The role of America in internal affairs of 3rd world countries is a topic to be discussed and debated. In my opinion America is very keenly indulging itself in it.
There is nothing called "3rd world countries". Every war fought by Britain was fought with men and materials from India prior to 1945. But India, independent from 1947, has been termed as a third world country. In addition, they call India as "developing country" "poor country", etc. Without India, would UK have become so rich? Every stone in their buildings and roads have a major share of India's resources. It is pitiable that those who made India poor by sucking its resources now call it a "poor country".
As far as America is concerned, it has to watch the internal affairs of every country, which receives aid from it. That may seem "meddling" in their internal affairs. Many countries invite the US to help them with all kinds of help. So, there is no question of US meddling by US in the affairs of small countries. But if they try to meddle in India or China's affairs, that may be called 'meddling'. Because India and China are more capable of solving their own problems.
Venugopal certainly has a point. Most "developing" countries are rich in natural resources, have been premier societies for millennia, but have been exploited by countries with better technology (not necessarily more civilization since a) most countries which have been thought of as tribal have had vastly huge and richly complex societies, and b) our behavior has rarely been shown to be civilized).
I find it interesting this push and pull on the US helping other countries and meddling in other countries. Certainly many countries ask for help and certainly we give unasked for "assistance" to many countries. But who decides whom we help and don't? If we don't help a country our people often decry the government for its lack of compassion. When we help some countries, the government is accused of having ulterior motives. But of course it is important to the US government to do the best for its own government in deciding who and how we aid, after all their first responsibility is to our own country. So the question for us Americans should really be, is the assistance the government is giving other countries good for us. And I don't mean that in a greedy capitalist way, but like the assistance given the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in the eighties, both turned out to be really bad ideas. What about the assistance given to the Sudan or Uganda? I don't know what we've done, but that seems to be a good thing. What kind of assistance should we give? We "helped" countries by importing their crops, except that turned self sufficient tribal communities to producing cash crops and no longer being self sufficient, instead driving them into extreme poverty they didn't originally know. But do we ignore it when children are being kidnapped and turned into child soldiers? It is a difficult question both for Americans and for people who may need our help, because if we're going to help, of course we're also going to "meddle".
The US behave like policemen in the affairs of weaker countries and use them for their self interest only. The US have never given any support to any country selflessly. So they can not claim it aid.
They go on the formula "Might is Right".
For what they interfered into the matters of Vietnam and fought a shameless war for 17 long years? What business they had while supporting dictators of Pakistan? Why they attacked Iraq second time?
The US must stop all these.
I agree Jyoti. As a Canadian I'd have to say that Canada isn't much better with troops in Afghanistan. Just this past week there was a poll that came out on the news showing that only just over a third of Canadians support the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. Traditionally Canada has had a good name around the world as peace keepers. This Afghanistan mission seems to be changing opinions in some countries.
I guess best way to see would be imagining there was no contact whatsoever with the outside world whatsoever. Where would your country be? leaving w/o maintaining contact can still easily be done I would think. Pull all troops, business, people and leave. Interesting picture I would imagine.
by aka-dj8 years ago
Here is a 4 min video. You (we) are about to give up our freedom(s).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40What do you think?
by IRSHAD CV2 years ago
Do you think first world countries are free from inequalities?
by pramodgokhale4 years ago
Fate of Third world citizens? always in Anarchy, poverty, nepotism, Non-Democratic regimes torturePresent Syrian imbroglio globa attention possible US attack and after attack spike in oil prices instability in middle...
by laswi8 years ago
Why powerful nations put their fingers in to the internal affairs of small third world countries?
by Cassie Smith6 years ago
Christianity has shifted from its concentration in Europe and America to spread to Asia and Africa according to the Pew Research Center. It used to be that 93% of Christians could be found in Europe (66.3%) and...
by mmaize7 years ago
Should we fund for the poverty that exists in our own country before the third-world countries?There's poverty that exists in industrialzed nations and we are also aware of the poverty in the developing third world...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.