Motivations to Help

At the risk of turning into a diary today is strictly business and full of biting cynicism.

There are a bunch of groups and organizations behind foreign aid and policy. This week I have a paper due that chronicles the why and how of different agency actions, and for once, I actually halfway understand the correlation to what we’re studying and what we’re writing about (though I still think this would have been better suited for the first paper, instead of the second-to-last)

Basically there are three motivations: Good Neighbor Policy, Economic Interests and Foreign Policy. With that in mind: the more I learn, the less faith I have in humanity as a whole. Seriously. The development groups tend to be just as self-serving as you and me.

Good neighbor is just why it sounds like: helping because it is the right thing to do, because you want to be a so-called “good neighbor”. Now, I’m sure you think that's the way everything should be done. But think about it in your personal life: do you ALWAYS help people just because it’s the right thing to do? What if they've wronged you in the past? What if they don't believe what you do or have ideas that disgust you? If the answer is "yes, I’d do it", then congratulations. You're an amazing person and if there were more people like you in the world; it’d be a much better place. However, I highly doubt that you always help whenever you can just because you should. Ever walked past a beggar? Told someone you were busy and you weren't? Yeah. That’s what I thought. So, it’s completely unreasonable to expect organizations to behave in ways we don’t, considering that the organization is made of people...

Which brings us to motivation number two: economic interests

Money. Cash. Stuff I wish I had lots more of....you get the idea.

More often than not, there is some kind of economic interest at heart. Countries help countries who can make their lives better. Think they should go for the underdog? Let’s see...

You have a choice: two people. One will eventually be rich and powerful, the other will not. If you could see the future you'd help the one who'll be rich. Why sink time and resources into something that won’t someday benefit you? (See what I mean by "faith in humanity is failing"?)

And last but not least is Foreign Policy.

I’ll help you, but you have to do XYZ. Or, I’ll help you if you do (don’t do) XYZ.  Try as they might, organizations, much like the media, pretend to be neutral, but aren’t. It all comes down to strategy. “Let me help you”...of course, by “help”, I mean “steer you toward my ideologies and cultural norms under the guise of helping you poor miserable people build better lives”. God bless the USA, I love my country, and I’ll be the first one to yell “MURICA! HELL YEAH!” while drinking beer, but we’ve got serious issues in our development past BECAUSE of how we’re often motivated by foreign policy. (Hint: Aid to Cuba wasn’t being a good neighbor; it was to keep them from going Communist, which failed anyway).

The things I found out doing research for the paper seriously irked me, hence the cynicism.

Why can’t organizations just come out and say what their motivations are, instead of pretending?

It’s just like the media, who claim to be neutral:  watch long enough and you can see the alliances and rivalries. Just say what you’re after!

Sure, it looks bad to say “I’m helping you because one day you’ll be my chief importer”, but it looks worse for someone else to come along and uncover it. Besides, being upfront would allow for more decision-making by the recipient. Howso? Check it:

Democratic Country: Your people are poor and starving, let us help you, and in exchange you have to consider becoming democratic

Communist Country: Screw you and your aid. I’ll get help from someone else.

OR

Communist Country: Ok. Done.

Result: It goes back onto the government of the Communist nation to make a decision and deal with their problems. Change and get help, or stay the same and die. Eventually the people will do something, or they’ll die off. Either way, Democratic Country can say they offered, so there’s no blood on their hands.

Of course, this is being incredibly basic. There are too many people, egos and way too much bravado involved for it to be that simple. (because that’s all politics boils down to: ego and bravado *hence you’ll never see a soft-spoken leader* )

And that’s it for today. I’m sure there are exceptions, but this was a speed-run.  Not demonizing any particular organization or group, just peeved about the illusion of neutrality.

The whole “lies and propaganda” thing is why I stepped away from journalism, even though I wanted to work in the field since middle school.  Did you know that there’s a whole list of things that media practitioners can’t do? They can’t donate to groups. They can’t protest publicly. (Yes, it’s true. We went through a whole month of what you can and can't do as a "journalist" in my capstone course) They can’t do so many things in the name of neutrality, and yet they do them anyways.

Watch FOX, CBS, NBC, CNN. You can see a pattern in their stories. Who shows more Obama-positive news? More negative? “Gay rights” versus “marriage equality”? Who calls them “illegal immigrants” versus “undocumented workers”? Which paper covered Benghazi? Yeah.... “the unbiased media” AH HAHAHAHAAH....

This is why I don't want anything to do with journalism