wrote:
the U.S. is to provide a $698 million grant to Tanzania.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-17 12:02:32)
Who says that? Don't we already fund around 90% of UN expenses?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
isnt it funny how people never mention this when they talk about foreign aid. All you hear is " The US needs to give more to the UN"
but then you hear the usual "so, the US could always give more"Havok wrote:
Who says that? Don't we already fund around 90% of UN expenses?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
isnt it funny how people never mention this when they talk about foreign aid. All you hear is " The US needs to give more to the UN"
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-17 12:06:54)
Last edited by dayarath (2008-02-17 12:22:54)
Oh, we definitely give a lot. And even when it's not our government, we have small non-profit groups working to help smaller countries.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
but then you hear the usual "so, the US could always give more"Havok wrote:
Who says that? Don't we already fund around 90% of UN expenses?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
isnt it funny how people never mention this when they talk about foreign aid. All you hear is " The US needs to give more to the UN"
and this shit right here has nothing to do with the UN. Just brought it up to show that that even though the United States gives the most, we still work outside of the UN to help our global neighbors.
698 million (out of planned 30 billion towards impoverished African nations) wont do much to help out our economic situation, but it will do worlds of different towards these poor countries with shitty GDPdayarath wrote:
I don't want to come busting in like an ass (This is very generous, I approve )
but is this such a responsible act considering the national debt and economical swings the US in right now?
I mean isn't it best to use your money to sort out shit at home before you go donating it to other countries ?
I would assume so, point is, this aspect of American foreign policy is always conveniently forgotten by detractors.Sup wrote:
Someone had to suggest this funding to Bush.
Hm allright I guess you've got a point there, it's pretty insignificant comparing to that indeed. I'll withdraw the questionGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
698 million (out of planned 30 billion towards impoverished African nations) wont do much to help out our economic situation, but it will do worlds of different towards these poor countries with shitty GDPdayarath wrote:
I don't want to come busting in like an ass (This is very generous, I approve )
but is this such a responsible act considering the national debt and economical swings the US in right now?
I mean isn't it best to use your money to sort out shit at home before you go donating it to other countries ?
its a good question and a valid point.dayarath wrote:
Hm allright I guess you've got a point there, it's pretty insignificant comparing to that indeed. I'll withdraw the questionGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
698 million (out of planned 30 billion towards impoverished African nations) wont do much to help out our economic situation, but it will do worlds of different towards these poor countries with shitty GDPdayarath wrote:
I don't want to come busting in like an ass (This is very generous, I approve )
but is this such a responsible act considering the national debt and economical swings the US in right now?
I mean isn't it best to use your money to sort out shit at home before you go donating it to other countries ?
This is also not Bush's only contribution to Africa either, as Dr Elliott Green reminds usGeorge Bush rightly deserves credit for the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar). However, Chris McGreal's report (George Bush: a good man in Africa, February 15) underestimates the influence of the Christian right in persuading the president to change US policy on assistance to Africa and setting the agenda for programme delivery. Pepfar could be even more successful if the influence of the Christian right were mitigated. Through their influence one-third of the programme is reserved for organisations teaching abstinence-only rather than safe-sex messages.
Pepfar is a lucrative source of funding for faith-based organisations with little or no previous experience, enabling them to combine missionary activity with HIV/Aids relief. This acts to the detriment of long-standing assistance providers such as Planned Parenthood that are denied funding, along with other organisations offering advice on abortion as part of their service, or seeking to work with prostitutes and their clients by providing condoms.
The attitude of the Christian right to sex workers, homosexuals and drug users reinforces local prejudices in Kenya and other African states with growing evangelical populations. Hopefully an incoming administration will improve on the good work already taking place by also funding secular organisations with the requisite experience and discontinuing the absurd insistence on abstinence.
That honour should go to his militarisation of US policy towards Africa: even before 9/11 Bush established the US navy base of Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, and last year he created the new US Africa Command (Africom) to guide American defence policy in Africa.
Africom was supposed to be based in an African country, but the proposal was so unpopular that its headquarters is now in Germany and will probably be spread across Africa when it becomes fully operational this year. Indeed the 15-member Southern African Development Community, which contains the countries most afflicted by HIV/Aids and thus most likely to benefit from Bush's Aids policies, agreed that no member countries would host Africom. Concerns that Bush's policies have had less to do with humanitarian impulses and more to do with African oil and countering Chinese influence have driven much of this suspicion.
I agree. You probably know that US founded Afghani rebels against the Russians in the eighties and how do the repay them?...GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I would assume so, point is, this aspect of American foreign policy is always conveniently forgotten by detractors.Sup wrote:
Someone had to suggest this funding to Bush.
I missed the part of the article that said that but I'm glad you agree it still had merit regardless..Sup wrote:
Someone had to suggest this funding to Bush. I don't think he even knew that this country exists before it was suggested to him that he donates. Still its a nice thing to do. Nice gesture giving the president of Tanzania pair of basketball boots too.
check on your facts. You act is if the US was the main sponsor of the afghan mujahedeen in the 80's..Sup wrote:
I agree. You probably know that US founded Afghani rebels against the Russians in the eighties and how do the repay them?...GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I would assume so, point is, this aspect of American foreign policy is always conveniently forgotten by detractors.Sup wrote:
Someone had to suggest this funding to Bush.
Biggest problem with that is the pharmaceuticals manufactured are then returned here to the first world on the black market because of the "high" price of the drugs here, so they do not benefit at all - it's far from a win win situation i'm afraid.PureFodder wrote:
It's good to see renewed comitment to aid for one of the worst off places in the world.
On the topic of why alot of these plans go for anti-virals as opposed to condoms and sex advice it's pretty misleading to say it's due to right-wing Christian morality. A far more plausable reason is pressure from the pharmacuticals industry. When a rich western government pledges large amounts of money as aid, it's quite misleading to take the figure at face value. Take this current example of giving medicinal drugs. The money will be spent to pay a company from the aid donors country to make the drugs, they will then get shipped to the recipient country and given to them. It's pretty well unheard of for the donor country to shop around to find out where the money cold be used to make the drugs at the cheapest cost. Using African manufacturers to make non-branded drugs would mean vastly more drugs could be made for the same costs. If you use manufacturers in the country you're donating the aid to you get the extra boost of stimulating their economy too and helping to get the country into a state where they don't need further aid.
The result is that for the donor country, the majority of the money donated is actually put into their own economy. You're increasing the turnover and profits of one of your own country's companies. This is why there's no particular problem with giving lots of aid to foreign countries at times of recession. The aid is actually going along way towards stimulating your own economy.
This is called 'phantom aid'. Going on figures from the US who apparently have a phantom aid ratio in the region of 9:1, of this money about $70 million will go towards Tanzanian interests and $630 million will go towards stimulating the US economy. The US is just the current example I'm using, pretty well all western countries are guilty of this.
I just said they were sponsored by US that's it. That doesn't mean they weren't the main sponsor.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
check on your facts. You act is if the US was the main sponsor of the afghan mujahedeen in the 80's..Sup wrote:
I agree. You probably know that US founded Afghani rebels against the Russians in the eighties and how do the repay them?...GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I would assume so, point is, this aspect of American foreign policy is always conveniently forgotten by detractors
Nope. He has been focused on helping Africa since he ran in 2000. It just doesn't make the news.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I would assume so, point is, this aspect of American foreign policy is always conveniently forgotten by detractors.Sup wrote:
Someone had to suggest this funding to Bush.
You're concerned that the government would manufacture the drugs using the money then sell them off instead of using them for their own populace? What's stopping them doing that with any imported drugs?IG-Calibre wrote:
Biggest problem with that is the pharmaceuticals manufactured are then returned here to the first world on the black market because of the "high" price of the drugs here, so they do not benefit at all - it's far from a win win situation i'm afraid.PureFodder wrote:
It's good to see renewed comitment to aid for one of the worst off places in the world.
On the topic of why alot of these plans go for anti-virals as opposed to condoms and sex advice it's pretty misleading to say it's due to right-wing Christian morality. A far more plausable reason is pressure from the pharmacuticals industry. When a rich western government pledges large amounts of money as aid, it's quite misleading to take the figure at face value. Take this current example of giving medicinal drugs. The money will be spent to pay a company from the aid donors country to make the drugs, they will then get shipped to the recipient country and given to them. It's pretty well unheard of for the donor country to shop around to find out where the money cold be used to make the drugs at the cheapest cost. Using African manufacturers to make non-branded drugs would mean vastly more drugs could be made for the same costs. If you use manufacturers in the country you're donating the aid to you get the extra boost of stimulating their economy too and helping to get the country into a state where they don't need further aid.
The result is that for the donor country, the majority of the money donated is actually put into their own economy. You're increasing the turnover and profits of one of your own country's companies. This is why there's no particular problem with giving lots of aid to foreign countries at times of recession. The aid is actually going along way towards stimulating your own economy.
This is called 'phantom aid'. Going on figures from the US who apparently have a phantom aid ratio in the region of 9:1, of this money about $70 million will go towards Tanzanian interests and $630 million will go towards stimulating the US economy. The US is just the current example I'm using, pretty well all western countries are guilty of this.
by it being administered by independent aid agencies (preferably ones without a religious agenda)PureFodder wrote:
You're concerned that the government would manufacture the drugs using the money then sell them off instead of using them for their own populace? What's stopping them doing that with any imported drugs?IG-Calibre wrote:
Biggest problem with that is the pharmaceuticals manufactured are then returned here to the first world on the black market because of the "high" price of the drugs here, so they do not benefit at all - it's far from a win win situation i'm afraid.PureFodder wrote:
It's good to see renewed comitment to aid for one of the worst off places in the world.
On the topic of why alot of these plans go for anti-virals as opposed to condoms and sex advice it's pretty misleading to say it's due to right-wing Christian morality. A far more plausable reason is pressure from the pharmacuticals industry. When a rich western government pledges large amounts of money as aid, it's quite misleading to take the figure at face value. Take this current example of giving medicinal drugs. The money will be spent to pay a company from the aid donors country to make the drugs, they will then get shipped to the recipient country and given to them. It's pretty well unheard of for the donor country to shop around to find out where the money cold be used to make the drugs at the cheapest cost. Using African manufacturers to make non-branded drugs would mean vastly more drugs could be made for the same costs. If you use manufacturers in the country you're donating the aid to you get the extra boost of stimulating their economy too and helping to get the country into a state where they don't need further aid.
The result is that for the donor country, the majority of the money donated is actually put into their own economy. You're increasing the turnover and profits of one of your own country's companies. This is why there's no particular problem with giving lots of aid to foreign countries at times of recession. The aid is actually going along way towards stimulating your own economy.
This is called 'phantom aid'. Going on figures from the US who apparently have a phantom aid ratio in the region of 9:1, of this money about $70 million will go towards Tanzanian interests and $630 million will go towards stimulating the US economy. The US is just the current example I'm using, pretty well all western countries are guilty of this.