Should foreign aid be reallocated to go only to "good performers"?

[yllus]

Jan 19, 2010 - Update

I got curious today and used Twitter to ask a columnist at a national news rag if the policy outlined below was ever adopted.

Turns out that mostly in the last year, the Canadian government began implementing the recommendations of the Senate report as part of what they've termed the Aid Effectiveness Agenda. Most significantly, it's focused 80% of aid to be doled out to 20 countries (see Countries Of Focus).

This is a pretty big step forward, one all Canadians should be proud of. Kudos to the Canadian government for getting this done.

--

Nov 29, 2007 - Original Post

Ottawa wants to pare down its 'bloated' list of foreign aid recipients

The Conservative government is reviewing the operations of the Canadian International Development Agency, and it's clear it has different ideas of how the aid budget should be spent, and where.

The Senate committee stressed good government and responsible economic practices over aid for health and education spending, which it likened to welfare. More priority would be given to economic development, including technical assistance and training, skills development and technology transfers, the raising of agricultural productivity, and the expansion of support for privately delivered micro-finance services.

It also recommends Canada should support "good performers" because, in the words of the report, "the current eligibility list is bloated and illogical." The Harper Conservatives agree strongly with the proposal.

The government seems intent on shaping a more "conservative" aid program for that money, and has been helped by ample evidence the current regime isn't working. Study after study suggests taxpayers do not get value for money. Last month's OECD report is just the latest to suggest that Canada spreads its aid too thinly --46 countries in Africa alone at last count. Canada, the report said, needs a "clear, simple and consistent vision for development assistance."

The report by the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs was even harsher. Bluntly titled Overcoming 40 Years of Failure, it concluded the Canadian International Development Agency was no longer a development organization but one that dispenses charity around the globe.

"Since its inception in 1968, the Canadian International Development Agency has spent $12.4-billion in bilateral assistance to sub-Saharan Africa, with little in the way of demonstrable results," it said. "Canada has attempted to do too much in too many countries -- thus, our aid in each recipient country has little impact," it added, noting that Canada gave aid to 161 countries in 2003-04, compared to Norway, which focused its efforts on seven main countries.

CIDA's bureaucracy is such that it claims it cannot provide a list of current aid recipients or how much they receive (even though the government was able to reveal Tanzania's aid allocation for this year in an announcement this week). But Kenya regularly places near the top of the list of the world's most corrupt countries, and Ethiopia received $108-million in direct aid in 2004-05, when there were mass killings on the streets of Addis Ababa and tens of thousands of opposition supporters were rounded up after elections that many say were rigged. Human Rights Watch rates its human rights record as "extremely grim."

Even Uganda, the host of the Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM) meeting this month, faces accusations of human rights abuses and lack of democracy. President Yoweri Museveni, who gained power by force and has held it for 20 years, pushed through a constitutional amendment allowing him to serve yet another term. The leader of the main opposition party, Kizza Besigye, told journalists that murder, corruption and intimidation are systemic. He called the decision to award CHOGM to Uganda the height of hypocrisy for an organization dedicated to human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Not everyone is likely to agree. There are 550 Canadian non-governmental organizations working on African causes, and they will be forming an orderly line outside the CBC to decry any government decisions that threaten their projects. Alexa Mc-Donough, the NDP development aid critic, said she finds the prospect of the government implementing any aspect of the Senate report "heart-breaking and horrifying."

"[Their] prescription is 100% wrong. If we shut down a number of countries because we are continuing to deliver overseas development aid at one-third the level we should be doing, it will be inconceivable to many people."

It appears the Conservatives are prepared for the ruckus that will erupt when they announce that some countries have been cut off. "People are going to complain but that's leadership. You have to put up with the consequences," said one Conservative.

Have I mentioned that I love my current federal government? Haha. I haven't seen this amount of principled leadership in quite some time.

While you could take it as treating sovereign nations as children, I can't help but think that nations (and their leaders) who don't respect some of the basic values we believe in shouldn't receive a cent in foreign aid from us. If Uganda's President is consistently pushing around their Constitution to maintain power, why should we contribute to his pocket? There are plenty of deserving countries who can be better trusted to put the money to good use.

If you ask me, it's time to cut down on some of the no-strings-attached aid the world gives out to poor countries. I'm not saying that it's time to cut off Uganda, Pakistan, Fiji or Nigeria completely because of their systemic issues with basic human rights, but the practice of providing blank cheque to many of these countries should be re-examined. There's nothing wrong with treating aid as an investment and expecting some return on it.

 

[Pabster]

I agree completely.

The problem we have here in the U.S. is our disgusting dependence on foreign oil which hampers the equation considerably.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I agree completely.

The problem we have here in the U.S. is our disgusting dependence on foreign oil which hampers the equation considerably.

I agree.

 

[maddogchen]

so punish the poor and hungry people of the world because their government is corrupt? I can't connect to that link to see the article. And I don't know how what Canada spends its foreign aid on.

if you're giving funding as aid to a foreign government to develop their infrastructure and agriculture. thats fine if you withdraw it because of corruption and human rights abuses.

if you are giving funding to feed the poor and hungry then the money shouldn't go through the local government hands but directly to international aid groups to deliver food.

if you write out a check to a dictator you're just plain dumb and deserve to be screwed over.

 

[palehorse]

yes.

 

[piasabird]

This would rule out about 2/3rds of the world for aid.

I dont think we should give any aid to governments. We should let aid agencies help the poor and bypass the government agencies.

Instead of propping up dictators, socialists, and communists, we should try to help people.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
so punish the poor and hungry people of the world because their government is corrupt? I can't connect to that link to see the article. And I don't know how what Canada spends its foreign aid on.

if you're giving funding as aid to a foreign government to develop their infrastructure and agriculture. thats fine if you withdraw it because of corruption and human rights abuses.

if you are giving funding to feed the poor and hungry then the money shouldn't go through the local government hands but directly to international aid groups to deliver food.
if you write out a check to a dictator you're just plain dumb and deserve to be screwed over.

The problem with your idea is that if said government IS corrupt and dictator-like, they will not allow aid to go directly to the people. They will kill on sight. Africa is a very good example.

 

[StageLeft]

I thought it was supposed to help people, not govs, those people often in trouble because of their gov, so I'd say you should not punish them further if their gov is still a piece of crap, as most governments in the world are.

If the aid directly or indirectly ends up with some dictatorial POS driving his merc around slums, then obviously cut that sh*t off, but if it's in something like food or cattle or other things that a dictatorial POS cannot live in or attack others with, then keep it up.

 

[Craig234]

It's nice to see the righties agreeing with some concern for human rights (something Carter was blasted for by the 'realpolitik' republicans at the time).

However, any policy on this seems trumped by our lack of policy on, first and foremost, the rights problems in China, as well as other countries, as cheap consumer goods trump human rights to the tune of dollar amounts that dwarf aid.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's nice to see the righties agreeing with some concern for human rights (something Carter was blasted for by the 'realpolitik' republicans at the time).

However, any policy on this seems trumped by our lack of policy on, first and foremost, the rights problems in China, as well as other countries, as cheap consumer goods trump human rights to the tune of dollar amounts that dwarf aid.

And we're all complicit as both of us buy products from China when we're not forced to.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
so punish the poor and hungry people of the world because their government is corrupt? I can't connect to that link to see the article. And I don't know how what Canada spends its foreign aid on.

if you're giving funding as aid to a foreign government to develop their infrastructure and agriculture. thats fine if you withdraw it because of corruption and human rights abuses.

if you are giving funding to feed the poor and hungry then the money shouldn't go through the local government hands but directly to international aid groups to deliver food.

if you write out a check to a dictator you're just plain dumb and deserve to be screwed over.

The problem is that public foreign aid to countries with human rights problems almost never makes it to international aid groups (those are usually funded by private money), much less the poor and needy. It goes straight to the dictator/warlord/oppressive government/etc. who usually just takes the money to buy weapons with which to further oppress the poor and needy and (occasionally) to wage genocide against certain parts of the population. Worse yet is the situation in much of Africa, where various warlords use foreign aid money to fund their endless civil wars, which in brutal irony are being fought primarily over control of the aid money.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's nice to see the righties agreeing with some concern for human rights (something Carter was blasted for by the 'realpolitik' republicans at the time).

However, any policy on this seems trumped by our lack of policy on, first and foremost, the rights problems in China, as well as other countries, as cheap consumer goods trump human rights to the tune of dollar amounts that dwarf aid.

Textbook troll post right here. Unfounded partisan accusations with a reference to an obscure failed policy of 30 years ago, followed by a red herring to a completely unrelated issue tied in by "2 wrongs make a right" illogic.

 

[ProfJohn]

Sounds great in theory, works lousy in reality.

Egypt is bad, so we cut off funding and then we watch their government fail because they no longer have us helping them. Then we go from a bad Egypt to a worse Egypt.

Screw good verse bad and focus on what is best for America.

Sure I'd much rather only help 'good' countries, but I am not going to shot myself in the foot in order to do so.

 

[IronWing]

US foreign aid goes to bolster US interests*, not to save the world. If it is to the US advantage that needy folks get help then the aid will make it to them. Mostly, US foreign aid gets spent on US made weapons or projects featuring US-based contractors. In other words, most US foreign aid gets spent at home.



*The US interests as defined by the high bidding lobbyists de jour.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: maddogchen
so punish the poor and hungry people of the world because their government is corrupt? I can't connect to that link to see the article. And I don't know how what Canada spends its foreign aid on.

if you're giving funding as aid to a foreign government to develop their infrastructure and agriculture. thats fine if you withdraw it because of corruption and human rights abuses.

if you are giving funding to feed the poor and hungry then the money shouldn't go through the local government hands but directly to international aid groups to deliver food.

if you write out a check to a dictator you're just plain dumb and deserve to be screwed over.

The problem is that public foreign aid to countries with human rights problems almost never makes it to international aid groups (those are usually funded by private money), much less the poor and needy. It goes straight to the dictator/warlord/oppressive government/etc. who usually just takes the money to buy weapons with which to further oppress the poor and needy and (occasionally) to wage genocide against certain parts of the population. Worse yet is the situation in much of Africa, where various warlords use foreign aid money to fund their endless civil wars, which in brutal irony are being fought primarily over control of the aid money.

why is that? if an international aid group is providing food to the needy in say...Ethiopia, why can't they say here Canada is going to donate $1 million to you to feed the children there? is there some sort of legal roadblock there?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: maddogchen
so punish the poor and hungry people of the world because their government is corrupt? I can't connect to that link to see the article. And I don't know how what Canada spends its foreign aid on.

if you're giving funding as aid to a foreign government to develop their infrastructure and agriculture. thats fine if you withdraw it because of corruption and human rights abuses.

if you are giving funding to feed the poor and hungry then the money shouldn't go through the local government hands but directly to international aid groups to deliver food.

if you write out a check to a dictator you're just plain dumb and deserve to be screwed over.

The problem is that public foreign aid to countries with human rights problems almost never makes it to international aid groups (those are usually funded by private money), much less the poor and needy. It goes straight to the dictator/warlord/oppressive government/etc. who usually just takes the money to buy weapons with which to further oppress the poor and needy and (occasionally) to wage genocide against certain parts of the population. Worse yet is the situation in much of Africa, where various warlords use foreign aid money to fund their endless civil wars, which in brutal irony are being fought primarily over control of the aid money.

why is that? if an international aid group is providing food to the needy in say...Ethiopia, why can't they say here Canada is going to donate $1 million to you to feed the children there? is there some sort of legal roadblock there?

No. There are territorial thug leaders/warlords/in power by force who simply will not let humanitarian groups into their region. Period. There have been stories of humanitarian agencies trying to sneak food/water/clothing into some of these areas and were simply shot on sight. Much of Africa at least is run by these thugs.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's nice to see the righties agreeing with some concern for human rights (something Carter was blasted for by the 'realpolitik' republicans at the time).

However, any policy on this seems trumped by our lack of policy on, first and foremost, the rights problems in China, as well as other countries, as cheap consumer goods trump human rights to the tune of dollar amounts that dwarf aid.

Textbook troll post right here. Unfounded partisan accusations with a reference to an obscure failed policy of 30 years ago, followed by a red herring to a completely unrelated issue tied in by "2 wrongs make a right" illogic.

Textbook jerk post right there, by someone butting into a conversation they've been asked not to join (i.e., asking the worst poster on the forum, vic, not to read/respond to my posts).

Since he rudely did so yet again, for the other readers:

Well-founded accusations accurately aimed at the guilty party, with a reference to a policy fitting this thread and with mixed results, followed by vic's usual lack of reading comprehension. Somehow, my condemning the support of China's human rights abuses - I'd give him credit for a good pun, 'red herring', but I'm nearly certain it was accidental - reads to him as my *agreeing* with China's human rights abuses.

Maybe someday there will be a feature allowing us to not let specified, unwelcome members read our posts.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sounds great in theory, works lousy in reality.

Egypt is bad, so we cut off funding and then we watch their government fail because they no longer have us helping them. Then we go from a bad Egypt to a worse Egypt.

Screw good verse bad and focus on what is best for America.

Sure I'd much rather only help 'good' countries, but I am not going to shot myself in the foot in order to do so.

ProfJohn's recurring policy of immorality and amorality, showing his real (lack of) values.

His 'worry about nothing but what's good for us' reduces the Unites States to the same level as evil empires of the past, were it to follow his policies.

He'd lose what makes our nation great, as well as unwittingly lose our power, as he caves in to the corruption referred to in 'absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely' power grabs.

But in addition to his lack of morals is his lack of any useful understanding of the issues, as he reduces them to simply 'impractical good' and 'utterly amoral but practical' false choices.

For example, there are not only two policy options regarding Egypt.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig we tried the 'moral' policy under Carter and look what it got us.

Let me ask you about Pakistan:
Would you rather support an not so great ally like we have now.

Or pull the rug out from under him and end up with a radical islamic government in his place?

Those are your only choices, don't give me some BS answer to get around that fact.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig we tried the 'moral' policy under Carter and look what it got us.

Let me ask you about Pakistan:
Would you rather support an not so great ally like we have now.

Or pull the rug out from under him and end up with a radical islamic government in his place?

I support Musharraf over our common enemy. Until the war is over, and the radicals we fight surrender or die, there is no room to give them control of their country and their nuclear weapons unless we wish to achieve nuclear war.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's nice to see the righties agreeing with some concern for human rights (something Carter was blasted for by the 'realpolitik' republicans at the time).

However, any policy on this seems trumped by our lack of policy on, first and foremost, the rights problems in China, as well as other countries, as cheap consumer goods trump human rights to the tune of dollar amounts that dwarf aid.

Textbook troll post right here. Unfounded partisan accusations with a reference to an obscure failed policy of 30 years ago, followed by a red herring to a completely unrelated issue tied in by "2 wrongs make a right" illogic.

Textbook jerk post right there, by someone butting into a conversation they've been asked not to join (i.e., asking the worst poster on the forum, vic, not to read/respond to my posts).

Since he rudely did so yet again, for the other readers:

Well-founded accusations accurately aimed at the guilty party, with a reference to a policy fitting this thread and with mixed results, followed by vic's usual lack of reading comprehension. Somehow, my condemning the support of China's human rights abuses - I'd give him credit for a good pun, 'red herring', but I'm nearly certain it was accidental - reads to him as my *agreeing* with China's human rights abuses.

Maybe someday there will be a feature allowing us to not let specified, unwelcome members read our posts.

Funny then that I did not say not imply a single thing that you pretended I implied, while you did say exactly what I said you said.
China's human rights abuses are not the point here, troll. They're not a recipient of public foreign aid. Thanks for showing us how little you care about human rights that you felt the need to troll in this thread with your own unrelated agenda.

And BTW, I will reply to your posts as often and whenever I feel like it, and you will never ever be able to do a single thing about as long as you continue to post here. Get over it, Nazi. It's called "free speech." Sorry you hate it so much, and are too mentally weak to deal with it, that you feel the desire to have the comments of those with superior intellect and occasionally differing opinions forcibly suppressed. Not that I am the slightest bit surprised.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: maddogchen
so punish the poor and hungry people of the world because their government is corrupt? I can't connect to that link to see the article. And I don't know how what Canada spends its foreign aid on.

if you're giving funding as aid to a foreign government to develop their infrastructure and agriculture. thats fine if you withdraw it because of corruption and human rights abuses.

if you are giving funding to feed the poor and hungry then the money shouldn't go through the local government hands but directly to international aid groups to deliver food.

if you write out a check to a dictator you're just plain dumb and deserve to be screwed over.

The problem is that public foreign aid to countries with human rights problems almost never makes it to international aid groups (those are usually funded by private money), much less the poor and needy. It goes straight to the dictator/warlord/oppressive government/etc. who usually just takes the money to buy weapons with which to further oppress the poor and needy and (occasionally) to wage genocide against certain parts of the population. Worse yet is the situation in much of Africa, where various warlords use foreign aid money to fund their endless civil wars, which in brutal irony are being fought primarily over control of the aid money.

why is that? if an international aid group is providing food to the needy in say...Ethiopia, why can't they say here Canada is going to donate $1 million to you to feed the children there? is there some sort of legal roadblock there?

No. There are territorial thug leaders/warlords/in power by force who simply will not let humanitarian groups into their region. Period. There have been stories of humanitarian agencies trying to sneak food/water/clothing into some of these areas and were simply shot on sight. Much of Africa at least is run by these thugs.

<Craig234>
Pay no attention to this problem! Ahh!! Look! Free trade in China! Free trade in China!
</Craig234>

:roll:

Not like China didn't have rampant human rights abuses before free trade and when it was one of his Communist "utopias," i.e. Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I don't know that I'd use the blanket statement 'foreign aid', because I believe humanitarian aid is always good and proper. What should be stopped is anything intended to help bad performing foreign governments, or anything that isn't a basic right/necessity. So keep up medical aid, education aid, food/water, etc. However end treaties, stop trade, kick out all foreign nationals, etc. That's the kind of pressure that's useful.

 

[piasabird]

Sometimes the best approach is not to supply foreign aid.

You may want to look at how the UN deploys aid to the poor like refugees and other people. Often the food the UN delivers will have come from the USA. In a way the USA is like the breadbasket of the world. I am sure other countries are donating food too. However, it is hard to say since we have no idea what the UN does with all the money we send them. They are not exactly friendly to being questioned from outside sources and they dont answer to anybody. So it is like a communist ogranization with no government backing them up.

We have had to get rid of a lot of dictators the USA has put into power.

Based on some reports I have seen it is the Muslim Terrorist that often are supplying the poor with food. If they can find a way then we can find a way.

A lot of Church organizations like the Mormons Humanitarian folks immediately show up after international disasters with tents and food and clothes. This is happening more in Muslim countries and in Africa and India and different places like South America. They just help the poor and the needy and dont go after the press to make a big deal out of it. This is true compassion without any need of a reward or applause. You dont hear about it in the press because they dont care about that. There are a lot of groups that do similar work both secular and non-secular all over the world. I only know about the stuff from my church becase we have reports on events in the church presented every 6 months at our semi-annual conferences.

I think the way we deliver food and supplies to the poor needs to change. Often aid agencies can not get into some countries because of violence or restrictions from goverments. However, the military is adept at dropping supplies into all kinds of areas. If we can airdrop a tank onto the battlefield then a few crates of food should not be too difficult.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
so punish the poor and hungry people of the world because their government is corrupt? I can't connect to that link to see the article. And I don't know how what Canada spends its foreign aid on.

if you're giving funding as aid to a foreign government to develop their infrastructure and agriculture. thats fine if you withdraw it because of corruption and human rights abuses.

if you are giving funding to feed the poor and hungry then the money shouldn't go through the local government hands but directly to international aid groups to deliver food.

if you write out a check to a dictator you're just plain dumb and deserve to be screwed over.

It sounds like a terrible idea (redirecting aid) until you realize that even if instead of hard cash you purchase and send over water bottles and food packets, all that usually happens is the confiscation of it by the government/warlords/etc right off of the aid group's trucks. They then either sell those supplies locally or externally for, of course, a profit.

No matter what, all you ever end up doing is enriching the bad guys. Given the alternative, I'd rather just send the money to a nation where the cash and supplies will actually reach those it's meant to reach. There's certainly no shortage of worthy countries.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sounds great in theory, works lousy in reality.

Egypt is bad, so we cut off funding and then we watch their government fail because they no longer have us helping them. Then we go from a bad Egypt to a worse Egypt.

Screw good verse bad and focus on what is best for America.

Sure I'd much rather only help 'good' countries, but I am not going to shot myself in the foot in order to do so.

You guys have an odd tendency to generalize everything. You've a point, but re committing a grievous error in treating relations with all nations the same way. Any intelligent manager in the corporate sphere knows that you treat each client relationship on a case-by-case basis. This is no different.

Yes, perhaps you need to be cynical and bite your tongue to deal with Pakistan, Iraq, China or other nations where you know that the alternative is even worse. Your aid, while heavily abused, might be their only hope. Even that's debatable, but for the sake of the point let's let it stand.

However, that doesn't mean that in nations where you could cease funding and not have to worry about regional implosion or having strategic supplies cut off. It's laughably idealistic to think that we should have one set of rules to govern our relations with absolutely every other nation on the planet.