COUNTERPOINT: Protests in Washington D.C. — Unfocused demonstration
At times, it is difficult to know what emotions to feel toward protestors. It seems like you should be cheering them on because they are willing to take a stand for something they believe strongly in. In a world where apathy is the rule, we should all encourage those who have strong beliefs and are willing to express them in a public situation. At the same time, however, there are those whose beliefs are so far removed from reality that you feel like crying rather than cheering.
All these emotions washed over me as I watched various groups march around the streets of Washington, D.C., protesting the policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a good political statement as much as the next guy, especially when the statement is clever, as was the two tons of manure dumped in front of the World Bank a couple of years ago. That was a clever protest, in my opinion. Last weekend’s protests lacked that cleverness, with some even resorting to smashing windows (how clever is that?). What it lacked even more, however, was a good purpose for protesting.
The stated reasons for protesting were various, from the need for debt relief to third world nations, to AIDS assistance, to environmental and labor concerns.
Let’s take them one by one, shall we?
First, debt relief. Most of these countries have a great amount of debt because their governments are corrupt, robbing from their own citizens. Forgiving the debt would not allow more kids to go to school, make safe drinking water available, or any of the other claims made by protestors. All it would do is give corrupt governments more leeway in robbing their people. If you had a child who had stolen your credit card and was irresponsibly running up the balance, would you simply pay off the balance without taking away the card? If you’re smart, you wouldn’t; yet that is what is suggested with debt relief.
Next, AIDS assistance. I am all for helping those in desperate need, as many of these countries are, but the assistance they need is a cultural change. Sexual promiscuity is the reason most of these countries are in such bad shape. That is how the disease spreads so quickly and widely. Again, without a change in sexual customs, no amount of assistance will solve the problem, and I am going to go out on a limb and assume that most protestors in D.C. last weekend would balk at the idea of imposing “Western” sexual culture on these countries.
Finally, environmental and labor concerns. What protestors must not realize is that requiring these countries to live by the exact environmental and labor standards we do is to severely restrict their ability to develop and to have a better life. Most individuals in the developing world live at a level where their basic needs for survival are barely being met. In many cases, they have barely begun industrialization.
It shows an amazing lack of common sense to expect them to have the same level of pollution control technology which we have, much less the income to be able to afford it. More than that, it shows an amazing lack of compassion, on the part of protestors, to deny them the ability to rise above abject poverty, simply because they cannot match our technology.
Over time, societies become wealthier and therefore more concerned with their environment. Instead of keeping these nations undeveloped and poor, as protestors would have us do, let us instead encourage development and industrialization, so they can live a better life, and, in the end, improve their environment on their own terms.
Jeremy Kidd is a graduate student in economics. Comments can be sent to jeremykidd@cc.usu.edu.