פרסומים אחרונים במדור "חברה וכלכלה"

Any effective aid will have to come from the wealthy countries, being the only ones with enough resources to provide it. Meaning, not only will they have to give up the debts owed to them, but on top of that they are expected to donate more money (which will never be paid back) for the greater social good.
This is a very problematic concept. Social responsibility punishes wealthy countries for their wealth. While this may be the only possible way of action today to help the developing countries (and the majority of humanity), it also means more taxation in western countries (or any other impairment of resources).
The clear-cut solution (namely, the first world supporting the third world) is not so clear-cut after all. Just like third world citizens should not be punished for past dictator rulers, first world citizens should not be punished for their wealth.
Having written all that, I have to admit that personally I see no other solution. Moneys sent as aid to developing countries will eventually show the greatest returns in the forms of lower immigration problems and a reduction in international conflicts, therefore even non-socialist countries like the US will eventually profit from it.

www.freeafrica.org
‏²
www.jubilee2000uk.org

The movement described in Nader's article is the exception to the rule. After all, if the sweatshops in the third world close down, won't the US find itself facing a booming inflation, due to the predicted increase in manufacturing costs?

Exception to the majority of consumers who simply couldn't care less.
As for major corporations and their profits - since major corporations have incredible power as far as economic policy goes in the US, wouldn't they not only not support an aid initiative, but also try to hinder it any way they can? (Mills and his "inner circle")

The Devil is in the details?

As I have said before, the monetary aid given to Israel by the US is the consequence of the trilateral peace treaty signed by Israel, Egypt and the US. Unless the US wishes to break the treaty, it cannot change the aid in any manner.

First of all, for all that we know, this could be a misunderstanding by the reporters.

Or, this could be related to the peace agreement with Jordan.

In any case, the Americans can obviously do as they please, regardless of whichever agreements they've signed before. It may be more difficult than just doing something that's not involved with a direct agreement, but not impossible.

Amit,

First of all, I'm forced to write in English, due to forces beyond my control. My apologies.

I think that a Dictatorship with unreturnable debts and in an impossible fiscal situation is better than a Democracy in the same condition.
If a dictator falls, and a state of Anarchy is formed for a while, it will be much easier to use international pressure and support for the creation of a Democracy, then if a Democracy falls, due to it's governments inability to maintain a steady economy.
So I think it should be preferred to provide humanitarian aid to the masses until the dictatorship falls, then to provide the money which will help it endure, at the cost of the masses.

As for the effects of the New-Colonialism, it is true that this is quite a hypothetical problem, but let us not forget the way things actually take place: most of the times, the financial support for Dictatorships, given by international institutions such as the IMF, with the support of the international corporations and participating governments, is meant to maintain those regimes, due to the fact that they are easier to control and use in order to pursuit specific political and economical interests.
Neo-Colonialism is the occupation of a land and of a people, achieved either indirectly by a third party (A Dictator), or directly by economical control (A Democracy with un payable debts), and is a meant to help all of those with power, be it military or economical, to maintain and further their control, and to achieve their goals.

A loan which will be given to a country, coupled with proper restrictions and control on it's spending, will counter the Neo-Colonialistic cause, since it will not mean furthering the exterior control of those financial beings on said country, but will be a way of relieving some of the hardships which the people endure, and help create an infrastructure to a independent economy.
I also think that any loan given by international institutions, must be a part of a grander plan to promote Democracy and Peace, to protect Human-Rights, and to create a free and equal society. I think that some of the current institutions, especially the IMF and WB, will never agree to such a plan, since it directly contradict their intentions. In that case, I would chose the first option: massive humanitarian aid, if needed, and international pressure that will promote true democracy, and isolate the regime in place.