I just watched a movie in my Spanish class called "Tambien La Lluvia," which was about the outbreak of the Cochabamba Water Wars in Bolivia in 2000. (If you don't know anything about it, I recommend reading up on it.)
After watching the movie I wanted to talk about it with my boyfriend, and we got into a discussion about greed as a motive for involvement in foreign affairs.
My frank opinion was that major world powers, included the United States, do not care about foreign affairs unless they involve direct economic consequences for their country. In other words, if we're not losing any money over it, nobody cares what's going on in the world. On the flip side, if there's a chance to make money, we're happy to take our involvement to places it doesn't even belong.
Take Bolivia, for example. The Water Wars were the result of foreign investment in the city of Cochabamba's water supply. The privatization of the water supply resulted in the cost of water being raised by several hundred percent, an act commonly agreed to far exceed the means of minimum-wage workers in Bolivia. The terms of the privatization were said to include even the right to rainwater than fell from the sky.
Of course, the livelihood and well-being of these people was nothing compared to the almighty dollar.
Now let's look at a few examples of places where foreign aid would have been appropriate, and yet was not supplied.
Rwanda, for instance, was torn apart by genocide in 1994. Although the United Nations was present in the country at the time, it maintained a policy of non-interference. To me, this meant they practically stood by and allowed millions of people to be murdered. Why?
Well, last I checked, no major world power had any particular economic investment in Rwanda at the time. Nobody was losing their dollar over all those lives.
Zimbabwe and Greece are two more interesting examples. On the one hand, we have Greece, whose economic condition should be familiar to most people by now. It's caused quite a stir in the news, and no wonder considering the country's close economic ties to nearly all of the rest of Europe.
Zimbabwe, on the other hand, has been floundering for years. As of 2008 its inflation rate was estimated to be more than 10 million percent. I had friends in the country begging me to help them find a way to get to America and escape the poverty there.
The country has since abandoned its old forms of currency in favor of more stable, foreign currencies. But the funny thing is, I don't remember ever hearing much about Zimbabwe in the news. It was certainly never the big deal that Greece has been. Why?
Again, America and the rest of the developed world has little economic stake in Zimbabwe, just as it had little stake in Rwanda.
My theory remains that nobody cares about a country in turmoil unless it's affecting their bank account.
Here is my point: in the spirit of human compassion, global responsibility or whatever you want to call it, I am upset by the idea that countries would allow greed to dictate the ways in which they interact with other countries, particularly when human rights are involved.
I believe in helping one another out when help is needed, and I absolutely believe in leaving well enough alone where interference is not beneficial.
If we had thought of this in times past, we might have saved many lives in Bolivia, Rwanda and countless other places.
Food for thought.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
