EU's Answer to Sudan Genocide: Starvation

[Zebo]

WTF?

 

[RabidMongoose]

The US was pushing UN sanctions a while ago, but some European countries were against it. France, I believe, was the main opposition.

Countries like China, Pakistan, and Russia were against an arms embargo.

Also nice to see that the EU says that it'll spend more on Sudan as many of the countries in Europe such as France, Spain, Italy and so on refused the UN call of aid by providing very little support at all.

 

[Kibbo]

Hmmm. . .

More and more it sounds like the biggest military in the world would come in handy right now. Too bad it's busy.

 

[f95toli]

Most of the memeber countires wants an embargo against the Sudanese goverment. However, the dutch minister of foreign affairs visited Sudan a couple of days ago and met with the Sudanese goverment basically telling them "Do as we want, or else...". So at the meeting it was desiced to wait a few days to see what happens.
In the meantime several countries have started planning and preparing for sending troups.

The problem is that it won't help the refugees to go after the goverment right now, the quickest way to improve the situation is probably to force the current regime to co-operate, it takes time to set up a military operation.

That said, members of the Sudanese goverment are very likely to end up in the Hauge no matter what happens.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Zebo
WTF?

where does it say that the EU wants to starve the Sudanese

last time I checked the EU and the USA are on the same line regarding Sudan - maybe the USA also wants to starve Sudan???

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Zebo
WTF?

where does it said that the EU wants to starve the Sudanese

last time I checked the EU and the USA are on the same line regarding Sudan - maybe the USA also wants to starve Sudan???

Yup, in fact the EU was just adopting the US stance on the issue.

 

[Zephyr106]

Everything Yurope does is bad. Even when America does the same. It's a common theme around here, surely you must know it.

Zephyr

 

[CanOWorms]

The US has provided over $300 million in humanitarian aid to Sudan in the foreign aid package.

Even in the absence of a U.N. resolution, the world must act. Again, France is well-placed to lead such an effort: It has a military base in Chad, Sudan's western neighbor, and another in Djibouti to the east; it could offer airlift and other logistical support for delivery of relief. So far, however, France has offered only to help pay for one contract aircraft; it has offered no helicopters, even though the United Nations relief team appealed for six in March and has so far received none. The United Nations is short of food and other supplies also: It has appealed for $349 million worth of materials, but donors have come forward with a pitiful $145 million or so. Tightfistedness from France, Japan, Italy, Spain and Germany is the main reason for the shortfall. For example, France has donated just over $6 million to Darfur, according to the United Nations, whereas the United States has given $130 million and committed to an additional $170 million.

These are rich countries. What do they do? Donate pennies. Why?

 

[Czar]

CanOWorms,
130 millions has been donated right now, not over 300 millions and will add 170million to that, equals 300 millions, not over 300 millions

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The US has provided over $300 million in humanitarian aid to Sudan in the foreign aid package.

Even in the absence of a U.N. resolution, the world must act. Again, France is well-placed to lead such an effort: It has a military base in Chad, Sudan's western neighbor, and another in Djibouti to the east; it could offer airlift and other logistical support for delivery of relief. So far, however, France has offered only to help pay for one contract aircraft; it has offered no helicopters, even though the United Nations relief team appealed for six in March and has so far received none. The United Nations is short of food and other supplies also: It has appealed for $349 million worth of materials, but donors have come forward with a pitiful $145 million or so. Tightfistedness from France, Japan, Italy, Spain and Germany is the main reason for the shortfall. For example, France has donated just over $6 million to Darfur, according to the United Nations, whereas the United States has given $130 million and committed to an additional $170 million.

haha they're idiots for trying to count on the French

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Czar
CanOWorms,
130 millions has been donated right now, not over 300 millions and will add 170million to that, equals 300 millions, not over 300 millions

why does that matter? it might be 300 million and one cent which is over 300 millions.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The US has provided over $300 million in humanitarian aid to Sudan in the foreign aid package.

Even in the absence of a U.N. resolution, the world must act. Again, France is well-placed to lead such an effort: It has a military base in Chad, Sudan's western neighbor, and another in Djibouti to the east; it could offer airlift and other logistical support for delivery of relief. So far, however, France has offered only to help pay for one contract aircraft; it has offered no helicopters, even though the United Nations relief team appealed for six in March and has so far received none. The United Nations is short of food and other supplies also: It has appealed for $349 million worth of materials, but donors have come forward with a pitiful $145 million or so. Tightfistedness from France, Japan, Italy, Spain and Germany is the main reason for the shortfall. For example, France has donated just over $6 million to Darfur, according to the United Nations, whereas the United States has given $130 million and committed to an additional $170 million.

These are rich countries. What do they do? Donate pennies. Why?

link??

 

[freegeeks]

fyi

The USA is only the worlds' biggest givern because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world

According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period.

But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%.

The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share

why is the richest country in the world giving out peanuts?

link

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Czar
CanOWorms,
130 millions has been donated right now, not over 300 millions and will add 170million to that, equals 300 millions, not over 300 millions

I was talking about the foreign aid package. I'm not sure if that's related to the article. The aid package has $311 million for Sudan.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
fyi

The USA is only the worlds' biggest givern because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world

According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period.

But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%.

The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share

why is the richest country in the world giving out peanuts?

link

That doesn't make sense. This year alone the US is giving about $20 billion. I would think from 1995 to 1999 it would be more than just one year.

I'm not arguing that the US isn't stingy - it is. But there's a genocide, it's providing money right now. Plus, if you think about it, most European countries should be giving a lot of aid because they are the ones that raped those countries.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
fyi

The USA is only the worlds' biggest givern because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world

According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period.

But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%.

The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share

why is the richest country in the world giving out peanuts?

link

your site sucks, it even spelled Reagan wrong. Regan???

This site is better.

US and Foreign Aid

 

[CanOWorms]

lol, look at your own article! The US people are one of the most generous people in the world - it calls them the biggest giver. They gave $241 billion, 2.3% of the GDP! Sure as hell looks like the US government doesn't need to provide that much money when the population itself is compassioante. This sort of makes sense, too. Most European countries have large proportions of their population as racists - they wouldn't provide money for starving people in Africa. So, the government has to pony up the cash but of course doesn't provide too much because it doesn't want to inflame their voting base.

The USA is the world's biggest giver

"When the going gets tough, Americans keep giving - to the tune of nearly $241 billion.

Charitable donations for 2002 set a new high, rising 1 percent over 2001's total in current dollars, according to Giving USA, a report released Monday by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel's Trust for Philanthropy in Indianapolis. The estimated $240.92 billion in gifts equalled 2.3 percent of US gross domestic product.

Although once it is adjusted for inflation the amount represents a 0.5 percent decline since 2001, it still shows "the resilience and pervasiveness of giving in our culture," says Leo Arnoult, chair of the AAFRC Trust.

Most donations come from individuals (76 percent of the total), and some nonprofit sectors were hit harder last year than others. [...] "

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The US has provided over $300 million in humanitarian aid to Sudan in the foreign aid package.

Even in the absence of a U.N. resolution, the world must act. Again, France is well-placed to lead such an effort: It has a military base in Chad, Sudan's western neighbor, and another in Djibouti to the east; it could offer airlift and other logistical support for delivery of relief. So far, however, France has offered only to help pay for one contract aircraft; it has offered no helicopters, even though the United Nations relief team appealed for six in March and has so far received none. The United Nations is short of food and other supplies also: It has appealed for $349 million worth of materials, but donors have come forward with a pitiful $145 million or so. Tightfistedness from France, Japan, Italy, Spain and Germany is the main reason for the shortfall. For example, France has donated just over $6 million to Darfur, according to the United Nations, whereas the United States has given $130 million and committed to an additional $170 million.

These are rich countries. What do they do? Donate pennies. Why?

link??

link

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
lol, look at your own article! The US people are one of the most generous people in the world - it calls them the biggest giver. They gave $241 billion, 2.3% of the GDP! Sure as hell looks like the US government doesn't need to provide that much money when the population itself is compassioante. This sort of makes sense, too. Most European countries have large proportions of their population as racists - they wouldn't provide money for starving people in Africa. So, the government has to pony up the cash but of course doesn't provide too much because it doesn't want to inflame their voting base.

The USA is the world's biggest giver

"When the going gets tough, Americans keep giving - to the tune of nearly $241 billion.

Charitable donations for 2002 set a new high, rising 1 percent over 2001's total in current dollars, according to Giving USA, a report released Monday by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel's Trust for Philanthropy in Indianapolis. The estimated $240.92 billion in gifts equalled 2.3 percent of US gross domestic product.

Although once it is adjusted for inflation the amount represents a 0.5 percent decline since 2001, it still shows "the resilience and pervasiveness of giving in our culture," says Leo Arnoult, chair of the AAFRC Trust.

Most donations come from individuals (76 percent of the total), and some nonprofit sectors were hit harder last year than others. [...] "

yeah,

and you fail to mention also that the private donations are not necessarily for foreign aid but the total amount of donations done in the USA. A lot of the donations are for US only charities (like art, environment, ...). I bet if I look for some info I can find around the same number for European charities

back to the Official Foreign aid by countries - after all you started pointing to European countries about foreign aid

EU (14 most important donors - excluding the rest!!!!) = 36,3 billion
USA = 15,7 billion


you were saying Canoworms about all those racist Europeans???

I'm not trying to prove that US people are not generous (unlike you with your racist spin about Europeans)

link

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
fyi

The USA is only the worlds' biggest givern because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world

According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period.

But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%.

The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share

why is the richest country in the world giving out peanuts?

link

Do these numbers include military aid, food aid, and such?

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks
fyi

The USA is only the worlds' biggest givern because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world

According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period.

But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%.

The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share

why is the richest country in the world giving out peanuts?

link

Do these numbers include military aid, food aid, and such?

judge for yourself

link

Credits for foreign militaries to buy U.S. weapons and equipment would increase by some 700 million dollars to nearly five billion dollars, the highest total in well over a decade.? (This is also an example of aid benefiting the donor!)
?The total foreign aid proposal ... amounts to a mere five percent of what Bush is requesting for the Pentagon next year.?
?Bush's foreign-aid plan [for 2005] actually marks an increase over 2004 levels, although much of the additional money is explained by greater spending on security for U.S. embassies and personnel overseas.?

As in previous years, Israel and Egypt are the biggest bilateral recipients under the request, accounting for nearly five billion dollars in aid between them. Of the nearly three billion dollars earmarked for Israel, most is for military credits.?
This militaristic aid will come ?largely at the expense of humanitarian and development assistance.?

Among the big donors, the US has the worst record for spending its aid budget on itself - 70 percent of its aid is spent on US goods and services. And more than half is spent in middle income countries in the Middle East. Only $3bn a year goes to South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

The war against Iraq was of strategic interest to the United States,? Njehu said. As a result, she said, several African members of the U.N. Security Council, including Cameroon, Guinea and Angola, were virtually held to ransom when the United States was seeking council support for the war in 2003.

?They came under heavy pressure,? she said. ?The message was clear: either you vote with us or you lose your trade privileges?.




nice chart

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
That doesn't make sense. This year alone the US is giving about $20 billion. I would think from 1995 to 1999 it would be more than just one year.

6-15 billion a year between 95-99 you now.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks
fyi

The USA is only the worlds' biggest givern because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world

According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period.

But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%.

The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share

why is the richest country in the world giving out peanuts?

link

Do these numbers include military aid, food aid, and such?

judge for yourself

link

Credits for foreign militaries to buy U.S. weapons and equipment would increase by some 700 million dollars to nearly five billion dollars, the highest total in well over a decade.? (This is also an example of aid benefiting the donor!)
?The total foreign aid proposal ... amounts to a mere five percent of what Bush is requesting for the Pentagon next year.?
?Bush's foreign-aid plan [for 2005] actually marks an increase over 2004 levels, although much of the additional money is explained by greater spending on security for U.S. embassies and personnel overseas.?

As in previous years, Israel and Egypt are the biggest bilateral recipients under the request, accounting for nearly five billion dollars in aid between them. Of the nearly three billion dollars earmarked for Israel, most is for military credits.?
This militaristic aid will come ?largely at the expense of humanitarian and development assistance.?

Among the big donors, the US has the worst record for spending its aid budget on itself - 70 percent of its aid is spent on US goods and services. And more than half is spent in middle income countries in the Middle East. Only $3bn a year goes to South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

The war against Iraq was of strategic interest to the United States,? Njehu said. As a result, she said, several African members of the U.N. Security Council, including Cameroon, Guinea and Angola, were virtually held to ransom when the United States was seeking council support for the war in 2003.

?They came under heavy pressure,? she said. ?The message was clear: either you vote with us or you lose your trade privileges?.




nice chart

It seems that these numbers don't include all forms of aid that a country can provide.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks
fyi

The USA is only the worlds' biggest givern because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world

According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period.

But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%.

The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share

why is the richest country in the world giving out peanuts?

link

Do these numbers include military aid, food aid, and such?

judge for yourself

link

Credits for foreign militaries to buy U.S. weapons and equipment would increase by some 700 million dollars to nearly five billion dollars, the highest total in well over a decade.? (This is also an example of aid benefiting the donor!)
?The total foreign aid proposal ... amounts to a mere five percent of what Bush is requesting for the Pentagon next year.?
?Bush's foreign-aid plan [for 2005] actually marks an increase over 2004 levels, although much of the additional money is explained by greater spending on security for U.S. embassies and personnel overseas.?

As in previous years, Israel and Egypt are the biggest bilateral recipients under the request, accounting for nearly five billion dollars in aid between them. Of the nearly three billion dollars earmarked for Israel, most is for military credits.?
This militaristic aid will come ?largely at the expense of humanitarian and development assistance.?

Among the big donors, the US has the worst record for spending its aid budget on itself - 70 percent of its aid is spent on US goods and services. And more than half is spent in middle income countries in the Middle East. Only $3bn a year goes to South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

The war against Iraq was of strategic interest to the United States,? Njehu said. As a result, she said, several African members of the U.N. Security Council, including Cameroon, Guinea and Angola, were virtually held to ransom when the United States was seeking council support for the war in 2003.

?They came under heavy pressure,? she said. ?The message was clear: either you vote with us or you lose your trade privileges?.




nice chart

It seems that these numbers don't include all forms of aid that a country can provide.

the numbers are for ODA (Official Development Assistance)
ODA is basically aid from the governments of the wealthy nations, but doesn't include private contributions or private capital flows and investments. The main objective of ODA is to promote development. It is therefore a kind of measure on the priorities that governments themselves put on such matters.


for the US that means USaid and other official bilateral agreements between the USA and other countries

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks
fyi

The USA is only the worlds' biggest givern because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world

According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period.

But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%.

The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share

why is the richest country in the world giving out peanuts?

link

Do these numbers include military aid, food aid, and such?

judge for yourself

link

Credits for foreign militaries to buy U.S. weapons and equipment would increase by some 700 million dollars to nearly five billion dollars, the highest total in well over a decade.? (This is also an example of aid benefiting the donor!)
?The total foreign aid proposal ... amounts to a mere five percent of what Bush is requesting for the Pentagon next year.?
?Bush's foreign-aid plan [for 2005] actually marks an increase over 2004 levels, although much of the additional money is explained by greater spending on security for U.S. embassies and personnel overseas.?

As in previous years, Israel and Egypt are the biggest bilateral recipients under the request, accounting for nearly five billion dollars in aid between them. Of the nearly three billion dollars earmarked for Israel, most is for military credits.?
This militaristic aid will come ?largely at the expense of humanitarian and development assistance.?

Among the big donors, the US has the worst record for spending its aid budget on itself - 70 percent of its aid is spent on US goods and services. And more than half is spent in middle income countries in the Middle East. Only $3bn a year goes to South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

The war against Iraq was of strategic interest to the United States,? Njehu said. As a result, she said, several African members of the U.N. Security Council, including Cameroon, Guinea and Angola, were virtually held to ransom when the United States was seeking council support for the war in 2003.

?They came under heavy pressure,? she said. ?The message was clear: either you vote with us or you lose your trade privileges?.




nice chart

It seems that these numbers don't include all forms of aid that a country can provide.

the numbers are for ODA (Official Development Assistance)
ODA is basically aid from the governments of the wealthy nations, but doesn't include private contributions or private capital flows and investments. The main objective of ODA is to promote development. It is therefore a kind of measure on the priorities that governments themselves put on such matters.


for the US that means USaid and other official bilateral agreements between the USA and other countries

Yes, but I don't see how this includes or can quantify all forms of aid and assistance a country can provide.