CHANGE or CHANGE

Change is usually defined as the act of making something different or using a different approach to a specific situation. In the recent years change has probably been used more times in political campaigns than ever before. Its face value gets the votes and its intrinsic value either ruins or develops a society. From the United States of America’s 2008 presidential elections to that of Nigeria in 2015, politicians have implored this word as a reflection of the new era they intend to create. That has left me pondering, what do they actually mean by “CHANGE”. This article is going to look at change from two different perspectives. These two perspectives are two opposite lanes on the highway of foreign policy, a shift from physical captivity to mental and diplomatic anarchy.

The “On Paper” end of human slavery in the United States by the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1^st 1963 was a stepping to something bigger. Something that the targeted slaves would go through years of study and volumes of books and actually still sign. It was the beginning of foreign policy. A set of laws and limitations that promote change but yet still give change.  Its very first child has taken away millions of lives and promoted spending while millions die each day of hunger and lack of shelter. A child so expensive to educate and each day that passes, something has to be ameliorated to make it better. No doubt it was named DEMO-CRACY. Really wander and ponder when this whole “DEMO” will be over the full version released. Democracy was given to third world countries as a condition to restore what actually belongs to us. At a time when very few people in those parts of the world knew what it was and its promoters understood it inside out. We went into a deal which enhanced CHANGE but then left CHANGE.

The other elements of foreign policy sound more like its grand children. From the IMF and The World Bank to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice are all good concepts with two main objectives, to promote CHANGE and leave behind some CHANGE. Ever wondered why all Heroes (leaders of 3^rd world countries who took the bull by the horn) began perishing for unjustified causes? The answer is simple. They began to see the light at the end of the tunnel. They understood what the whole system was meant to do. From Libya to Burkina Faso, Iraq to Syria, the system has been tailored to creating CHANGE and leaving some CHANGE.

Wonder where all this is leading to, well let me break it down for you. The two perspectives of change here are those of the powerful nations and the developing nations. The former has a very high face value but the latter has an invalid intrinsic value and a result of that of the former. The wars and ousting of leaders in developing countries creates a vacuum for exploitation by the west. This exploitation, often done in billions of dollars boosts the western economy and oil the wheels of positive growth and technological advancements in those countries. Meanwhile somewhere in the 3^rd world country, Change (the left overs from the exploitation process) is being used to promote a system created by the same people who exploit these countries thereby creating another vacuum for investment with funds gotten from exploitation. The next leaders come and promise Change. The borrow investment funds from the same people whole exploited us. And then, at that point, just that point when the 3^rd world countries are about to make it out of the rat race, we bay back the loans and all they are left with is CHANGE.

ARE THRIRD WORLD COUNTRIES EVER GOING TO EXPERIENCE CHANGE OR ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE LEAVING ON CHANGE????