Pakistan may accept India's assistance for flood victims if it is routed through U.N.

[JI7]

Source: the hindu

Still undecided on how to respond to India's offer of assistance of $5 million in relief material, for the victims of the massive floods, Pakistan on Saturday was toying with the option of accepting the proposal, provided it was routed through the United Nations system.

Though Foreign Office officials earlier this week indicated that Pakistan was not inclined to accept any assistance from India, the Indian offer has not been rejected outright as of now. It was being considered, said an official, adding that Pakistan might not accept it as a bilateral offering but could well take it if routed through the U.N. system.

At a time when Pakistan is having trouble mobilising resources from the international donor community, there is a segment within the Pakistani leadership which feels that outright rejection of the Indian offer would not go down well with donors worldwide. Closer home, a rejection would also make it that much more difficult to pick up the pieces of the dialogue process.

Such being the odds, routing the assistance through the U.N. system — which on Wednesday issued an appeal for $460 million as emergency aid for the flood-affected millions — is being considered as a middle path. More so, as the U.N. itself is looking towards neighbouring countries to source supplies urgently needed for providing immediate relief to the estimated six million in dire need of help.

Read more: http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article571004.ece

[MichiganVote]

1. Pathetic.

[mike r]

2. Choosy beggars

[JI7]

3. these are the politicians who are living well, like that guy who was having fun in Europe

while all of this was going on.

but you have to think of the victims who probably don't care where aid comes from.

[JCMach1]

4. Zardari is a flipping idiot...

Not to mention kowtowing to Cameron while Pakistan flooded...

He is gone within 12 months.

[JI7]

5. Zardari is a Sarah Palin Groupie

[JCMach1]

7. Wouldn't doubt it... sad fact is he is trying to setup his son Bilalwal as his successor

:(

[cosmicone]

19. Bilawal may actually be the best hope for peace if

the civilian government is made powerful in Pakistan by weakening the army's stranglehold.

Bilawal, being worn long after the partition, probably doesn't see India as a potential conquest but as a long term trading and economic partner to improve Pakistani people's lives with investments from India into various sectors, particularly oil and gas.

His grandfather gave his life because he dared to make peace with India.

[nyy1998]

28. Actually I had a few friends who went to Oxford

Word on the street over there is that he's as arrogant as his old man.....

[Skittles]

6. their pissing contest is sickening

[cosmicone]

11. It is not India which is engaging in this ... it is Pakistan

The last time India helped, Pakistan removed all traces of where the help actually came from because they don't want to show their people that India is a benevolent country. Pakistan even went to the length of removing Indian labels from each of the several thousand blankets.

[CLANG]

8. Drowning man refuses life-ring from childhood nemesis

[Turborama]

9. Actually, seeing as so many have been suspicious of what'd happen to money given to Pakistan's gov.

(ie fears that the civilian government will "divert foreign aid for strengthening military instead of helping people" like military dictator Musharraf did in the past)

What's the problem with them giving it to UNICEF (see my sig) where it's guaranteed to be used properly?

Comparing it to the previous articles http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4503486">posted here on this exact same story, this article reads like propaganda from "The Hindu" using a humanitarian crisis to belittle Pakistan's government by adding comments from an anonymous "official".

[cosmicone]

10. It is because then the funds go into a lax accountability account

of UN and Pakistan is free to use it to make military purchases.

Pakistan has enough money -- all they have to do is scrap their nuclear weapons program or missile program and they can help their own people.

What is really more important to them?

[JI7]

12. the same can be said about India and all those slums

and helping those people

[cosmicone]

13. India is not asking for aid

and the slums are a result of voluntary overcrowding in big cities.

People living in the slums are usually gainfully employed and not destitute like pictured in the movies.

You should take a tour of some the slums and you'll see a thriving neighborhood with satellite TV and fiberoptic internet.

The slum depicted in "Slumdog Millionnaire" now has organized tours from which they are making enough money to buy flats in suburbs but the money is so good, they don't want to move.

[JI7]

15. Pakistan did not ask India for Aid either

[cosmicone]

17. Directly, no. But Pakistan has made an appeal to the international

community which India is a part of.

[Turborama]

14. UNICEF is a lax accountability account of UN & Pakistan is free to use it to make military purchases

This is what you are essentially saying in response to my post:

UNICEF is a lax accountability account of the UN and Pakistan is free to use it to make military purchases


What total and utter BULLSHIT! I'm tempted to report you to UNICEF for spreading such shameful and destructive propaganda against them and the excellent work they do. (No point trying to edit it, a screenshot has already been made)

[cosmicone]

16. Over decades, UNESCO, WHO and UNICEF aid has been

misappropriated in Africa and Asia. The UN doesn't even do on-site audits to ensure that assets were purchased as specified in the grant and that the assets purchased are the exact ones existing on the ground.

Western military hardware suppliers and offshore banks have been complicit in it as well.

So country X gets a grant for 1000 refrigerators to store vaccines. Country X buys 100 refrigerators but gets a fake invoice for 1,000. Vendor refunds only 50-60% of the unsold refrigerator money directly to an offshore subsidiary as commission from where it gets sent to a Swiss or Jersey (Channel Islands) or Cyprus bank account controlled by country X or its politicians. Country X is then free to buy anything with those funds.

Vendor ships 100 refrigerators but marks the shipping manifest as 1000 -- at the receiving end, someone in country X certifies that 1,000 refrigerators were received.

In this scenario, unless someone from the UN actually goes and counts the refrigerators, no one will ever know except country X and vendor.


This is somewhat akin to how people can buy liquor, cigarettes and even drugs with food stamps even though it is illegal.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmicone]

21. This is not anti-UNICEF ... this is how some recipients

misappropriate money. UNICEF can do very little to stop it.

If someone wants to believe this doesn't happen, it is their right.

Despite a stringent GAO, several billions went "missing" in Iraq and a few billion in Pakistan.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/pakistan.pentagon.money/index.html

Also, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/25/terror/main4206878.shtml (you may have to use a cached page)

<Quote> The assessment by the Government Accountability Office, released Tuesday, angered members of Congress who say they are concerned that Pakistan - the closest U.S.ally in the war on terrorism - is milking the U.S. government.

GAO found, for example, that the U.S. recently gave Pakistan more than $200 million for air defense radars without bothering to investigate whether the money was needed specifically to go after terrorists. Another example included $45 million for road and bunker construction without evidence they were ever built.

"The U.S. government is being asked to reimburse Pakistan for non-incremental air defense radar maintenance when al Qaeda is not even known to have an air force," said Rep. Howard Berman, a Democrat and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "The purpose of these funds is to support the fight against extremists, not to boost Pakistan's conventional warfare capability."<end Quote>

[Turborama]

25. "The UN doesn't even do on-site audits to ensure that assets were purchased as specified"

"http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4504273&mesg_id=4504401">Over decades, UNESCO, WHO and UNICEF aid has been misappropriated in Africa and Asia.... The UN doesn't even do on-site audits to ensure that assets were purchased as specified in the grant and that the assets purchased are the exact ones existing on the ground."


And from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4504273&mesg_id=4504390">post 10 in answer to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4504273&mesg_id=4504362">my question, "What's the problem with them giving it to UNICEF (see my sig) where it's guaranteed to be used properly? ":

"It is because then the funds go into a lax accountability account of UN and Pakistan is free to use it to make military purchases"



This is anti UNICEF (and UNESCO, WHO) propaganda/libel/defamation.

Neither of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4504273&mesg_id=4504408">those articles mention the UN. They are articles about aid that came from the last (p)resident's (mal)administration.

Seriously, stop.

[cosmicone]

27. UNICEF is part of UN ... as are UNESCO and WHO

Accounting standards vary.

GAO probably has the strictest standards and even then they were able to catch only a percentage of the malfeasance as shown in those articles.

The last president only set the policy of aid to Pakistan which was very unwise. However, despite stringent GAO controls, as the articles demonstrate, funds were misappropriated.

UN, as an organization, doesn't have as stringent an auditing standard as the GAO does. That is what was meant by "lax".

Alerting every post you don't like is not a DU tradition. Not every post can be liked by the diverse community that DU is. Wouldn't you agree that if one cannot state opinion on a political message board, we will turn the whole concept of DU upside down.

We can always agree to disagree.

[Turborama]

30. Conflating and misrepresenting

Everyone can read the clear libel/defamation against UNICEF you made above, regardless of your attempts to conflate in an attempt to divert people's attention away from it.

You are misrepresenting what I said, I did not mention "alerting". I said I'm tempted to report you to UNICEF for spreading such shameful and destructive propaganda against them and the excellent work they do.

United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (the world's leading children's organization) take their reputation very seriously, especially at times like this. And so do I.

[cosmicone]

31. Tell them to sue me.

My lawyers will bring up enough malfeasance in financial handling of UNICEF to protect me.

You didn't answer my question. Why did UNICEF have to create a separate fund for US contributions? They don't have a separate fund for UK or Germany or France or Canada.

[Turborama]

20. UNICEF's efficiency

UNICEF's efficiency

UNICEF uses its contributions wisely and is trusted as one of the most efficient non-profit organizations in the world. Every dollar UNICEF spends on low-cost, highly effective, sustainable solutions usually leverages additional dollars of support in bringing that project to scale. In the U.S., funds are raised by http://www.unicefusa.org/donate/give-with-confidence.html">the U.S. Fund for UNICEF, which receives the highest ratings from watchdog organizations including the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance's Standards for Charity Accountability and has also received 5 consecutive four-star ratings from Charity Navigator, America's premier independent charity evaluator.

http://www.unicefusa.org/about/values/

Give With Confidence

We're proud of UNICEF's efficient use of contributions!

As stewards for the world's vulnerable children, we believe it is our responsibility to use every dollar received wisely. Ninety percent of total contributions go directly toward the mission of our organization, including program services and educating the public.

Much more including, but not only, "Financial disclosures" & "Independent monitors recognize the U.S. Fund for UNICEF" : http://www.unicefusa.org/donate/give-with-confidence.html

[cosmicone]

22. U.S. Fund for UNICEF is only a portion of the total UNICEF

and why do you think a separate entity was created?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmicone]

24. I neither libeled nor defamed any entity except to note

that any donor's intentions can be derailed by a recipient committed to diverting funds.

[Turborama]

26. See post 25

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4504273&mesg_id=4504415

And take http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4504273&mesg_id=4504412">my warning seriously.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OhioChick]

32. Good God....

I think "some" would be happier to just let all these people die off.

It's fucking ridiculous and speaks volumes.