Capitalists, big money!
President Bush has doled out more than $70 billion in foreign aid and loan guarantees to foreign governments, countries, and international organizations. He committed billions in new aid in large part to get the endorsement of a rock star and to garner applause at a United Nations summit.
Because a minuscule percent of the aid will be paid out from a new program created to encourage foreign politicians not to steal, Bush talks as if his aid is revolutionizing the Third World. Yet, early in his first term, Bush and his top aides were honest and blunt on the failure of foreign aid:
Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill denounced the World Bank and International Monetary Fund for driving many poor nations “into a ditch” with excessive lending that governments wasted.
In an April 30, 2002, speech on compassionate conservatism, Bush declared, “The old way of pouring vast amounts of money into development aid without any concern for results has failed, often leaving behind misery and poverty and corruption.”
A September 2002 White House report declared that foreign aid “has often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating misery.”
Foreign aid fails in part because of pervasive corruption. A 2003 report from a leading Bangladesh university estimated that 75 percent of all foreign aid received in that country is lost to corruption. Northwestern University political economist Jeffrey Winters estimated that more than 50 percent of World Bank aid is lost to corruption in some African countries. President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria announced in 2002 that African leaders “have stolen at least $140 billion from their people in the decades since independence.”
An African Union study pegged the takings at a much higher rate, estimating Africa’s toll from corruption at $150 billion every year. Lavish automobiles are so popular among African government officials that a word has come into use in Swahili — wabenzi — for “men of the Mercedes-Benz.” Investment guru Jim Rogers, who recently drove around the globe, declared,
Most foreign aid winds up with outside consultants, the local military, corrupt bureaucrats, the new NGO [nongovernmental organizations] administrators, and Mercedes dealers. There are Mercedes dealers in places where there are not even roads.
A Brookings Institution analysis observed,
The history of U.S. assistance is littered with tales of corrupt foreign officials using aid to line their own pockets, support military buildups, and pursue vanity projects. It is no wonder that few studies show clear correlations between aid flows and growth.
A Heritage Foundation report noted, “Most recipients of U.S. development assistance are poorer now than they were before first receiving U.S. aid.” Former World Bank senior economist William Easterly estimates that World Bank and IMF loans “actually boosted poverty worldwide by a total of 14 million people.”
Foreign aid breeds kleptocracies, or governments of thieves. A 1999 National Bureau of Economic Research study concluded that “countries that receive more [foreign] aid tend to have higher corruption.” A 2002 American Economic Review study by the same authors concluded that “increases in aid are associated with contemporaneous increases in corruption” and that “corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United States.”
Foreign aid can also spur civil wars. As Nobel laureate economist P.T. Bauer noted,
The great increase in the prizes of political power has been a major factor in the frequency and intensity of political conflict in contemporary Africa and in the rest of the less developed world.
Bush’s comments on the failure of foreign aid have been among his more astute utterances. Since foreign aid is an indisputable failure, he resolved to start a new foreign-aid program.
Bush’s foreign-aid conversion
The propellant of Bush’s foreign-aid “conversion” was a UN summit on global poverty in Monterrey, Mexico, in March 2002. Bush agreed to go and speak to the meeting after being pressured by his buddy, President Vicente Fox of Mexico. Because administration officials vocally criticized foreign aid, White House aides feared Bush could receive a hostile reception.
But Bush cleverly disarmed critics by promising to greatly increase U.S. foreign-aid spending. He arranged to have the Irish rock star Bono present for his March 14, 2002, announcement; the Washington Post noted that the White House “clearly craved” Bono’s support and that “Bono looked on approvingly” as Bush promised four days before the UN conference to boost foreign aid by $5 billion over a three-year period.
The White House was chagrined when Bush’s proposal did not generate massive international applause. So on the day before he left for Mexico, White House officials revealed that there had been a glitch in the original announcement and that Bush actually planned to give away more than twice as much money under the new program. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the mistake was simply a result of “confusing” math. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice explained, “We didn’t want to go out there with essentially false or phony numbers.” The New York Times noted that “skeptics said the White House was just adding on billions to make sure that the president was a hit in Monterrey.”
Even before arriving in Monterrey, Bush bragged about the money he was bringing. In a March 20, 2002, interview with Peruvian radio, he declared, “I’m coming with this, what we call the Millennium Challenge Fund, which is $10 billion of new money.” (The name was later changed to Millennium Challenge Account, or MCA.)
At that time, the United States was already the largest foreign-aid donor in the world. But many foreign governments were miffed because the U.S. government did not give away a higher percent of the U.S. gross national product. The World Bank and other international organizations were beating the drums to double the amount of foreign aid by the year 2015. Perhaps the World Bank assumed that doubling foreign aid would finally resolve, once and for all, whether all that money really was vanishing into bottomless holes.
In his speech to the UN conference, Bush piously informed world leaders that foreign aid could harm: “Pouring money into a failed status quo does little to help the poor, and can actually delay the progress of reform.” Since the speech occurred after 9/11, Bush invoked anti-terrorism to justify the largesse: “We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror.” And, in a startling revelation that instantly altered humanitarian efforts around the globe, he revealed, “We must do more than just feel good about what we are doing; we must do good.”
Less than three weeks after he slapped high tariffs on steel imports, Bush lectured the world that “to be serious about fighting poverty, we must be serious about expanding trade.... Trade brings expectations of freedom.” He portrayed market openings as panaceas: “As one example, in a single year, the African Growth and Opportunity Act has increased African exports to the United States by more than 1,000 percent....” In reality, the value of African exports to the United States decreased after the act was implemented (largely because of a fall in the price of oil).
Bush said the aid provided through the MCA would be “devoted to projects in nations that govern justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom.” He assured the world that “by taking the side of liberty and good government, we will liberate millions from poverty’s prison.” He was confident that the new handouts and the new rhetoric gave both him and America the moral high ground.
Bush was hailed by dignitaries whose programs have long failed the world’s poor. The United Nations Development Program chief, Mark Malloch Brown, gushed, “There could be no more potent spokesman for increased aid than George W. Bush, the war leader.”
2007-12-10 03:37:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by justgoodfolk 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
I would say that President Bush has benefited more than anyone else from foreign aid. He has doled out a billion a year to Pakistan, for very dim results, and continues to do so. Heaven only knows what else he has promised the Coalition of the Willing.
His aid to Africa to help in the AIDS process reportedly has not been funded, because he tacked on an Abstinence qualification that just isn't enforceable.
To Bush, Foreign Aid is given to countries who promise to help in the war effort. If he didn't keep so many secrets, we might know more about where our money is going.
To me, Foreign Aid makes sense in a crisis. For instance, a tremendous earthquake or other cataclysmic occurrence calls for some aid and should get it, not only in money, but in other help. We did send helicopters, food, etc. to recent earthquake victims, but thousands of people spent a freezing winter with no shelter besides tents.
We don't even do a very good job with Domestic Aid. FEMA has been a laugh, especially with those self-made Press Conferences. Katrina was a disaster, and still is. Brad Pitt is doing far more than Bush ever has.
I can remember when Russia was in a crisis and had a wheat shortage. We have plenty of wheat, so we sent boatload after boatload of wheat to Russia, where it rotted in the warehouses. The simple fact was that there are few roads in Russia capable of delivering food to millions of people.
Perhaps, if we are going to give Foreign Aid, we should step up the process with Mexico, with the stipulation they build a few factories and companies and employ 12 million people now in the United States.
In fact, with the job situation here being what it is, if this happened, perhaps we could sneak across the border to Mexico and get jobs.
2007-12-10 05:04:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Me, Too 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
Only a tiny, tiny proportion of our GDP goes on foreign aid. It's currently 0.4% of our gross national income. The UN has given us a target of spending 0.7% in foreign aid, but we've not met that yet. It's less than 1/4 of the £40billion you claim, but even if it was, it would still be just over 1%. As for whether we should cut foreign aid - absolutely not. The argument for reducing foreign aid stems from the financial problems we're in at the moment. Those financial problems are tinty compared to those in other countries. Poor in this country tends to take the form of having to do without some luxuries in order to be able to afford others. It might mean not having a TV or X-box. Poor in other parts of the world means starving to death. It means dying of easily preventable diseases. It means being unable to walk the streets safely. You say, "lets be honest our country is ******". Really? No hospitals near you? Not happy with the emergency services where you live? Anybody starved to death in your family? Anybody with even an ounce of compassion would not call for a reduction. "Even" now.
2016-05-22 11:40:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by amada 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
230 years ago Adam Smith proposed a startlingly simple recipe for economic development. as he put it, “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things”
thus, foreign aid is a sham to start. take a nation struggling with economic development, and begin to flood that country with aid dollars can result in only two things, the country becomes dependent; a welfare state, and greed and corruption run rampant.
of course you cannot just give folks some money or material, it must be administrated. who will do that job? if you said large corporations, you've been reading ahead, or thinking clearly. and since no one gives anyone something for nothing in this world concessions are close at hand. as a package deal some of this economic aid is of course tied to resource development. who will do this resource development? right, same answer. in many cases the same entity; the [xyz] corporation with their varied branches.
this is basic common sense, it's how we do business in a capitalistic society.
2007-12-10 11:58:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
"Foreign Aid" was designed as a 'frosted over the political payoff cake' to / for other countries politicians,. The U.S. Politicians / Bureaucrats, 'prohibit anyone' from doing deep research into whose pockets, benefits, from the 'foreign aid' payola.
The foreign citizenry is benefited- AIDED-when ever their politicians happen to spend their( OUR FOREIGN AID) money, locally, i.e. buying Mercedes and Rolls Royce's autos, building large palaces, having their custom built private Jet Planes serviced, etc.
YES, in these ways, "FOREIGN AID HELPS" (the politicians)!!! How do you think the foreign politicians have the ready cash to contribute (BRIBE) OUR politicians, when it is election time, OR when the 'foreign aid bill' is in "DEBATE" ?? Debate? The term is used to notify the foreigners that now is the time for the foreign 'bribers money' to come in!!!!!!!
Has anyone else noticed that shortly after some news reporter, in a foreign land, reports with photos, the corruption / waste, etc, that that reporter, has a fatal mishap ???
Interesting ???????
2007-12-10 03:48:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
most "foriegn aid" by the US is not free and is tied to the recipient excepting contracts from US companies that in turn bind the country into only doing business with those companies
one example was Venezuela was only allowed to import Caterpillar construction equipment for many years even when cheaper alternatives might have been available from overseas or even other US companies
then in the long run the companies force the countries into signing over development rights of thier recources to the companies and the country ends up broke and asking for more foriegn "aid"
great system!
2007-12-10 03:43:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Foreign aid by USA is beneficial for USA and receiving countries sometimes adversely affected.Under PL 480 USA had sent wheat as aid to many african and asian countries.India also received it.While the wheat prices were falling in USA and farmers suffered the US govt purchased wheat which helped the farmers in USA.The receiving countries accepted it and as a result internal price of wheat in receiving countries fell and many farmers even committed suicide.In India under PL 480 many wheat farmers committed suicide with US aid!The aid in cash is mostly wasted and politicians and govt offcials swindle funds.
If you want to really help any poor country liberalise imports.What is needed is TRADE and NOT AID
2007-12-10 15:36:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by leowin1948 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mostly in the coffers of the dictators personal account like the Marcos of the Phillipines under the pretence of fighting the communists in the south.
2007-12-10 19:23:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by CAPTAIN BEAR 6
·
0⤊
0⤋