Helping the poor in Africa, by drinking champagne

[Lorenzo]

Government 'wastes' African aid

The government has been accused of wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of African aid in Malawi.

BBC Radio Five Live found £712,000 was spent in four years on hotels and meals for a project run by a US consultancy.

More at the BBC, here

The international aid community loves the idea of drinking french wine in the Hilton and seeing the local people they're supposed to help, die in front of them from hunger and abject misery. They love this feeling, the perversity of it.

And this is coming from the Brits, - the new saviors of Africa. Remember their marketing campaign with Bob Geldof and the cute bourgeois little wristbands reading "make poverty history" and all that? Right. MAKE HYPOCRISY HISTORY is better like it.

[nashville_brook]

1. article mentions NDI, National Democratic Institute

interesting article here in mojo


The Coup Connection -- motherjones.com

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/11/11_401.html

Haiti is not unique. In Venezuela, Cambodia, and other nations, IRI—unlike other government-funded democratization groups—has increasingly focused on training opposition parties intent on toppling elected governments. The institute is one of several democracy-promotion groups financed by USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED); others include the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the AFL-CIO’s international wing. Under their bylaws, the groups are supposed to work with actors across the political spectrum in democracies. In Haiti, for example, NDI, which is controlled by Democrats, worked with members of Aristide’s party as well as opposition parties, and was lauded for its grassroots efforts.

[Lorenzo]

2. All big aid organizations

Almost all big aid organizations are pure scams. There's virtually no independent checks on them. And if there are, the checkers themselves drink champagne in Hilton's too.

An investigative journalist has to find these things out.

It's obscene.

I prefer the President of Niger, who recently said to a group of Western journalists and NGO's: "Get out of my country and never come back, you lazy compassionate white men."
Wise words, because he added that the "aid" they bring is self-serving and top-down nonsense.

If any of those damned of the earth read this, here's my advice: If you see a White Diplomat or Aid Worker visiting your slum, shouting pseudo-moralist nonsense at you, then grab him, put him on the ground and steal his wallet. Then kick him out of your ghetto. *Never* listen to the white compassionate man who says he's coming to help you.

[nashville_brook]

3. welcome to DU, Lorenzo

have you worked for ngo's before? or studied them? i have friends who want to this kind of work and it seems terribly predatory. well, that's my view here from nashville. it seems there's a "mission organization" associated with every church here. i think it's crap. we can't get our own shit together.

[1932]

6. Many NGOs live off corporate donations.

Therefore, they don't question the ativities of corporations.

Their mission is to crticize governments.

I read an article a couple years ago in which an Amnesty official admitted Amnesty's mission is defined in a way that means that even if a corporation were the source of the same sorts of human rights concerns they'd complain about if a government committted them, they wouldn't crticize the corporation.

This means a lot of the ativity done by oil companies in Nigeria and elsewhere is totally outside the remit of the largest human rights organization out there. I don't know if HRW has the same structural problem, but I've certainly never seen them criticize anything that would implitictly crticize neoliberalism.

For example, when Mexico City's anti-neoliberal mayor was thratened with prosecution for building an access road to a hospital, not a peep from the NGOs.

I also read a book the name of which I can't remember which said that NGOs are interested in many cases in structural dependency. There are stories all over africa of NGOs refusing to support irrigation projects that would help Africans feed themselves. Instead they use donations to buy surplus crops from big ag companies in the US and dump them on Africa. So, they're really profit-protection organizations operating under the cloak of humanitarianism.

[MisterP]

27. um, Mamadou is a neoliberal, which means he WELCOMES colonization

and exploitation--the "austerity" programs that make starving masses set fire to national capitals in Ecuador and Argentina and Java

[Blue_Tires]

31. good point n/t

[reprobate]

17. This is their board of directors. Anyone look familiar?

Board of Directors
Madeleine K. Albright, Chairman
Rachelle Horowitz, Vice Chair
Kenneth F. Melley, Secretary
Eugene Eidenberg, Treasurer
Kenneth D. Wollack, President

Bernard W. Aronson
J. Brian Atwood
Harriet C. Babbitt
Elizabeth Frawley Bagley
Joan Baggett Calambokidis
Barbara J. Easterling
Geraldine A. Ferraro
Sam Gejdenson
Patrick J. Griffin
Shirley Robinson Hall
Harold Hongju Koh
Peter Kovler
Nat LaCour
Robert G. Liberatore
Lewis Manilow
Judith A. McHale
Constance J. Milstein
Marc B. Nathanson
Molly Raiser
Nicholas A. Rey
Susan E. Rice
Nancy H. Rubin
Elaine Shocas
Michael R. Steed
Maurice Tempelsman
Arturo Valenzuela

Chairmen Emeriti
Paul G. Kirk, Jr.
Walter F. Mondale
Charles T. Manatt

Senior advisory committee
William V. Alexander
Michael D. Barnes
John Brademas
Bill Bradley
Emanuel Cleaver, II
Mario M. Cuomo
Patricia M. Derian
Christopher J. Dodd
Michael S. Dukakis
Thomas F. Eagleton
Martin Frost
Richard N. Gardner
Richard A. Gephardt
John T. Joyce
Peter G. Kelly
Paul G. Kirk, Jr.
Elliott F. Kulick
John Lewis
Donald F. McHenry
Abner J. Mikva
Charles S. Robb
Stephen J. Solarz
Theodore C. Sorensen
Esteban E. Torres
Anne Wexler
Andrew J. Young

[1932]

4. Geldof and Bono are doing the right thing. Read Confessions of an

Economic Hit Man.

Debt was the WMD used against developing countries. Bono and Geldof have debt in their sites. They couldn't have done this better. They're exactly right.

Of course, MTV and the rest of the media made sure that the concerts were hard to watch and did everything they could to mitigate the impact of the message (petition your government to end the indebtedness of these countries)). That doesn't mean Geldfo and Bono are wrong.

[K-W]

7. The debt is just a means to an end,

the end of forcing countries to conform to our will. If you look at the debt relief packages being considered and implemented, they are contingent upon the nations obedience to our policies.

Debt relief is useless if the nations who are freed from debt are not freed from neo-liberal policy.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman makes it quite clear that the debt is not the issue. The economic control is the issue.

[1932]

9. I agree that the plans that require conditions similar to the ones

the original loans were contingent upon is not much of an improvement.

But that's not the case in many circumstances. Without debt relief, these countries are obligated to conditions that are unbelievable.

To get rid of that debt and those conditions contingent upon much more reasonable conditions is a good thing. Furthermore, much of the relief isn't contingent on anything.

The jubilee movement realy strikes at the heart of neoliberalism. Gordon Brown, Bono and Geldof have done things that you'd have to have a stone heart to criticize (or a job at Citibank).

And I have to disagree with your last sentence. CoaEHM makes it quite clear that the economic control somes from defaulting on loans that the Hit Man KNEW weren't going to get repaid.

I*ncidentally, this story above describes exactly what Perkins descrived. The loan money went to buying the services of American companies, and buying American goods. The article doesn't say it, but these countries are on the hook for that money even though they never saw it. This story reads like the British officials complaining read Perkins's book and are zeroing in on exactly what Perkins says was wrong with the loan programs.

[K-W]

14. "contingent upon much more reasonable conditions " - Bullshit

It is contingent upon the same conditions. It is contingent upon these countries maintaining favorable conditions for foriegn investment, which means cheap labor and exploitable resources.

You are right, they got these nations to take out huge loans, and then when they defaulted, so we imposed conditions upon them. But you are totally missing the next phase in the plan, which is agreements by which the rich nations forgive the debt as long as the nation continues to serve foriegn investors.

[1932]

15. Do you have a link?

At the time of Live 8, the impression I got from reading the articles in the press was that something like half the debt relief was without condition, and that the plans with conditions ranged had reasonable condition.

Perkins writes that the collateral for the loans on the USAID and world bank loans that were so nefarious were: (1) control of a country's UN votes, (2) military bases, and (3) land.

Nowhere did I read that these were conditions for giving up the debt.

[K-W]

16. If it took the whistleblower Perkins to reveal the truth about the debt

why on earth are you taking the official statements about debt relief at face value. Of course they arent going to publicize the fact that this is just a superficial move. They are going to pretend they are helping the people of the world, just like they pretended that these huge loans were meant to develop the third world.

As far as links, here are a few articles from a quick search on commondreams.


http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0614-22.htm

Published on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 by the Guardian/UK
A Truckload of Nonsense
The G8 Plan to Save Africa Comes with Conditions That Make It Little More Than an Extortion Racket

by George Monbiot


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0614-02.htm

Published on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 by the Inter Press Service
Privatization Hangs Over Debt Relief

LONDON - The G7 finance ministers agreed Saturday to write off the debt of 18 of the poorest countries, but firm prescriptions of privatization hovered over the debt relief offer.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/082100-02.htm

Published on Monday, August 21, 2000 in the Manchester Guardian (UK)
Debt Relief Leaving The Poor Worse Off
by Charlotte Denny

International efforts to cut the debts of the world's poorest countries are leaving some paying tens of millions of dollars more to their western creditors, Oxfam said today.

[1932]

18. I think some of that is propaganda designed to counter the public

debate for debt relief.

Debt relief is, in fact, the solution to a lot of problems. The idea that something could be worse than what is already imposed is just meant to make liberals not ask for debt relief when progressives should be persuing debt relief even harder while protecting the flanks by making sure the conditions aren't oppressive.

We have to petition our governments to relieve the debt of developing countries.

I think people who criticize jublilee and Geldof and Bono and Gordon Brown are doing a big favor for the neoliberals.

Have you read God's Politics? Wallis talks about debt relief.

[K-W]

19. Feel free to support that accusation.

I take it you can prove to me that those articles are lies since you have concluded they are propaganda?

Debt relief is, in fact, the solution to a lot of problems.

No, ending forced neo-liberal policy and giving nations the ability to develop independently is the solution to alot of problems. Debt relief is only a solution insofar as it accomplishes that.

The idea that something could be worse than what is already imposed is just meant to make liberals not ask for debt relief when progressives should be pursuing debt relief even harder while protecting the flanks by making sure the conditions aren't oppressive.

You basically refuse to entertain the idea that the sudden elite move for debt relief is a scam. You refuse to entertain the idea that G8 elites are doing the same thing they have always done, which is change the rules to retain power. You would rather believe that their hearts turned to gold and they will just relieve debt and end their imperialistic policies.

We have to petition our governments to relieve the debt of developing countries.

Add the word unconditionally and I would agree.

I think people who criticize jubilee and Geldof and Bono and Gordon Brown are doing a big favor for the neoliberals.

Neither jubilee, Geldof, Bono, Brown, or anyone else are above criticism. And critisizing them is not doing a favor to neoliberals anymore than questioning Bush's Iraq policy is doing a favor to Osama Bin Laden. That is ugly rhetoric no matter where it is used.

Why is it that instead of responding to the criticism with factual arguments you choose instead to cast those who criticize as propagandists who are helping the enemy?

[1932]

20. OK:

Monbiot is always an alarmist who would prefer to do nothing than try to do the right thing. He sees evil motives in everything. His article wasn't helpful at all in understanding the issue. It says more about him than it says about the issues.

The second article says that no decision has been made about how debt relief will be structured. It says that Gordon Brown's IFF plan is one possibility. The other possibility is that US-version, which wants to impose more conditions. Obviously, anything proposed by the US is going to be just more neoliberalism designed to enslave developing nations' economies. Brown's plan is the plan that will actually help the countries. Aren't you curious about Brown's plan?

The third article says that the Zambian debt relief program that has been on schedule for a while now is not going to help Zambia. No duh. That's a plan that was certainly planned BEFORE this debate about debt relief gathered steam. Since the second article says that the G8 is still debating over what form relief will take (with the US apparently stonewalling plans that don't extend neoliberalism) the Zambian plan is clearly not one that is being carried out according to progressive principles.

Forget Monbiot. Progressives should be arguing for debt relief plans that work, and not against debt relief altogether.

One thing these articles all ignore is the conditions that exist due to current loans. Even though paragraph 2 of the G8 statement includes comments about market liberalization, the condition imposed on EXISTING DEBT include SERIOUS CONDITIONS, like THE WEST CONTROLS YOUR UN VOTES, YOU GIVE THE WEST MILITARY BASES, AND YOU TURN OVER LAND TO WESTERN CORPORATIONS. Certainly, there will be many cases where forgiving debt with those conditions is going to be better than whatever other conditions come out of debt relief -- and remember, Monbiot notwithstanding, the possibilites for debt relief are still open. If you argue for progressive models, all possibilities are open. If you argue against debt relief, the conditions imposed on current loans hand over the heads of developing nations like the sword of damoclese and will definitely fall, as has been the case everywhere.

Have you read God's Politics?

As for you questioning my motives, that's interesting. I'm wondering how you could have gotten the point Perkins was making about how debt is the mechanism for control so wrong in your post above.

[K-W]

22. So youve got nothing but personal attacks.

Monbiot is always an alarmist who would prefer to do nothing than try to do the right thing. He sees evil motives in everything. His article wasn't helpful at all in understanding the issue. It says more about him than it says about the issues.

Yes, Im sure he's a real villian, but I didnt ask for your opinion of Monbiot. I asked for proof that it is propaganda.

The second article says that no decision has been made about how debt relief will be structured. It says that Gordon Brown's IFF plan is one possibility. The other possibility is that US-version, which wants to impose more conditions. Obviously, anything proposed by the US is going to be just more neoliberalism designed to enslave developing nations' economies. Brown's plan is the plan that will actually help the countries. Aren't you curious about Brown's plan?

Well, I am not niave enough to think that the British government is going to screw over British corporations. You say anything proposed by the US is designed to enslave developing nations. Which is right, but the same thing is true of the UK who has an even longer record of imperialism than the US does.

The wolf is not going to help the sheep, no matter how many times it promises it will.

The third article says that the Zambian debt relief program that has been on schedule for a while now is not going to help Zambia. No duh. That's a plan that was certainly planned BEFORE this debate about debt relief gathered steam. Since the second article says that the G8 is still debating over what form relief will take (with the US apparently stonewalling plans that don't extend neoliberalism) the Zambian plan is clearly not one that is being carried out according to progressive principles.

Of course it isnt being carried out according to progressive principals. Niether will any other debt relief plan. Conservative governments arent going to create a progressive debt relief plan. You might as well expect a chicken to lay an alligator egg.

Forget Monbiot. Progressives should be arguing for debt relief plans that work, and not against debt relief altogether.

Straw man. Nobody is arguing against debt relief altogether.

One thing these articles all ignore is the conditions that exist due to current loans.

Bullshit.

Even though paragraph 2 of the G8 statement includes comments about market liberalization, the condition imposed on EXISTING DEBT include SERIOUS CONDITIONS, like THE WEST CONTROLS YOUR UN VOTES, YOU GIVE THE WEST MILITARY BASES, AND YOU TURN OVER LAND TO WESTERN CORPORATIONS.

You are comparing the official story of debt relief, with the actual story of the debt. You seem to be forgetting that when we arranged all these loans, the official story was that they would lead to development and would help to end poverty. The government(s) ALWAYS claim to be doing the right thing.

How about instead of supporting bogus debt relief because it MIGHT lead to a less vicious neo-liberal policy, we support ending neo-liberal policy overall?

Certainly, there will be many cases where forgiving debt with those conditions is going to be better than whatever other conditions come out of debt relief -- and remember, Monbiot notwithstanding, the possibilites for debt relief are still open. If you argue for progressive models, all possibilities are open.

Maybe if you live in Candy Land. But here on planet earth the G8 nations arent going to be enacting any progressive policies.


If you argue against debt relief, the conditions imposed on current loans hand over the heads of developing nations like the sword of damoclese and will definitely fall, as has been the case everywhere.

Nobody is arguing against debt relief, so what are you talking about? Why do you keep using straw men and personal attacks?

Have you read God's Politics?
Nope

[1932]

23. And all you have is labels? "Personal attacks"? "Propoganda"? Whatever.

Read God's Politics.

And reread Confessions of Economic Hit Man, this time paying closer attention to the nature of debt as an instrument of control.

You have a passion for dismissing debt relief which is unusually absolutist and fevered given the nature of the discussion here. Why?

And your "bullshit" reply above is in appropriate. Not one of these articles discuss the existing conditions on the debt. They act like there were no conditions on the existing debt, and suddenly conditions are being imposed on debt relief. If you've read Perkins's book, you know that's not true. In fact, the best way to analyze the debt relief programs is to compare the existing conditions and the proposed conditions, which NOT ONE OF THOSE ARTICLES DOES, which is not bullshit. It's an easily observed fact.

Another fact is you have spent no time arguing for good debt relief plans. You've only argued broadly against any debt relief. To label that a personal attack or even (inaccurately) a straw man argument (do you kow what a straw man argument is?) is also curious.

[K-W]

24. You are the one who said 'propaganda' not I.

And your statement about Monboit was a very obvious personal attack. You attempted to discredit his argument by discrediting him.

Read God's Politics.

Thank you for the suggestion.

And reread Confessions of Economic Hit Man, this time paying closer attention to the nature of debt as an instrument of control.

Huh? We don't disagree on the nature of debt as an instrument of control, so what purpose would that serve exactly?

You have a passion for dismissing debt relief which is unusually absolutist and fevered given the nature of the discussion here. Why?

I haven't dismissed debt relief. Nor have I said anything absolutist or fevered. Would it be possible for you to refrain from speculating on my state of mind?


And your "bullshit" reply above is in appropriate.

I clearly disagree.

Not one of these articles discuss the existing conditions on the debt.

Ok

They act like there were no conditions on the existing debt, and suddenly conditions are being imposed on debt relief.

There is the bullshit. None of these articles implies that there are no conditions on the current debt. These articles aren't against debt relief, they are against bogus debt relief.

If you've read Perkins's book, you know that's not true. In fact, the best way to analyze the debt relief programs is to compare the existing conditions and the proposed conditions, which NOT ONE OF THOSE ARTICLES DOES, which is not bullshit. It's an easily observed fact.

And if you've read Perkins book you know that the government lies about thier policy and pretends to have humanitarian goals even when it is hurting people. Thus it would ludicrous to take the official statements at face value. When the loans were originally proposed we were told that they would lead these nations to economic development.

As far as the proposed conditions. There have been lots of proposed conditions. We dont know what they will decide on, but if you think it will be progressive, I have a bridge to sell you.

Another fact is you have spent no time arguing for good debt relief plans.

I didn't think I had to. I assumed we were in agreement on that issue.

You've only argued broadly against any debt relief.

No I haven't. That isnt what Ive argued at all.

To label that a personal attack or even (inaccurately) a straw man argument (do you know what a straw man argument is?) is also curious.

Your personal attack on Monboit was in fact a personal attack. And I do know what a straw man is, although apparently you don't.

You wrote: "Forget Monbiot. Progressives should be arguing for debt relief plans that work, and not against debt relief altogether."

This is a rather blatant straw man since Monbiot does not in fact argue against debt relief all together. You projected an indefensible position on Monbiot that he doesn't have so that you could argue against it effectively.

It is a textbook straw man argument.

[1932]

25. I said it about MSM. You said it about me.

Unless you are George Monbiot, I haven't personally attacked you.

To the degree that I'm making arguments about Monbiot's body of work -- stuff he voluntarily puts out for the public to discuss -- I'm not personally attacking Monbiot.

And what I said about Monbiot's article is not a straw man argument. The only thing I didn't do was provide a handful of articles by Monbiot to support my argument that he's generally against everything and sees devils everywhere.

I'll save supporting that argument for some other time.

[K-W]

26. No I actually didn't say it about you.

Unless you are George Monbiot, I haven't personally attacked you.


Nor did I accuse you of personally attacking me. I was referring only to your attack of Monbiot. And I never referred to anything you wrote as propaganda, I was only referencing your use of the term.

Edit: I think we might as well agree to disagree here. This doesnt seem to be a very productive discussion for either of us.

[Darranar]

28. I read God's Politics, and I like Jim Wallis...

But he is far too trusting of the ruling class (in general, not just on this issue). He isn't cynical enough.

This applies very well to his analysis of debt relief. Perhaps it is progress, but it is only a small step in the right direction.

[1932]

30. For example...

What did he say in that book do you think supports your argument?

[VegasWolf]

5. It is simply not American for all nations to be on the same playing field!

[VegasWolf]

8. Hey! We drink champagne so that they have potable water....

the way the white god intended.


:sarcasm:

[Up2Late]

10. Anger as £700,000($1.2m)of £3m British aid to Malawi spent on US firms

Anger as £700,000 ($1.2 Million) of £3m ($5.4m) British aid to Malawi spent on US firms

David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Monday August 29, 2005
The Guardian

The government was under attack from development charities last night for allegedly wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on aid to Malawi by paying it to American consultancies.

Two charities, ActionAid and the World Development Movement, accused the Department for International Development (DfID) of paying out "phantom aid" to the poor, after it was revealed that more than £700,000 of a £3m project was spent on hotel bills and meals for US workers.

According to an investigation by BBC Radio Five Live, DfID donated £3m to Malawi relief projects. Of that cash, £586,423 was spent on hotels for a US consultancy agency, the National Democratic Institute. Another £126,062 was allegedly spent on meals.

The BBC inquiry claims that one project funded by the DfID flew in pens and notebooks from Washington, instead of buying them locally. Patrick Watt, of the charity ActionAid, told the programme: "This is another example of aid money not getting down to people who most urgently need to benefit from it. It's phantom aid, when what Malawi needs is real aid."

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/hearafrica05/story/0,15756,1558530,00.html?gusrc=rss>
(more at link above)

[Neshanic]

11. And?....

It's the republican thing to do.

[1932]

12. If you've read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, use it as the

frame for thinking about this story.

If you haven't read it, then read this story and remember it for when you read the book.

[Joebert]

13. Maybe they were Bitchin' pens!

Ok, probably not.

All US Aid must be spent on US firms. Nice. I wonder if they could have just sent $200.00 to Office Depot, and been done with it.

[fedsron2us]

29. No surprises here

Do n't these people realize that one of the main policy objectives of Blair's government over the past eight years has been to funnel British taxpayers money to American consultants. The overseas aid money sticking to their greedy little fingers is just a small part of a massive and ongoing rip off.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1478829,00.html

These ministers are just ensuring that they have a well paid job to go to when they finally get turfed out of power.

[Bluerthanblue]

21. oh man, reminds me of "Beyond Borders"

that movie is a hard one to watch- but contains so much to make you HAVE to think.