! How easy is it for aid to actually be given with bad intentions, then if the PR spin-doctors don't do a good enough job politicians can just say "well we had the best intentions, we weren't supposed to know that Saddam Hussein was a mad man when we gave him WMD's" Then along comes our judicial system to try to figure out if we did in fact know Saddam was a mad man, and then endless appeals...blah blah blah...lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians make money..
Is the intention behind the assistance (primarily financial assistance) of a third party to do their own business too far removed to be objectively judged as being with good or bad intentions? I'm thinking campaign finance. Is there a parallel here? foreign aid and campaign finance?
But when we're talking foreign aid we're not talking who can buy more TV ads, or who you'll take out to expensive dinners should you be elected. We're talking feeding starving babies, or starting wars, or big things! But campaign finance ultimately decides the leader of all these big things! oh what a can of worms. Money. love it. hate it. it's here to stay.
What can be done? What can I do about it/do I even want to do anything about it? What is it exactly? We'll we'll just have to wait and see on those. My Arabic homework isn't going to do itself!
No comments:
Post a Comment