corruption and aid

[The_Squid]

The first line of the article says it all....

The No. 1 recipient of Canadian taxpayers' foreign-aid dollars is the second-most corrupt country in the world, a new report says.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/afghanistan-among-most-corrupt-nations-report-finds-105846628.html

How many billions of our money have we wasted there?

Canada should not be propping up a corrupt regime. Treasure and lives were wasted....

Edited October 27, 2010 by The_Squid

[Oliver]

The first line of the article says it all....

How many billions of our money have we wasted there?

Canada should not be propping up a corrupt regime. Treasure and lives were wasted....

When you criticize something you need to provide an alternative. Are you suggesting that Canada should have let the Taliban run Afghanistan? or that Canada should not have helped the coalition of willing to try and stabilize a rogue nation under UN Mandate?

[The_Squid]

When you criticize something you need to provide an alternative. Are you suggesting that Canada should have let the Taliban run Afghanistan? or that Canada should not have helped the coalition of willing to try and stabilize a rogue nation under UN Mandate?

Did it work? Did we win? If not, why are we leaving? If we won, then why is there all this corruption?

Do we leave despots in Africa and the Middle East in power? Should it be Canada's new mandate to overthrow despotic governments?

We needed to think this through before knee-jerk reaction of LET'S GO TO WAR!!! RAH RAH!! SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! ooops...

The cat's out of the bag... we helped let it out... and we can't put it back in...

[Moonlight Graham]

The first line of the article says it all....

How many billions of our money have we wasted there?

Canada should not be propping up a corrupt regime. Treasure and lives were wasted....

Your article link mentions nothing about aid.

Yes corruption is a major problem in both poverty and how aid is spent. But it isn't as if all aid is transferred from Canadian or international orgs (World Bank, IMF etc) bank accounts directly into the recipient leader's bank account. Most aid comes with many conditions as well.

Corruption and impoverished states go hank in hand. We simply must be vigilant in making sure our aid is delivered how it is intended.

[scribblet]

The article said:

OTTAWA -- The No. 1 recipient of Canadian taxpayers' foreign-aid dollars is the second-most corrupt country in the world, a new report says.

(that would be Afghanastan)

While I hate to see billions of aid go to corrupt regimes and generally into the local despot's pocket, we don't have much of an alternative, can we stop all foreign aid except in emergencies e.g. Haiti ?

I do agree we need far more accountability and transparency in where the money is spent, and more strings attached.

Worst despots - I'd like to see a dollar amount from each country next to the name. I'm not sure about Mugabe, it may be that he only gets international food aid now and or funds from the U.N.

http://www.afrik-news.com/article17839.htmlA United States based think tank, Foreign

Policy/Fund for Peace has ranked President Mugabe as the second worse despots in the world after North Korean Kim Jongil. The nearly 90-ear-old Zimbabwean president is followed by the presidents of Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Libya, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Egypt...

[RNG]

I had the pleasure to work as a consultant for Nexen some years ago. For those who don't know, they are one of the largest Canadian oil and gas exploration and production companies with more operations in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea and Yemen, among others, than they have in Canada. And they are the most ethical company I have ever worked for or know of.

In regard to the subject of this thread, their extensive operations in Yemen, a horribly corrupt place, has been accomplished without a single bribe, per se. What they do is go in and offer to build a school, or hospital, or road or whatever they have to promise the big-boys to get the permission to operate. But they do it all themselves. They don't just give money to the government or local companies to get it done.

Why can't Canada operate similarly with our foreign aid?

Edited October 27, 2010 by RNG

[Moonlight Graham]

In regard to the subject of this thread, their extensive operations in Yemen, a horribly corrupt place, has been accomplished without a single bribe, per se. What they do is go in and offer to build a school, or hospital, or road or whatever they have to promise the big-boys to get the permission to operate. But they do it all themselves. They don't just give money to the government or local companies to get it done.

Why can't Canada operate similarly with our foreign aid?

That is called Foreign Direct Investing (or FDI). ie: More medium or long-term investment with people in the country (ie: foreign businesses/contractors) building things like infrastructure, schools etc.

Canada i'm sure does this as it isn't some weird/new concept, although it is very expensive and quite rare for private companies to do similar things. It is hard & expensive for private companies, or, well, anyone to do this in very poor countries because they lack basic infrastructure such as electricity, running water, telecommunication, roads etc. These leads to something they call BYOI (Bring Your Own Infrastructure) where it can cost up to 25% more to do such projects because companies must drill for their own water and set-up their own power generators etc.

Countries and private companies are also reluctant to do such direct investments in the poorest of countries because there are usually political and economic instability in these countries, so medium-longterm projects are risky. There also factors such as wars or social unrest and scare donors and private investors away.

However, yes it would be nice to see more of these FDI projects done as to keep the money out of the hands of corrupt elites.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[William Ashley]

Part of the problem with these stupid ethnocentric organizations is that they don't understand or take into account the cultural practices of the nations in question nor the backroom deals that pop up in all these clean countries once a scandal breaks - much like crime - how much crime goes on unnoticed or untried.

Personally putting a little into a country you are about to rape for personal gain is much better than just raping it at gunpoint, imo. Or rather why not help your business partners - help them be stronger - two strong are better than one strong and another so frail the strong is force to carry it - unless you are a traditionalist.

It is actually surprising to see how everyone has their own idea of their brand of socialist government instead of Canada's own history of purchase of offices and positions and "court circles" of ruling elite on basis of power and prestige where backroom deals were nothing out of the ordinary but treating your in was merely called a courtesy.

It is only since the 1900's when government started raping their own people for tax dollars that this type of behavior became more scrutinized. When government and private enterprize became even more seperated - officially atleast.

then the public tends to ignore $10000 hotels and plane trips in "Imperial" or "Presidential" style at presidential costs because it is ok for the government to spend it on themselves - they just can't spend it on other people - is that it? Or just only when it is on official government business...

why is it that the credit card gets broken out then? Why not scale back when you are running the red - you know borrowing money to jet set on the public purse (if that isn't enbezzlment itself - when there are already people paid to act for the state where you are flying off to? Hey if it ain't state business why are the taxpayers paying?) Oh but leaders of countries need to meet - in a cult reality - but hold on the PM isn't the functional head of state - it is the Governor General. )the queen being the executive)So why is it the person who is suppose to manage the government not state affairs jet setting? IS the government suddenly not being run from Canada?

Is it maybe because people are still trying to buy prestige and privilege or to leach up tax payer funds to fund their own life style...

the fact is if you look at the PMO's budget for instance it seems fairly clear this is still going on - and when you transfer stuff in "foreign aid" who knows what is going on behind that - who is getting that money? What are they doing with it? Sure it looks all clean but is it? Once that foreign aid leaves the country is it being controlled or audited? No. Some African nations are notorious for funneling foreign aid shipments for personal benefit (I can't remember which ones and I'm not looking it up but I've read it)

Whoo whoo. is all I got to say - lets stop scandalyzing the behaviour and start putting constructive use to it - but for starters end the gravy train fueled by tax dollars - END THE TAXES!!! FORM A RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT!

EARN THE MONEY!

Corruption is wrong but when you do the same things in more clever ways it really isn't any different it i just just semantic tripe to fool the dullards and croons.

You say bribe I say incentive - it is only a problem when you steal the money to pay the incentive. This all surrounds the form of government - all government don't need to be socialist. Governments can serve the peoples interest with their OWN money. unfortunately people have for a 100 years elected people who take their money and borrow others at interest --- this is part of the mass onset of idiocy of the public.

Oh and when people are bribed to break the law. That is an issue too. - government shouldn't do that - but laws shouldn't be restrictive against common sense and goodwill.

You might however scrutinize buying posts - why it is that all those positions are appointed by the leader of a political party or atleast suggested by one instead of by a vote of the public?

The west is quick to attack a one party government such as the communist system, but how does a two party system make so much of a difference over 1 when they work for their own common interests - instead of enhancing the public interest of non party governance - that is a government of the people rather than a government of the two parties that may from time to to time change faces - why is their a veil of partisan class and colour over the people as a body united for the benefit of the state? Not in a party but in equal rights and endeavor.

The least you can do in sense is break out the tiedie.

Edited October 29, 2010 by William Ashley