I only stated two facts:
-the democratic un is a democratic organization run by democratic people and funded with democratic countries's money (of course not entirely run and not entirely funded but mainly which is enough)
-from democratic people's point of view, africa works well. So far they have never failed to be provided with the commodities they needed from africa.

In short, if it is not broken, why fix it?
Why should democratic people invest in something that is already working well for them?

From one purely statist perspective, resources that can be considered public goods, are better administered by a public sector.

Any local populace would be better off with modern infrastructure. Public sector ventures that promote the general Welfare could be used to better facilitate "conduits" to markets. These types of public sector ventures can generate revenue for the public sector if implemented in a market friendly manner.

A public sector can artificially create markets (e.g. the drug war and the war on terrorism are examples of artificial markets, that would probably not exist if they were not socialized public sector ventures and not required to generate revenue for the public sector.

Hypothetically, how would democracy be denied or disparaged by an interstate public sector implementation of public goods (in the form of infrastructure development)?

In other words, how would building roads and aqueducts be detrimental to the type of government empowered by the local social contract and form of statism of that region?

Can providing for the general Welfare of a republic, ever be considered unethical or immoral?