# International Aid



## Happyexpat (Apr 4, 2011)

Now as usual I am sure I am missing a salient point somewhere. Before I start this let me state I am very sorry for the suffering people of Somalia, Ethiopia etc especially the children who lets face it haven't caused it but are suffering the most. We should also remember that yes there is a terrible drought which unfortunately is not unusual but if they hadn't been trying to kill each other over the last 20 plus years they could probably have put an infrastructure in which would have, at least, mitigated the problem.

The UK is, as usual, sticking its neck out, 'taking the lead according to the press' and pouring a few million quid into the pot as well as physical assistance, however they are broke. Spain is putting money and assistance in, they are also broke, The States is putting money in, they are also broke. The EEC is doing the same and they are near as damn it broke. There are, I am sure also many other countries in the same financial position doing this which I don't know about. The point is, especially for Spain which is in dire straights, how is this possible?

It could be argued (but I won't) that the money would be better spent on helping the people suffering here in Spain than pouring it into the never ending problems out there (often lining somebody's pocket rather than actually getting to the 'front line').

More to the point which has really got my goat up is that South Africa which is not broke and has a reported 40,000 tons of excess grain has allegedly not, as yet assisted, nor has any other African country as of this morning. Probably even worse the Islamic League, probably apart from China and Brazil the richest group in the world, refused to allow any aid until today when it has said 'International support is vital and we will NOW ALLOW it in.

Somebody is taking the Mick!


----------



## VFR (Dec 23, 2009)

As usual, yes.
Those who actually need the help may, if they are lucky, get a lick from the bowl, but the meat & veg will be long gone by the time they get a look in.


----------



## DunWorkin (Sep 2, 2010)

playamonte said:


> As usual, yes.
> Those who actually need the help may, if they are lucky, get a lick from the bowl, but the meat & veg will be long gone by the time they get a look in.


That may be the case but it is not a reason not to try and help. Better we send a bowl that they may get a lick of than no bowl at all.


----------



## Happyexpat (Apr 4, 2011)

I think the point I was trying to make was not the need for assistance which is obvious, albeit probably not the sensible way to go about it, but rather where is the money coming from and why are Africa and the middle east not playing the game fully as well. After all it is physically more their problem than ours as, at the moment, they are ones taking the refugees.....though we are paying substantially to the camps they are setting up....
I would have thought, particularly in Spain's case broke mean't no money, job losses, cut backs, recession, inflation strikes and strife. yet suddenly money and resources can be found.....maybe we are borrowing it LOL.
Charity, partularly involving Africa, is a strange word. It is more emotive than religion and politics (though usually tied in with them) and yet generally people are reticent to comment honestly. It also has more proactive marketing than any other single subject which costs a fortune!
I want to again make it clear before somebody leaps on me I am a humanist and support helping each other including ourselves. If we cannot be sound financially then we cannot help others so the old saying 'charity begins at home' has more than an element of truth, especially with countries in trouble such as Spain and others in the EEC.
As for the comment "_That may be the case but it is not a reason not to try and help. Better we send a bowl that they may get a lick of than no bowl at all._" of course it's not a reason to not help but maybe we should look at alternative ways. Ways which would benefit them DIRECTLY now, in the long term and the countries providing the aid. It is possible to do but the business side of charities providing aid would not, in my opinion, want this to actually happen. Neither would the politicians, those needing aid united would be able to stand, divided they can be manipulated.....


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

There should be a worldwide disaster relief contingency fund that every multinational corporation has to contribute a tiny percentage of its profit to. 

Then the aid organisations wouldn't have to waste time and resources begging for money from the public each time there is a crisis.


----------



## Happyexpat (Apr 4, 2011)

*And yet again!*

This afternoon it was announced that the EEC is pledging hundreds of millions of Euros to North Korea as they are also starving. Why are they starving? Simply because of a despotIc, archaic communist regime which cannot manage the country and regularly threatens the rest of the world.
Again more to the point where the heck is all this money suddenly appearing from, surely broke is broke not just broke for our own people but plenty for anybody else?

Or is it yet again politics and about buying influence,,,,,, I might not be, from many people's point of view, a radical but this is a complete shambles that needs sorting out and the sooner the better.

As for multi national corporations helping, Bill Gates has wanted to do that for years and has got almost diddly squat support so far!



Alcalaina said:


> There should be a worldwide disaster relief contingency fund that every multinational corporation has to contribute a tiny percentage of its profit to.
> 
> Then the aid organisations wouldn't have to waste time and resources begging for money from the public each time there is a crisis.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

Happyexpat said:


> This afternoon it was announced that the EEC is pledging hundreds of millions of Euros to North Korea as they are also starving. Why are they starving? Simply because of a despotIc, archaic communist regime which cannot manage the country and regularly threatens the rest of the world.
> Again more to the point where the heck is all this money suddenly appearing from, surely broke is broke not just broke for our own people but plenty for anybody else?
> 
> Or is it yet again politics and about buying influence,,,,,, I might not be, from many people's point of view, a radical but this is a complete shambles that needs sorting out and the sooner the better.
> ...


Actually the EU aid to North Korea is €10 million and it was announced a week ago. It will save the lives of 650,000 people.

The European Commission will give emergency food aid to North Korea

I'm sure you don't mean it like that, but it looks as if you are saying that because they are stuck with a lunatic leader they should be allowed to starve.

Isn't it better (and cheaper) to give aid to such countries than to bomb them? Hearts and minds, and all that?

As for the multinationals, I'm not suggesting this tax should be voluntary!


----------



## marie&kim (Jun 16, 2011)

*Nature*

This is natures way of sorting out the weak from the strong.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

marie&kim said:


> This is natures way of sorting out the weak from the strong.


That sounds rather scary. Would you care to define "nature"?


----------



## MaidenScotland (Jun 6, 2009)

marie&kim said:


> This is natures way of sorting out the weak from the strong.


Wow what an attitude.


----------



## MaidenScotland (Jun 6, 2009)

I too get fed hearing how much money we send abroad to save others when it seems that the countries we send money too are not poor countries just countries who have governments who mismanaged their monies but then again I would rather give something and hope that it helps some poor soul to live.


----------



## Happyexpat (Apr 4, 2011)

*Not actually sure what I think anymore*

My first point was and still really is about Europe, Spain etc having no money and yet handing out financial aid all over the place while people here are homeless, jobless, having their earnings reduced, pensions reduced and losing their homes. Lets face it, it has has been quite an emotive topic of conversation for the last few weeks. 
My second point was that if Europe etc has no money and in debt etc where the heck are they getting the aid from? These were actually my only real points however I will answer the points you have made as I think they are central to the issue.

At the moment the 'Arab Spring' is taking place getting rid of, in theory, lousy governments and many have been wounded or died in the process. There are street protests all over Europe trying to do a similar thing and yes people have sadly died or been wounded trying to protest for what they see as a better future.

This has not and is not happening in North Korea. No doubt it would be ruthlessly put down if it did happen but by giving aid we are actually allowing a corrupt ruthless communist dictatorship which regularly threatens and blackmails the world to continue. 650,000 people fed up with a system and determined to change it would take a lot of stopping. 650,000 people being given a handout won't bother.

We should also remember that unlike certain other countries we have not tried to get rid of this despot! The country has nothing of value to offer us, he has a large well equipped army which might just give us a hard time (it did last time) and he MIGHT have a Nuclear option which he is probably daft enough to use. Bottom line; the world might feel sorry for the people of North Korea but not that sorry......

We know for certain that this regime will strictly control any aid going into the country, they are 'control freaks' of the worst kind. Who do you think will get the aid, those that support the governement and in government! It certainly won't be the poor peasant trying to get a living out of his meagre rice paddy. As for saving 650,000 people yes maybe but for how long and when will we have to do it again and again.

You are right I certainly didn't and don't heartlessly mean that people should starve, it is a terrible very distressing thought but I do think they would be better off in some cases, Korea being one, in the long run for their children and their childrens children doing something constructive themselves. Improving the situation would however be dangerous and difficult for them. By sending aid I would suggest we are just delaying the inevitable and probably extending the suffering.

As for hearts and minds, yep all for it. However you tend not to win the hearts and minds of the comman starving man by giving aid as in the majority of cases the people don't get it, what they do get they don't care about or even know where it is from.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I do sincerely and strongly believe in charitable support, in helping my fellow man and try to do as much as I can both financially and practically. I am afraid that I am however very sceptical about foreign aid, especially in the cases /areas outlined in this thread.

Part of the problem is that it is not seen as right, proper, 'christian' or 'nice' to speak out about charitable support, especially to criticise it. We therefore allow systems which are clearly not working, clearly being abused, clearly in many cases corrupt, clearly often causing more damage than long term good to continue in the same way. 

An open honest debate about the way charity is administered, money raised, such as your enforced levy on business, and practical forward planning support rather than just short term financial would, I think, bring about the radical change the system needs. If places like Africa are to lose the need for charity and become self sufficient the whole culture, ethos, structure and particularly infrastructure needs addressing not just 'fire fighting funding' when something goes wrong. 

I would sooner see and pay for €10,000,000 euros put in to build a dam and irregation for future generations than 1,000,000 to line corrupt officials pockets and feed a few people for a few weeks. Its realism and practicality in a terrible situation.

:focus:I am afraid this has drifted off the subject so I will bring it back, Where the eck is Europe and especially Spain finding the money for the aid and would it be better spent here so we can help elsewhere later on when we are stronger? 

By the way I don't like pain so could the lynching party bring an anaesthetic with them



Alcalaina said:


> Actually the EU aid to North Korea is €10 million and it was announced a week ago. It will save the lives of 650,000 people.
> 
> The European Commission will give emergency food aid to North Korea
> 
> ...


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

First, it is a myth that European countries have no money. Public spending cuts, austerity measures, call them what you will, are down to politics, not economics. 

Secondly, where are they getting the money from? Every country has an overseas aid budget and this is ring-fenced from public expenditure at home. This is quite the right thing to do, otherwise every time there is an international disaster, people would starve or freeze to death in their droves while charities tried to raise funds from the public. It could happen anywhere, e.g. the disasters in Australia and New Zealand - it could happen to us. 

As I said, I think more of the burden should fall on the private sector companies who make their profits by exploiting countries in the developing world.

As for the money not filtering down to where it's needed, this is certainly the case - e.g. a lot of the aid money that went to Haiti was used to give lucrative rebuilding contracts to American companies like Halliburton - not to rebuild houses and hospitals, but American-owned clothing factories. Communist dictators don't have a monopoly on evil.

I was encouraged by the section in the link I posted that the EU commission will monitor this carefully: _"If at any stage we discover that the aid is being diverted from its intended recipients then the Commission will not hesitate to end its humanitarian intervention," said Commissioner Georgieva. "We simply cannot allow people to die of hunger and for this reason we are determined to monitor the delivery at every stage."_

As for regime change, I believe that should come from within the country, not from outside. And amongst those North Koreans who would otherwise have died of hunger might be the ones who set it in motion.


----------



## bobbylennox (Jul 13, 2011)

some staggering comments on here, how many Spaniards will die of starvation today? to say they have no money is either grossly uninformed. incredibly naive or downright ignorant.


----------



## Beachcomber (May 10, 2009)

Of course foreign aid is right. How else would African despots be able to purchase and maintain their fleets of private helicopters and limousines and how would countries like India and Pakistan be able to sustain their space programs and build up their arsenals of nuclear weapons without it?

I'm sure the British and other Europeans are totally happy for their pension funds to be plundered and their jobs, salaries and services cut to the bone in order that the money they pay in taxes may be used to sustain the aid program. 

It does occur to me, though, that perhaps a concerted effort should be made to relieve the Somali thugs and criminals of their ill gotten gains from piracy in the Indian Ocean to fund the famine relief program and perhaps some of the oil rich African and Arab countries would like to consider contributing as well.


----------



## Happyexpat (Apr 4, 2011)

Actually the emotive comments about starving people in Spain etc were made on other threads in discussions about street protests but that aside the issue surrounding money still stands. Yes all countries in Europe have Ring fenced funding for International aid which is a reasonable thing to do.
My problem with all of this is a simple one, we pour aid into many countries, particularly Africa on a regular basis usually for the same problems which keep happening, droughts and the ravages of war.
Surely rather than this roundabout of if aid we would be better off and they would be better off if we did something about the root cause, better water storage and irrigation, a solution to the political problems, education on birth control so the population is at a level that the land can support.
It is easy to say that Europe isn't broke and that funds are ring fenced but it is simply not true. It is broke, ok maybe struggling would be a better phrase, and it cannot really afford to keep throwing money at recurring, avoidable problems.


----------



## Nignoy (Jun 4, 2010)

Many of the african countries were only to quick to scream for independence,when they got it instead of sifting through the colonial way of doing things and picking out the systems and laws that would work best for the new country and improve on them, they reverted straight back to the feudal or tribal systems, tumbling the country into a bottomless pit of poverty ,starvation, and sickness,As a young boy uptil the age of 14 I was brought up in kenya, before and during the mau mau rebellion.15 years after kenyan indepence I visited my old home at Kahawa near nakuru in kenya, the beautiful templar lines estate was in ruins, all the houses and flats which had been handed over to the kenyan people, were uninhabitable, the infrastructure was destroyed, beggars and crying children everywhere,long queues at the unicef and miserior stores!!these countries sad but true are suffering problems of their own making, and europe has its own cashflow problems,that need to be attended to first.As pictures of starving children are supposed to help people to open their wallets and donate money,as pitiful as it iswe cannot rescue everyone!!


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

Happyexpat said:


> Actually the emotive comments about starving people in Spain etc were made on other threads in discussions about street protests but that aside the issue surrounding money still stands. Yes all countries in Europe have Ring fenced funding for International aid which is a reasonable thing to do.
> My problem with all of this is a simple one, we pour aid into many countries, particularly Africa on a regular basis usually for the same problems which keep happening, droughts and the ravages of war.
> Surely rather than this roundabout of if aid we would be better off and they would be better off if we did something about the root cause, better water storage and irrigation, a solution to the political problems, education on birth control so the population is at a level that the land can support.
> It is easy to say that Europe isn't broke and that funds are ring fenced but it is simply not true. It is broke, ok maybe struggling would be a better phrase, and it cannot really afford to keep throwing money at recurring, avoidable problems.


Apart from disaster relief, which we both agree no sane member of the human race would argue against, these days overseas aid has conditions attached. These almost always involve a long term benefit to the donor, e.g. opening up new markets, construction projects for western companies, arms deals, protectionist trade policies, privatisation of public services (especially water) and so on. 

Then there is the "we'll help you if you help us" money, like the billions of dollars given to Pakistan by the US to help them fight El Qaeda.

This is how the West maintains global power. It isn´t charity.

Europe isn't broke. The money is sitting in the hands of private investors and speculators, who instead of investing in job-producing activities, now buy and sell debts and hedge funds because this is less risky and more profitable. Check out this article: FEPS Fresh Thinking » Blog Archive » Hedge Funds, Speculation and European Politics

Mods - Shouldn't this discussion be in La Tasca?


----------



## Happyexpat (Apr 4, 2011)

*Maybe we can*

I guess it is obvious from my comments that I don't disagree with much of what you say but there could be a solution here, a solution all round.

In Spain and other countries in Europe we have a very high rate of unemployment, often skilled and semi skilled construction people. We could also include in this high tech people such as IT, communications etc.

Now if there is a ring fenced pot of money (The NHS was ring fenced and look what has happened with that) it could be used to pay the wages of workers. They could go out to some of these countries and put infrastructure in place, the dams they need, irrigation piping, housing, IT, communications etc. The result would be manyfold

The unemployed in Europe would be employed and earning thus helping their families.
We would still be providing sensible and practical international aid
The people in the countries concerned would eventually be far far better off and better prepared for the regular vageries of nature.
We would be providing a long term solution instead of a quick fix which does nothing apart from save a few lives now so they can die later when the next problem comes along, talk about making suffering last!

Of course this would need to be run internationally, maybe this is where Alcalaina's idea for business could come in as they would have the expertise to run it. An international Limited Co run on a non profit basis could be formed. One thing for sure it shouldn't be run by the politicos! Of course apart from the above we would also save money in the long run, there would be less chance of corruption (but I bet some b$£%d finds a way) and the people in the countries would actually know and see who was helping them (hearts and minds solved). It would also help to educate us and the poorer countries, enriching the human experience for many many people.

A win win situation! Lets stop pouring money down the endless drain and use it sensibly for everybody including us!

_ Re moving to La Tasca: When I started this thread it was primarily about finance, in particular Spain contributing to aid when it has so many problems so, I suggest it was valid to post here. It may now have progressed to something that goes well beyond Spain but I would not like to see it disappear completelyfrom this section as it is still applicable to us._



Nignoy said:


> Many of the african countries were only to quick to scream for independence,when they got it instead of sifting through the colonial way of doing things and picking out the systems and laws that would work best for the new country and improve on them, they reverted straight back to the feudal or tribal systems, tumbling the country into a bottomless pit of poverty ,starvation, and sickness,As a young boy uptil the age of 14 I was brought up in kenya, before and during the mau mau rebellion.15 years after kenyan indepence I visited my old home at Kahawa near nakuru in kenya, the beautiful templar lines estate was in ruins, all the houses and flats which had been handed over to the kenyan people, were uninhabitable, the infrastructure was destroyed, beggars and crying children everywhere,long queues at the unicef and miserior stores!!these countries sad but true are suffering problems of their own making, and europe has its own cashflow problems,that need to be attended to first.As pictures of starving children are supposed to help people to open their wallets and donate money,as pitiful as it iswe cannot rescue everyone!!


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

Happy, what you describe is already happening. I urge you to look at this page:
What we do – More than delivering aid

It explains clearly what the EU's aid policy is and how investing in the developing world helps European countries in the long run. Aid is clearly not just about feeding the hungry.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." And you also have a guaranteed market for your fishing rods.


----------



## Happyexpat (Apr 4, 2011)

Well you learn something new every day.....I wonder how many other people didn't know about this organisation which nearly covers what I was suggesting, note nearly.
They are certainly doing what I suggested except for the bit about using the ring fenced funding to employ people in Europe with the skills to carry out the tasks. To achieve a Win Win situation you need both sides of the equation, they have one side right, wouldn't it be good to see it balanced with the other side. Still at least it would seem that somebody else has taken the long sensible view rather than the short term one for a change. This is a group that I would support and work for! I will be finding out more! Maybe it doesn't help save lives in the short term but my bet is that it saves many many more in the long term and reduces suffering for future generations. Excellent!

By the way I loved the bit about the fishing rods!


----------

