329
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] afellowkid@lemmygrad.ml 107 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, the US is purposely starving the world.

Yep. I doubt you'll care to read the following but I'm putting it here for others to see.

The United States is the world leader in imposing economic sanctions and supports sanctions regimes affecting nearly 200 million people. ... Targeted countries experience economic contractions and, in many cases, are unable to import sufficient essential goods, including essential medicines, medical equipment, infrastructure necessary for clean water and for health care, and food. ... While on paper most sanctions have some humanitarian exemptions for food, necessary medicines and medical supplies, in practice these exemptions are not sufficient to ensure access to these goods within the targeted country. (Center for Economic and Policy Research)

It's well known that sanctions are ineffective for pressuring governments, but very effective at waging siege warfare by starving and killing ordinary citizens by disease and infrastructural failures. Continuing to use sanctions in this way and to this extent, when this is well known, is definitely "purposely starving the world". An independent expert appointed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said in 2019 that US sanctions violate human rights and international code of conduct and can lead to starvation. Why does the US continue to be the world leader in imposing sanctions, increasing its use of sanctions by 933% over the last 20 years, when this is well known? It's because they know the effect, and they're doing it on purpose.

We can also look at some US internal memorandums from before it was more politically incorrect to talk about starving people in other countries. In 1960, U.S. officials wrote that creating "disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship" through denying money and supplies to Cuba would be a method they should pursue in order to "bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government" in Cuba.

In other countries, we see a pattern of US officials and US-backed institutions purposely denying aid and loans to governments they don't approve of, and then suddenly approving aid and opening up loans when a coup brings a leader they're happy with into power. When Ghana was requesting aid under an administration that the West's bourgeoisie didn't like, U.S. officials said this: "We and other Western countries (including France) have been helping to set up the situation by ignoring Nkrumah’s pleas for economic aid. The new OCAM (Francophone) group’s refusal to attend any OAU meeting in Accra (because of Nkrumah’s plotting) will further isolate him. All in all, looks good." The "situation" they were helping to set up was a coup they knew was going to happen. After a US-friendly coup took place, suddenly it was time to give the "almost pathetically pro-Western" government a gift of "few thousand tons of surplus wheat or rice", knowing that giving little gifts like this "whets their appetites" for further collaboration with the US. You will find the same song and dance in numerous other countries, Chile being a well-documented example, if you simply look for it.

The US imposes starvation and depravation of other countries on purpose, using it as an economic wrecking ball, then pats itself on the back for giving "aid" to the countries which have been hollowed out by such tactics.

The loans which magically become available to countries that meet the US approval standards are not so pretty either, as a former IMF senior economist said, he may only hope "to wash my hands of what in my mind's eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples", there not being "enough soap in the world" to wash away what has been done to the global south through the calculated fraud of the IMF, whose tactics are designed to accomplish the same kind of goals as the sanctions are--to prevent the economic rise of any country but the US by wrecking its competitors economically, tearing apart their local manufacturing capacity and transforming them into mere resource extraction projects, redirecting their agricultural industries into exports to make sure they reach a level where they are more reliant on imports to feed themselves, and reliant on foreign aid which is ripped away whenever they do not do what the US approves of or make friends with who the US wants them to.

I refer to #3, why don’t they just do it then?

This is what secondary sanctions and the US's various protection rackets have always been designed to prevent, which has definitely been a powerful tool for them, but it seems with the rise of the new non-aligned movement and de-dollarization its becoming a less successful one and we can see countries "just doing" what they want more and more while the US leadership waves around, as usual, more sanctions and military threats in response.

[-] ComradeEd@lemmygrad.ml 63 points 1 year ago

Thank you. As you said, even if the person you responded to didn't read it, there are us comrades that will learn from it.

[-] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 37 points 1 year ago

Well lets hear it @BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org

unless you were talking out your ass because it just "feels like we wouldn't do bad stuff like that cause we're the good guys!"

You're lying to yourself and everyone else. Stop being a bad person.

[-] ComradeEd@lemmygrad.ml 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

BossColo has already responded to this (external link to sdf.org). But was banned by lemmygrad, so you can't see it.

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 32 points 1 year ago

What an answer. Sources as a paragraph 22, prasing the benevolence of USA, "others are worse" and straight up artifical starvation apologia.

[-] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago
[-] BossColo 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's an interesting argument, but I still feel it's in bad faith. You can't cite the UN's office of the high commissioner for human rights, when my argument is that the UN is pushing an agenda. I mean, just look at the title of that office. Surely you see how self-important they think themselves.

The 933% increase is an interesting statistic, but I was hoping you could explain what the axis is there. I genuinely don't understand. Regardless though, have you looked at the countries that the US currently has sanctions concerning? I'm sure there are a few you might disagree with, but can you really say that we shouldn't be limiting the resources given to most of those governments? Maybe there is a better way, but the world is most likely a better place with them, than without. I know that's just a guess on my part, but the fact of the matter is that with dictatorial governments, citizen quality of life goes down with government resources (can't find my source online, but I know what book it's in. I'll grab it tomorrow). This is the best I can find now, how the Venezuelan government is using it's resources to keep humanitarian aid from political dissidents. https://br.usembassy.gov/29672/

When you mention the US's actions in the 60s, you have to realize that was a lifetime ago. We did not have the technology nor interconnectedness we have now. I'm not saying what the US did in South America was right, but I'm sure to the policy makers, it seemed right, and the damage was only perceived later. Things are not perfect now either, but I hope you agree, better the US making mistakes than a Ceaușescu.

Finally, why are you bringing up the IMF, that's another UN agency. We can agree that the UN doesn't actually have anyone's well being as their top priority.

this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
329 points (98.8% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

5573 readers
52 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS