The People

Right. So I'm reading an article in Foreign Affairs called 'The Long War Against Corruption' by Ben W. Heineman Jr. & Fritz Heimann, both scholars and Heimann a co-founder of Transparency International which calls for the ending of corruption in global affairs. A worthy cause it seems to me and I was looking forward to reading this piece to understand the history of corruption faced by organizations (non-governmental, governmental and corporations) and what should be done about it going forward. My reading was progressing nicely when I came upon this paragraph,

"Although applying anticorruption rules to specific programs is increasingly necessary to sustain support for international financing, there is also the more complex and contentious issue of what to do about governments so corrupt that no safeguard will prevent graft in them. In the case of humanitarian crises brought on by tsunami, an earthquake, or an epidemic, aid may be provided through third parties outside government structures, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders. But because they have limited funds and face unlimited demand, international financial institutions might have to conduct a form of economic triage, disbursing money only to those needy nations where it is less likely to be stolen. Doing so might be a sensible and necessary approach to foreign assistance, but it creates a problem: one ignores corrupt states that are failed or failing at one's peril, because they are incubators of terrorism, the narcotics trade, money laundering, human trafficking, and other global crime - raising issues far beyond corruption."

Where to start...

Point 1 - The authors write, "In the case of humanitarian crises brought on by tsunami, an earthquake, or an epidemic, aid may be provided through third parties outside government structures, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders."

The authors seem to feel that corporations and governments do not have an obligation to their fellow man and woman in the case of a natural disaster. Let's just leave it to the bleeding hearts and let them lose their money to corruption. And the people still die.

Point 2 - The authors write, "But because they have limited funds and face unlimited demand, international financial institutions might have to conduct a form of economic triage, disbursing money only to those needy nations where it is less likely to be stolen."

So the needy people, although having no direct relation to the corrupt who are misapropriating the funds and resources, will suffer. In other words, punish the citizens of the too corrupt countries because their leaders are too corrupt. And the people still die.

Point 3 - The authors write, "...one ignores corrupt states that are failed or failing at one's peril, because they are incubators of terrorism, the narcotics trade, money laundering, human trafficking, and other global crime..."

So don't give money to these corrupt states but realize it is dangerous: not because the people who need help in these countries will die without aid but because they may create terrorists. So let's see, faced with the choice of dying because one nation didn't give aid because the leaders of my country are so corrupt and (if I manage to survive) become a terrorist (with food and clothing and shelter, at least until it's time for me to perform my atrocity which may not be for years and my family will be provided for) I wonder what I would choose. Given the choice between nothing and something, no matter how insane, what would you take. Why don't these authors take responsibilty for creating the horrors we face. And still, the people die.