FLASHBACK:
"The Americans"
~ Gordon Sinclair, CFRB Radio, June 5, 1973
BACKGROUND
Posted on 07/19/2007 3:44:25 PM PDT by GMMAC
Foreign aid swipe at U.S. belies reality
Private Charity, And Remittances Far From 'Stingy'; At The United Nations
Steven Edwards, National Post
Published: Thursday, July 19, 2007
The United Nations has been calling the United States "stingy" again. Although it didn't actually repeat that word -- used by its disaster relief chief after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami -- its argument remains the same: As the only superpower, Washington should be handing over a lot more cash to the world's poor.
In a milestone progress report on international development, the UN says only Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden are meeting its target for rich countries to spend 0.7% of their national incomes on foreign aid.
While other rich countries, including Canada, fail to make the grade, UN officials emphasize the United States is the biggest single defaulter.
But why should they get the last word? As the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank, points out, there are other ways of tallying up America's benevolence. According to its Index of Global Philanthropy 2007, the United States gives away billions of dollars in ways other than the centrally planned aid preferred by UN bureaucrats.
"U.S. private assistance alone is 3 times official government aid," Dr. Carol Adelman, director of the institute's Center for Global Prosperity, writes in the 80-page study.
"Philanthropy is hotter than ever as celebrities like President Bill Clinton, Bono, Angelina Jo-lie, Oprah, Lance Armstrong and Richard Branson bring star power to doing good, and as business superstars like Warren Buffett donate US$40-billion."
Private-sector giving is so extensive, it plus official U.S. aid exceed what the UN says is necessary for the "0.7% solution" to world poverty.
Which prompts the question: Are there other reasons for the slow pace of development in many of the world's poor countries?
Of course there are, but first, the U.S. contributions. The sheer size of its economy and political influence mean U.S. commitment to any international venture is crucial -- and that's why UN officials get so riled when Washington doesn't co-operate the way they think it should.
The gripes about the level of official development aid come in the 2007 report of the UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDG). It says shortfalls are preventing poor countries from meeting goals universally agreed upon in 2000 -- the central one being halving the number of people living on less than US$1 a day by 2015.
"Adequate resources need to be made available to countries in a predictable way for them to be able to effectively plan the scaling up of their investments," Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General, says in the foreword to the 36-page report.
Washington allocated US$27.6-billion to foreign aid in 2005, or 0.22% of gross national income (GNI), leading the UN to place it 20th of the world's 22 richest nations in terms of generosity.
But the Hudson Institute's philanthropy index shows the U.S. is pulling its weight -- in a way that conforms to America's capitalist traditions.
In standard handouts to people overseas in 2005, American individuals and organizations gave about US$33.5-billion.
Another US$61.7-billion was in the form of remittances -- cash sent by U.S. residents, usually immigrants, to families back home. Mexico was the main beneficiary of these donations, which have the advantage of going straight into the pockets of ordinary people and are credited with spurring housing booms throughout much of Latin America.
When official aid plus private donations are added together, the $122.8-billion total equals 0.98% of the U.S. GNI, putting the United States in the same ballpark as the praised Scandinavian countries. Globally, the U.S. contribution almost matches the total for all 21 other rich countries.
A similar picture can be drawn for Canada, which in 2005 gave official aid of 0.34% of GNI, 14th on the UN table of givers. But it shoots up to seventh when private donations are added, or 1% of GNI.
The UN doesn't explain this because its MDG report would then have to seek other reasons why its war on world poverty is so off track.
Investment lost to corruption is one reason. Nigeria recently admitted its leaders have stolen about US$400-billion in public money since independence in 1960.
That's about two-thirds of all the aid money given to Africa in the same period.
Another reason is cultural. Several of the development goals, for example, aim at providing equality to women in education and health. But the practice of child marriage in several poor countries prevents progress.
While the MDG report may be the UN's clever ploy to extract more money from the United States and other countries labelled "stingy," it's as likely to provoke anger among donors who, quite clearly, have been giving at the office and at home.
© National Post 2007
FLASHBACK:
"The Americans"
~ Gordon Sinclair, CFRB Radio, June 5, 1973
BACKGROUND
And Luxembourg and Norway have a higher per capita income than the United States, and almost no military to type of.
We should give aid to our allies.
I have no problem with this. Just take the money we give to the UN and dish it out to the “poor” instead.
The entire system of world trade depends utterly on the freedom of movement for goods that is protected almost entirely by the US military, especially the Navy.
Perhaps we should figure our defense budget into our contribution?
Foreign Aid. Welfare for all the third world countries that have no legitimate right to exist. Take Bangladesh. Can they feed themselves? No? Then we are we obligated to do so. I am sick of shoveling money into corrupt thrid world C**pholes that will never get their acts together. Meanwhile, hough they take the handouts, they feel free to criticize. That should end. Want us to feed you? Then you will do as you are told. Don’t want to? Then starve.
Actually, all the Eurowimp countries that have thrived under the US military shield these past 60 years without contributing their reasonable share to the defense of western civilization ought to donate 3x as much and the USA should continue to focus upon the defense of humanity against Islamo-fascists, ChiComs, and resurgent Russian militarism. Most EU countries are “free riders” behind a military screen provided by the USA - let them contribute more to international philanthropy if that’s what they deem so important......
Except that there is no good reason to think much of the “aid” sloshing around the world does anything except fill the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt 3rd World despots. All the private and individual funds cited in the article probably do far more good than any aid-to-governments anyway.
The UN is good at that. The UN is filled with corrupt 3rd world despots itself, come to think of it. You think there might be some sort of connection?
Is the MDG money funneled through the UN, or does each donating country have their own plan for distribution?
If it goes through the UN, other than usual curruption theft, how much is taken out as administrative and distribution costs?
Some denominations, notably the Episcopalians, have adopted the .07% MDG program for churches and individuals. How will that money be distributed - thru the UN, or thru their own missionary program?
Is there any comprehensive plan, or does whoever yells the loudest get the lions share?
Just curious!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.