WARNING! CRIPPLINGLY UNFUNNY (AND MASSIVELY LONG) REPLY!
As Naomi Klein says, asking a corporation notto act in its own self-interest is like asking a shark not to have teeth. They're legally required to generate as much profit for their shareholders as possible.

Similarly, democratic governments are responsible for delivering the best results for their electorate (in an ideal world...). Not the electorate of other countries.

Anyway, you could point to our involvement in the Third World at a governmental level as being part of the reason for the problems it faces. The IMF has ordered disaterous economic restructuring and enforced unfair FTAs in poor countries such as Mexico, while the WTO can and does interfere with the international trade which enriches nations.

Large-scale foreign aid from governments perversly helps retard the economic growth of the recipient. It's useful for short-term problems, such as an immediate famine, but actually works to undermine long-term development - such as fixing up a country's agricultural policies and infrastructure so famines don't occur. A budgetary reliance on external money means there's less internal pressure for proper development, as there's always a crutch handy.

Plus, poverty-stricken Thrid World countries are more likely to be controlled by despotic regimes than affluent First World countries. In these cases, aid simply won't filter out of the centralised bureacracy's control.

The upshot is, you'd be better off lobbying the governments of poor countries to reform themselves so that their citizens can engage in the free trade which brings wealth. Individuals could then buy food, or the government could use the increased tax revenue to improve their levels of self-sufficiency. Inequality is best resolved by improving the lot of the less fortunate rather than depriving the fortunate, after all.

Anyone read this? Sorry to be dull...
(Lapin, Mon 27 Oct 2008, 15:47, 1 reply)

sure
third world governments are notorious for running off with World Bank and IMF money,leaving their people to rot. Latin America seems to have woken up, but of course will soon be labelled as rebels simply becasue they don't want to play by the WTO's global rules.

I agree with most of what you say. But isn't "free trade" part of the same problem that keeps the third world reliant on external sources of finance? the problem with free trade is, like you say, that countries end up not being sustainable (Western dumping pricing out small farmers being one example).
(ewe, Mon 27 Oct 2008, 16:22, closed)

No
Free trade is the only thing that will solve the problem. Without it, they haven't got a hope.
(Seance Trumpet has got no beef with a man enjoying a croissant, Thu 30 Oct 2008, 11:16, closed)