Thomas sankara

Or in many cases- providing temporary relief intended to feed the population and not the armies of warlords and the elite, which is perishable and this can be withheld in response to human rights violations or distributing the food to troops while letting the general population starve, or in cases like in Africa, intentionally starving an ethnic group to death as a way to commit genocide- vs giving a warlord or military junta the means to supply their armies with a consistent supply of food reaped by peasant slave labor thereby giving their forces an advantage over neighbors and allowing them to destabilize the region while consolidating power.

But it usually a little of both. A damned if you do and damned if you don’t- and as has happened many times before, there is usually little or nothing stopping a warlord from seizing the relief shipments anyway. Some will claim that makes sense- the government or agency in power would have responsibility for disturbing such relief and handling logistics- others would say its an excuse to rob the people of food and demand loyalty through starvation. If you intervene- whichever political side experiences any ripple effect negatively will claim you shouldn’t be involved and that your good deeds are hurting. If you sit by and watch people starve you’ll create as many or more people who criticize that you should have helped- and ala “prime directive” they will claim that your “noble intentions” to not meddle since you can’t foresee how it goes are easy to have when your people aren’t dying. That the price of your “enlightened ethics” are people dying that you could save.

In these cases it is seldom cut and dry and usually any good that comes from whatever action is offset by bad. For instance if you supply machines for agriculture- and no infrastructure exists who will keep them running? When they break who will eat the parts? How will thy stay fueled and with fluids and consumables like tires? When neighbors see these tools or see the food from these tools- what happens if they decide to take them and you just put a target on this nations back? What if local farmers who can’t keep up with the machines, or neighbor in countries who’s economies might be devastated by the effects of mass agriculture suddenly developing in their neighbor? What when they say “you ruined MY county, how will you help us?”

Who will tech them how to use and keep up the machines, the practices and processes of mechanized agriculture? While they learn and prepare the soil- what will they eat? How do you know that the powers that be won’t just sell the equipment or trade or for weapons and military supplies or for the whims of a ruling party or family? How can you ensure the security of the equipment or the farm site, the food produced- how can you say that the conflicts and issues which led to such a state of affairs where this place doesn’t even have a basic ability to provide food are stable enough that such a program can succeed?

Far as I can tell he's the only Marxist Revolutionary to actually get his nation's act together. Self-sufficiency, economic sustainability, and insanely popular amongst the people.
Until him and his cabinet were assassinated by a former colleague who would go on to be ousted by the masses.

Such god nature’s charity often has a hidden price. In an above post I elaborate in greater detail- but some examples include programs which bring clothes to underdeveloped nations. Sure- people few good their “trash” clothing is going to a good cause- but local textiles and clothing industries take economic hits and then those people can’t stay open or provide for their families. It’s great to build houses for those in need- but then local craftsmen and tradespeople take the hit, and an influx of money to support and supply industries drives up prices and can create shortages for locals. There are all manner of pros and cons to any intended good deed. The unforeseen ripples which can improve lives and destroy them. Look at home even. Lottery winners and those who are on “transformation” shows for self or home, car, life, etc often find themselves worse off after the windfall than before. To abruptly make huge changes to a life or a place has huge consequences.

Say that you provide food while they grow their crops and none of the things I mention in my other post happen and they develop mass agriculture without issues. Ok. So now the mortality rates start to drop. With steady food the population steadies or booms. But does a country that can’t feed itself have the infrastructure for all those people? Can it educate and clothe and house and enforce law and provide medical care to all those people? Can they all have jobs to afford the things they need and buy food? Now they must develop all that too, and instead of doing so organically they must rush to do so ahead of the problems that a growing and well nourished population creates. How can a government that can’t pay to feed its people provide those changes? How can people who can’t feed themselves pay taxes to fund the government? High unemployment and rising population with limited opportunity is usually a recipe for crime and violence WITHOUT an overstretched government in the mix.