John O'Shea spokesman for neo-liberals?

lostexpectation

What is with this guy, its all he ever talks about, ok so he trying to change the conversation saying its not just about aid but about erradicating the culture of corruption that prevents various 3rd world countries from helping themselves out ( oh there that neveredending debt too)

but after reading another letter in Northside People he constantly ruins it by says things like 'Paul Wolfowitz says', and the World Bank reports points and I agree when Geroge Bush when he says?

wtf

would he not like some more reputable and genuine sources then those guys who are only bothered by corruption when it doesn't work in their favour??

What with this guy Trociaire are always more critical of these guys which beings it a bit more credibilty?

mike65

I don't understand the point you are making. Is it that John O'Shea must be wrong if he cites the World bank or Bush? Would he meet your approval if he quoted Chirac or Mugabe?

Mike.

lostexpectation

mike65 wrote:

I don't understand the point you are making. Is it that John O'Shea must be wrong if he cites the World bank or Bush? Would he meet your approval if he quoted Chirac or Mugabe?

Mike.

no of course not them either, strange choices for examples don't quote the any corrupt leaders, qoute the people your trying to help. He never does.

sceptre

Just because one don't like Wolfowitz doesn't mean he's always wrong. I may reckon he's wrong more often than he could or should be (and as it happens I do) but I wouldn't have a problem quoting the guy myself if I thought he had a point.

Funnily enough he's usually criticised for being a neoconservative rather than a neoliberal. While for various reasons being both isn't impossible (though it's probably a bit confusing to insult someone by calling them "a neoconservative neoliberal gob****e" even if you're a neocon who just took over at the usually neoliberal World Bank), I guess it depends where you're sitting at the table when deciding whether the guy is on your left or right.

As for the rights and wrongs of quoting Wolfowitz, if O'Shea wants to add weight to his comments, there are few weightier than the World Bank president if he's quoting him when he says something with which O'Shea agrees. Sure, he could quote the people he's trying to help but if they had any weight they could throw into the argument, they wouldn't need John O'Shea to speak for their benefit in the first place. Ditto Bush, though personally I wouldn't quote him unless I was willing people to fall off their chairs with laughter but that's probably just me and everyone else with a sense of humour.

GOAT_Ali

John O'Shea does a hell of a lot of talking up on that 'soap box' of his. Damn ego tripper couldn't give a toss about poverty and hunger, just trying to make a name for himself. What has he ever done on this Island?

civdef

That's a remarkable insight.

IronMan

GOAT_Ali wrote:

John O'Shea does a hell of a lot of talking up on that 'soap box' of his. Damn ego tripper couldn't give a toss about poverty and hunger, just trying to make a name for himself. What has he ever done on this Island?

John O'Shea is the representative for one of the best run charities in the world. Goal has admin costs of less than 5%, and run a remarkably tight ship.
http://www.goal.ie/about/ethos.shtml

He argues that we can throw as much money as we want at countries in Africa, but if the governments of these countries remain as corrupt as ever, then the situation will never change, money will be used to buy guns and build personal fortunes rather than help the people rise out of the hole they find themselves in. This may require tough actions, difficult decisions and changes of regime. He quotes from many sources, religious, political, economic. He makes points that people from a certain ideological viewpoint find hard to digest.
Holding charity events and buying newspapers is not going to change the underlying malaise within certain African countries. It requires a scrapping of trade sanctions, and radical changes in governance in these countries. A two pronged approach.

These views appear to be repulsive to the type of people who believe a peace march has the power to change the world, and that all conflicts can be solved by diplomacy and a fecking telethon.

lostexpectation

IronMan wrote:

John O'Shea is the representative for one of the best run charities in the world. Goal has admin costs of less than 5%, and run a remarkably tight ship.
http://www.goal.ie/about/ethos.shtml

He argues that we can throw as much money as we want at countries in Africa, but if the governments of these countries remain as corrupt as ever, then the situation will never change, money will be used to buy guns and build personal fortunes rather than help the people rise out of the hole they find themselves in. This may require tough actions, difficult decisions and changes of regime. He quotes from many sources, religious, political, economic. He makes points that people from a certain ideological viewpoint find hard to digest.
Holding charity events and buying newspapers is not going to change the underlying malaise within certain African countries. It requires a scrapping of trade sanctions, and radical changes in governance in these countries. A two pronged approach.

These views appear to be repulsive to the type of people who believe a peace march has the power to change the world, and that all conflicts can be solved by diplomacy and a fecking telethon.

I don't disagree with his main points, (thats not my point, only to wonder what % of aid should remain gov to gov?) but its the way he goes about I've only ever seen him quote Rice or the World bank in the regular near form letters he now that he sends to newspapers these days ( he doesn't even have the charm or wit of Bono to help him out).

Oh heres evidence of him being critical of his saviours, finally http://www.goal.ie/newsroom/debt0406.shtml

Goal
The announcement earlier this week by World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz that he intends to place at the top of his priority list, the ending of government graft in the Third World, is a hugely significant development.
http://www.goal.ie/newsroom/jossbp0306.shtml

Trocaire

In 1999, the World Bank decided to involve civil society organisations in national consultations to review its policies in fighting poverty. But is this more than window dressing? Trócaire has been monitoring civil society involvement in the ‘Poverty Strategy Papers' process continues in more detail
http://www.trocaire.org/policyandadvocacy/prsp.htm

Zombrex

lostexpectation wrote:

would he not like some more reputable and genuine sources then those guys who are only bothered by corruption when it doesn't work in their favour??

Depends on who you are trying to convince, if its people who respect and agree with the World Bank then quoting World Bank reports back to them is going to carry more weight than an Amnesty International report or something of IndyMedia.

The whole "F**k the World Bank lets smash up some McDonalds" attitude, while containing a noble naievity, doesn't actually work very well in the long run. I'm not saying you have to agree with the World Bank, I certainly don't, only recongise that a lot of people do

lostexpectation

Wicknight wrote:

Depends on who you are trying to convince, if its people who respect and agree with the World Bank then quoting World Bank reports back to them is going to carry more weight than an Amnesty International report or something of IndyMedia.

The whole "F**k the World Bank lets smash up some McDonalds" attitude, while containing a noble naievity, doesn't actually work very well in the long run. I'm not saying you have to agree with the World Bank, I certainly don't, only recongise that a lot of people do

the depth criticism of the world bank goes way way,waywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywayway beyond 'lets smash mcdonads'? Theres plenty of room for him to reside somewhere between those points.

He should stop being a water carrier for the World Bank. Look Trocaire is a conservative NGO but has chosen to keep a vocal critical stance on these international institutions. Why can't GOAL do that.

mike65

John O'Shea has long been the Dirty Harry of NGOs. He speaks as he finds and has no truck with the scumbags who rule most of central Africa. Someone should express the views of the common man (read me!) - ie South Africas new politcal elite is as corrupt as the old one.

Mike.

(spelling edit)

lostexpectation

mike65 wrote:

John O'Shea has long been the Dirty Harry of NGOs. He speaks as he finds and has no truck with the scumbags who rule most of central Africa. Someone should express the views of the common man (read me!) - ie South Africas new politcal elite is as corrupt and the old one.

Mike.

But here is his inconsistency cos he ie echoing the World Bank who deal with these dictators based on how much the corruption suits them. , not the comman man, O'Shea would claim to be abhorred by that, if he quoted and gave voice to progressive NGOs on the ground, but saying the exactly same thing, in these various countries working for democracy and less corruption it would be more credible.

I agree it such a shame the Mandela's ANC sold out to the neoliberals and doesn't do enough to combat corruption.

mike65

Just to avoid any confusion how do you define neo-liberalism?

Here's the wiki take

Mike.

GOAT_Ali

Would O'Shea not be fuming that Governments are giving money to corrupt regimes because he would rather it be given to GOAL so they could do as the pleased with it?

Africa is a windfall for a lot of these charitries, an easy earner as it is constantly in drought. The bottom line is that these so called charities are businesses that make profit and pay people good money, so this genuine mercy claim is all a bit much. I'd doubt if half of them ever crossed the bloody road to help their own neighbour.

Again I ask what has O'Shea ever done for people in Ireland. I'd realy love to see the guy pleading with our government on behalf of our homeless kids, our deplorable Health system, absurd crime levels and rip off culture. He'd gain a hell of a lot more respect and credibility if he started his "mercy missions" at home!!!!

Then he could feck off and "save the world".....

lostexpectation

GOAT_Ali wrote:

Would O'Shea not be fuming that Governments are giving money to corrupt regimes because he would rather it be given to GOAL so they could do as the pleased with it?

Africa is a windfall for a lot of these charitries, an easy earner as it is constantly in drought. The bottom line is that these so called charities are businesses that make profit and pay people good money, so this genuine mercy claim is all a bit much. I'd doubt if half of them ever crossed the bloody road to help their own neighbour.

Again I ask what has O'Shea ever done for people in Ireland. I'd realy love to see the guy pleading with our government on behalf of our homeless kids, our deplorable Health system, absurd crime levels and rip off culture. He'd gain a hell of a lot more respect and credibility if he started his "mercy missions" at home!!!!

Then he could feck off and "save the world".....

thats a good parody well done

GOAT_Ali

Well thanks, it is such a travesty!!!!

Sand

Just to avoid any confusion how do you define neo-liberalism?

Its neo-conservitism, obviously.

mike65

19th century version then.

Mike.

lostexpectation

ok ill admit it, im probably using misusing the word but although i checked yesterday and still don't see how I am, Im having difficulty figuring the difference between the too,( I was right in saying the World bank was neoliberal thought so I was I did use the right word!? ) I just thought neo-liberal was let the free market sort everyting out and I not very strict on social issues, neo-conservative was differed on the later, but the encyclopedia says that neocons are more interventionist?

but I didn't reply to mike cos I was talking about John O'Shea's form letters not neo-whateverism, I mean I wonder if he is just doing a Bono/Geldolf but lacking any charm. They are trying to address the men or power to bend their ear on poverty issues, but are actually being used by those people to excellerate the global poverty gap, and make it funky and acceptable. (It seems like he was behind that Bono trip to africa with the US cabinetmen) Or is going beyond that and is fully engaged in corporate rule of all issues.

Sceptre says he'd quote the guy if he thought he had the point, I'd go out of my way to find someone else, (who is more along my line of thought and those of the people your supposedly helping) but is making the same good point and quote him.

Sand

Maybe John O Shea isnt trying to influence you but it is trying to influence political will to demand anti-corruption measures to go hand in hand with aid. Hence he quotes the [World Bank/Political and Economic figures] rather than Rage Against the Machine. If you look at Bono - hes a great guy and all that, but hes not going to change policy with photo-ops and heartfelt speeches. O Shea is quoting the people that decision makers listen to - if they happen to be people you disagree with on Topic X, Y or Z that doesnt mean you cant agree with them on Topic A, B or C.

And shockingly enough, neo-conservitives believe that the west - or specifically the US seeing as the concept is mostly based in the US - has both an interest and an obligation to intervene in the world - i.e. spread rule of law, fair elections, individual rights by peaceful means if possible, by military means if necessary as they believe its A) The right thing to do, and lawful, democratic, liberal states will make better partners than dictatorships - given that al-Quedas support base is drawn from Middle East despair with dictatorships they may have a point that a freer middle east will mean less terrorists flying planes into US skyscrapers.

Essentially the concept has been demonised by left wing commentators as neo-imperialism despite being born from the U.S. left - Neo-Cons only became aligned with the U.S. right due to the Left not being receptive to intervention abroad - clashed with their idea of neo-imperialism. Neo-Conservitism is idealistic, realpolitick realists would argue that the west should support dictatorships. A realist wouldnt have intervened in Sierra Leone to stop machete weilding guerillas overunning the capital, an interventionist would. Blair did, despite being criticised for doing so.

Neo-Liberalism, or plain old liberalism is a different kettle of fish altogether - its more economic - free trade, free movement of people and captial, government limited to its specialist areas - law enforcement, social transfers, defence, etc etc. Its purely economic - nothing to do with neo-conservitism, though someone can certainly believe in aspects of both.

lostexpectation

thanks for the clarification, (can a mod change the title if your bothered ) so Bono and Geldolf are promoting neo-conservatism?

Sand wrote:

Maybe John O Shea isnt trying to influence you but it is trying to influence political will to demand anti-corruption measures to go hand in hand with aid. Hence he quotes the [World Bank/Political and Economic figures] rather than Rage Against the Machine. If you look at Bono - hes a great guy and all that, but hes not going to change policy with photo-ops and heartfelt speeches. O Shea is quoting the people that decision makers listen to - if they happen to be people you disagree with on Topic X, Y or Z that doesnt mean you cant agree with them on Topic A, B or C.

yeah I know but its just seems he going way overboard, more then he should in his position as head of GOAL.

Sand wrote:

Maybe John O Shea isnt trying to influence you but it is trying to influence political will to demand anti-corruption measures to go hand in hand with aid.

and who is it that will police these anti-corruption measures, the world bank? hmmm

Sand

thanks for the clarification, so Bono and Geldolf are promotoing neo-conservatism?

Essentially yes. Realists wouldnt see any pressing reason to treat aid as anything other than bribes to whatever regime was in power. Neo conservitism is just rebranded moral, idealist intervention for the U.S market - I wouldnt call Blair a neo-con, as I dont think the name has any real meaning outside the U.S. but its clear hes idealistic and willing to risk interventions. Think of this way, if you favoured sending troops into Rwanda, Srebinica or Darfur then you favour intervention.

and who is that will police these anti-corruption measures, the world bank? hmmm

Whoever is handing over the cash will no doubt be insistent that the other parties keep up their end of the deal - its their cash after all.

lostexpectation

Sand wrote:

Essentially yes. Realists wouldnt see any pressing reason to treat aid as anything other than bribes to whatever regime was in power. Neo conservitism is just rebranded moral, idealist intervention for the U.S market - I wouldnt call Blair a neo-con, as I dont think the name has any real meaning outside the U.S. but its clear hes idealistic and willing to risk interventions. Think of this way, if you favoured sending troops into Rwanda, Srebinica or Darfur then you favour intervention.



Whoever is handing over the cash will no doubt be insistent that the other parties keep up their end of the deal - its their cash after all.

this cash being aid and world bank loans with conditions for full privitisation and access for their companies to their natural resources attached, they are so bloody generous, hence the term neo-imperialism. Thanks John O'Shea man of the people.

Dirk Gently

Considering the interventionists are mainly the U.S. and the neo-conservatives in the bush admin are also neo-liberals the two terms go hand in hand. Neo liberalisation being an economic system promoting unregulated free markets and neo-conservatism being the system which makes this promotion possible. It is impossible to promote neo-conservatism with out promoting neo-liberalism because the conditions set down for aid is usually a free market economy and privatised industry. No promise to promote liberal economics means no aid, which means neo conservatives only act when the neo liberal agenda is pushed.

One cannot be advocated without the other in the context of today’s world powers and the countries and organisations who intervene.

Sand

this cash being aid and world bank loans with conditions for full privitisation and access for their companies to their natural resources attached, they are so bloody generous, hence the term neo-imperialism. Thanks John O'Shea man of the people.

Youre getting neo-liberalism and neo-conservitism confused again. Strict neo-liberals wouldnt really care if foreign governments were corrupt dictatorships so long long as they allowed free trade and respected contracts. Only interventionists (i.e. neo imperialists) would start meddling with the local regime and telling them what laws to pass and what standards in governance to hold to.

John O Shea is calling for conditions to be set on aid in terms of ringfencing it and preventing it being siphoned off by corrupt local regimes. I.E. intervention - whats wrong with that, given hundreds of billions in aid have been given to Africa with no impact. Its time to try something new. Its the kneejerk reaction (OMFG theyre telling Mugabe how to spend the aid they give him - NEO IMPERIALISTS!!!!) to changes to the failed policy of simply handing over money to el Presidente and expecting him to spend it for the good of his people instead of buying Swiss lakeside villas that does most harm to Africa.

As for neo-liberal conditions attached to aid - privitisation is good for everyone especially given that a lot of these local corrupt regimes A) Dont have money to provide a decent service, Theyre usually badly run with posts handed out in patronage and C) If it doesnt work out (or even if it does) the local government can just steal the privatised industry back.

Free trade is good for the developing world - people arent complaining about jobs going east for no reason. The real problem is trade barriers imposed by the developed world against the 3rd world. Irelands celtic tiger success is based on capital inflows from foreign investors - it can work for the developing world too. Protectionism and nationalism sure as hell hasnt worked. A realist at street level would be wholly opposed to change - if the 3rd world is opened to trade, investment and rule of law then its bad for him. Better to throw them some crumbs and keep them poor.

lostexpectation

Sand wrote:

Youre getting neo-liberalism and neo-conservitism confused again.

what clownbag said

John O Shea is calling for conditions to be set on aid in terms of ringfencing it and preventing it being siphoned off by corrupt local regimes.

John O'Shea is talking about corruption in general ( which inherently effects any aid given and is part of the problem of thirdworldyness) this is the reason he quotes the WB.

As for neo-liberal conditions attached to aid - privitisation is good

ah those Bolivians and their resource wars are awful silly then aren't they, they don't have clue what they are talking about just like me, John O'Shea should go give them a telling off.

Dirk Gently

Just to add another interesting point about the U.S. neo cons:

When Bush ran for election the first time they promised to take a lesser role in international affairs and interventionism. One of his main points was that the U.S. should not be a world police man and vowed to concentrate primarily on internal American affairs. Apparently 9/11 changed all that and they adopted the interventionist world police man role with avengence.

This clown thinks it was all bull from the start though and they neo conned the American public as to their true intentions to intervene and manipulate regions into adopting neo liberal economics. (New American century and all that)

Sand

Considering the interventionists are mainly the U.S. and the neo-conservatives in the bush admin are also neo-liberals the two terms go hand in hand.

Okay, so only free trade supporters in the US would favour sending troops to stop massacres in Rwanda, or Darfur? Nobody else would care? Very cynical Clown, but I guess I cant contradict you given no one has moved to protect people in Darfur apart from an AU deployment which is undermanned and unable to secure the area.

John O'Shea is talking about corruption in general ( which inherently effects any aid given and is part of the problem of thirdworldyness) this is the reason he quotes the WB.

Yup, and this is a problem how? If he can quote the WB to support his arguments for attaching conditions to aid such as combatting corruption then surely its good that the WB is moving onside?

Well it was good for the Bolivians wasnt it? - sell companies to investors, wait a few years while the new buyers invest in the companies, then steal them back. Thats the problem with resource economies - you dont need rule of law to build a taxable functioning economy, you can pay for an army based on oil exports.

Apparently 9/11 changed all that and they adopted the interventionist world police man role with avengence.

Yeah, when events occur where everyone remembers where they were when they heard about it tend to impact best laid plans. If 9/11 hadnt happened Bush would probably be best remembered for winding up NATO, concentrating on latin american politics, and probably African aid plans.

Dirk Gently

Sand wrote:

. If 9/11 hadnt happened Bush would probably be best remembered for winding up NATO, concentrating on latin american politics, and probably African aid plans.

Of course he would:rolleyes:

I'm sure many in Latin American are breathing a sigh of relief that he is too busy making war elsewhere to intervene with as much enthusiasm as he would like in Latin American affairs, although he still does his best to enforce his neo-liberal agenda on the region despite having his military too stretched to put significant numbers of overt troops on the sovereign Latino ground. He seems to be limited to training right wing paramilitaries, giving tactical support and funding opposition groups within the countries who don’t support his agenda for the moment.

Helping his poor African brothers and sisters? No doubt he would jump on opportunities to privatise profitable industries into the hands of multi-nationals but I doubt he would be too worried about the plight of the masses. I don't reckon he would have put too much effort into public health care, affordable drug treatments, irrigation projects or changing of crop production to suit the food needs of the African people as opposed to growing products to sell to western markets. His priorities are less about improving the standards of living for Africans and more about improving private profit.

His primary role is to secure private control and would not support any aid packages which didn't give him a good return. It's not so much aid as a high interest loan benefiting the private sector. No doubt handing over wads of cash to tin pot dictators is not the answer, but private enterprise serves only the interest of the private owners and not the community at large.
Tin pot dictator - privately owned industry, either way it’s a bad deal for the people who the aid was supposedly intended.

I’m not sure what his intentions towards NATO would have been to be honest but I don’t think he would have let it die out of fear of a rival exclusively European military alliance been created between EU members. In fairness this alliance has happened to a degree but not with the enthusiasm there would have been if NATO ceased to exist I think.

I am a quite the cynical bistard aren’t I.

lostexpectation

what qualifies a sports journalist to be CEO of goal, how did he get the job? do his subordinates agree with him, do other NGOs agree with privitisations and interventionism?

I don't think sending in a western force to darfour is the right thing to do.

Sand

Of course he would

Getting well off the point at this stage...

what qualifies a sports journalist to be CEO of goal, how did he get the job? do his subordinates agree with him, do other NGOs agree with privitisations and interventionism?

I guess he volunteered and went to work? Maybe his subordinates are practical rather than politial - theyre interested in arguing for policies that will save lives, not simply demonising the WB. /me shrugs. As for other NGOs, ask them.

I don't think sending in a western force to darfour is the right thing to do.

Really? Theres 300,000 reasons why the 2,000 AU troops patrolling a region the size of France need reinforcement from the rich, humane and militarily powerful EU...

But I guess youre right. It could get messy. Things might go wrong. Better to wait. See what happens. Maybe someone else will fix it and take the heat if mistakes are made. We can make Hotel Rwanda 2 in a few years. Perhaps the Sudanese government will step in. Lets send them money and not check what they do with it.

DadaKopf

I think it’s OK for campaigners to quote World Bank studies and statistics, considering it is one of the largest development research institions in the world. They simply have to much money and people to ignore. But all statistics, not just the Bank’s, must be cross-checked and they’re by no means the holy grail of information. The Bank is filled with some incredible analysts, but also with very unimaginative, blinkered researchers, mostly trained in a handful of Western universities – and, often, the imaginative thinkers are weeded out through the Bank’s internal disciplinary mechanisms. But quoting its President, a political stooge who heads one of the most opaque, undemocratic public institutions in the world, whose role is to set and strengthen primarily US and British foreign policy is hardly responsible.

Here’s what the Bretton Woods Project in the UK says about Wolfowitz’s Bank policies on corruption:

Former president James Wolfensohn liked to take credit for committing the Bank in 1996 to "fight the cancer of corruption". Over the past months, Wolfowitz has ordered a halt on hundreds of millions in Bank lending to countries across the globe; initiated a framework to coordinate multilateral development banks' anti-corruption efforts; and ordered internal reviews of Bank programmes plagued by corruption. However, his tactics have come in for severe criticism - by allowing high-profile projects to come all the way to the final stages of board approval before stepping in to postpone them, Wolfowitz appears to be aiming more at members of the US senate foreign relations committee (who have led a two-year investigation into corruption at the multilateral development banks) than at solving a complex problem. What is needed are both internal reforms in the Bank's accountability systems, and fundamental changes in the way the organisation does business, particularly when funding infrastructure and oil, gas and mining. A recent discussion paper circulated to board members obtained by the Bretton Woods Project suggests that Wolfowitz may take steps on the former but is unlikely to touch the latter.

Hardly an independent reference, nor someone genuinely interested in African development.

GOAT_Ali wrote:

John O'Shea does a hell of a lot of talking up on that 'soap box' of his. Damn ego tripper couldn't give a toss about poverty and hunger, just trying to make a name for himself.

IronMan wrote:

John O'Shea is the representative for one of the best run charities in the world.

That’s a matter of debate. One person I know who worked there said something along the lines of, “I’ve never seen an organization filled with so many great people utterly strangled by one man”.

IronMan wrote:

It requires a scrapping of trade sanctions, and radical changes in governance in these countries. A two pronged approach.

It requires a helluva lot more than this, and O’Shea pedals a childishly simplistic, and racist, image of Africa for the purposes of publicity.

lostexpectation wrote:

Look Trocaire is a conservative NGO but has chosen to keep a vocal critical stance on these international institutions.

I don’t see Trócaire as conservative. True, it’s the Irish NGO of the Catholic church, but is significantly staffed by laypeople and liberation theologist clergy (so radical Pope John Paul II despised the liberation theologists). They retain a sharp focus on social justice and sustainable development, rather than patching up holes as Goal does. Trócaire’s most recent analysis of the UN Millennium Development Goals was so radical that it called for nothing less than a complete restructuring of the whole political, economic and social world system.

GOAT_Ali wrote:

Would O'Shea not be fuming that Governments are giving money to corrupt regimes because he would rather it be given to GOAL so they could do as the pleased with it?

Exactly. “Don’t give those dirty N-words the money, give me, the honest Irish loveable rogue the money!”

GOAT_Ali wrote:

Africa is a windfall for a lot of these charitries, an easy earner as it is constantly in drought. The bottom line is that these so called charities are businesses that make profit and pay people good money, so this genuine mercy claim is all a bit much. I'd doubt if half of them ever crossed the bloody road to help their own neighbour.

Again I ask what has O'Shea ever done for people in Ireland. I'd realy love to see the guy pleading with our government on behalf of our homeless kids, our deplorable Health system, absurd crime levels and rip off culture. He'd gain a hell of a lot more respect and credibility if he started his "mercy missions" at home!!!!

Except for your blatant lack of knowledge about how NGOs operate and spend, you bring up a common attitude that’s worth commenting on regarding O’Shea. Firstly, since our world is rapidly globalizing, boundaries between foreign and local are blurring. Part of the reason Africa is de-developing is due to our own societies, but there are plenty of people to go around to work at home and abroad. I hope you’re not yourself motivated by insular nationalism. You should actually ask yourself what you are doing to ‘fix’ Ireland? However, even in his self-declared responsibility to single-handedly save Africa, O’Shea doesn’t even bother lobbying Irish politicians to get to work dismantling our own barriers to African development. About a year ago, O’Shea got the Dáil foreign affairs committee table a discussion on aid, he was invited by the chairman to debrief the committee but he didn’t bother attending, saying that the committee already knew his views so he didn’t have to bother going along, most likely because he didn’t know what he was talking about. Very irresponsible. There’s nothing wrong with concentrating your work outside of Ireland, but I think there’s something wrong with acting like you have something to contribute but not bothering to actually do his bit here to fix things over there.

Sand wrote:

Maybe John O Shea isnt trying to influence you but it is trying to influence political will to demand anti-corruption measures to go hand in hand with aid.

If O’Shea isn’t actually engaging politicians to change things, he’s hardly trying to influence change at all. It’s a very lazy lobbying strategy. Goal isn’t even a member of Dóchas, Ireland’s NGO umbrella body, nor does Goal actively engage in national lobbying campaigns on an individual basis. Who, then, can O’Shea be appealing to? The public whose money he wants? The government, who he can embarrass into giving him money to unsustainable emergency projects (I heard this from an official)? Who’s exploiting whom here?

Sand wrote:

Neo conservitism is just rebranded moral, idealist intervention for the U.S market - I wouldnt call Blair a neo-con, as I dont think the name has any real meaning outside the U.S. but its clear hes idealistic and willing to risk interventions. Think of this way, if you favoured sending troops into Rwanda, Srebinica or Darfur then you favour intervention.

I agree with you here, mostly. Although, neo-conservatism or whatever label we end up discussing is a discursive construction that permits business as usual. What continues is the expansion of capitalist corporate power and the restructuring of forms of life, economically, politically, socially, culturally. In the 1970s, this was done through ‘social democracy’ etc, now it’s ‘neo-liberalism’.

But I’d like to get back to Mr. O’Shea. I don’t think he’s neo-what or post-anything. He’s just a loudmouth who uses this corruption argument to raise funds for Goal and tells lies left, right and centre.

DadaKopf

I’m not sure whether anyone’s kept up with his little arguments with Irish Aid.

On the 30th November 2005, O’Shea wrote to the Irish Times:

Madam, - Your Editorial of November 17th points out that it behoves Development Co-operation Ireland to ensure Irish aid money is spent efficiently, and that it must be proofed against corruption and other misuse. That is the single most important sentence to appear in a newspaper for a long time.

You are absolutely right - yet the Irish Government will hand the Ethiopian and Ugandan governments €70 million of taxpayers' cash in the coming year, despite their atrocious record on human rights and political corruption. Both leaders are dictators; both have blood on their hands; and both have been severely criticised for their callous treatment of their own citizens.

Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia has admitted massacring 42 of his citizens in mid-November, and 36 last June, as they marched on the streets of Addis Ababa protesting at the rigged presidential elections. The US, the EU and the World Bank, together with a number of countries, have announced they will be reviewing aid.

Yoweri Museveni of Uganda has, despite opposition from US president George Bush and others, decided to make himself president for an unprecedented third term. His record on human rights is among the worst of any leader in Africa, prompting the World Bank to cut aid last week.

Irish taxpayers are right to expect basic respect for human rights and political transparency from recipient governments in this multi-million-euro aid industry. Propping up these two regimes goes against the norms of morality, and must end now. - Yours, etc,

JOHN O'SHEA, GOAL, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.

Then the Minister, Conor Lenihan, wrote back:

GOAL, the development NGO, is a valued partner of the Government. We work closely together. Over the period 2003-2005, the Government provided €39 million to support GOAL’s activities.

John O’Shea, the Chief Executive of the organisation, is a strong advocate of the needs of the poor all around the world and his work and commitment are admirable.

Mr. O’Shea is a consistent critic of the assistance provided by Irish Aid in partnership with a number of African Governments.

Sadly, he is equally consistent in the inaccuracy of his criticisms.

For example, in a letter to The Irish Independent on 3 February, Mr. O’Shea asserted that the UK Government had decided “to end all financial support to the Meles regime” in Ethiopia “but the Irish Government had taken an entirely different view.”

In a letter to the London Times of 19 January, the UK Secretary for International Development wrote: “I have not decided to reduce the aid budget to Ethiopia, nor have I made a decision to reallocate funds to non-government aid agencies or the UN.

I have made a decision not to give budget support which the Ethiopian Government can use for any purpose. I remain committed to supporting the poor people of Ethiopia.

I therefore hope that we will be able to continue to support basic services for poor people such as education and health and water through a new mechanism”

No Irish Government monies go directly to the Government of Ethiopia via direct or general budget support. Indeed, the UK Government will most likely divert monies into the Social Safety Nets programme, following our example.

On today’s Pat Kenny Show, Mr. O’Shea said that the decision by four visiting Ethiopian officials to seek political asylum in Ireland “has the potential to be the most embarrassing situation the Irish Government has found itself in decades”.

This is sheer nonsense. Under international law the four officials are entitled to apply for asylum and a decision on their application is a matter for the Department of Justice.

I am delighted to note that South Dublin County Council have decided to continue with the Ethiopian Links Project despite this development. The Council presumably recognise that it would be morally unacceptable to punish some of the most vulnerable poor people in Ethiopia because of the behaviour of four officials.

These are just some examples. There are many, many more.

In their recent appearance before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Trocaire and Concern expressed the view that the Irish Government should continue to provide aid to Ethiopia at current levels or higher, and that the most effective way of providing this aid is through Ethiopian Government structures.

In the aid programme, we are trying to deliver assistance to people in some of the most difficult operating environments in the world.

This presents huge challenges. Those challenges underline the reasons we are working in those countries in the first place.

I am happy to discuss these issues with John O’Shea at any time.

I had hoped to be able to debate them with Mr. O’Shea in the context of a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, but he did not show up.

I would note that the hearing was set up at his request and the Committee, I understand, were eager to accommodate him with convenient dates yet he still declined to appear.

I had hoped to debate them with him in the course of a recent interview with Newstalk, but he would not come on. Mr. O’Shea has also declined to debate these issues with the direct subject of his criticism.

In August 2003, he declined to meet with Ugandan Ministers who came to Ireland specifically to discuss issues of concern with him and with the Department of Foreign Affairs. In November of that year, he declined to meet with President Museveni of Uganda and discuss his concerns. In a letter to the Irish Examiner on 22 February, Mr. O’Shea said that it is “time for a serious look at how the Government channels aid”. I am happy to have a serious discussion with Mr. O’Shea. Hit and run tactics do not constitute a serious discussion.

I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the challenges facing the programme with Mr. O’Shea in private, in public, or both.

What a rip. So, he gets his facts wrong, he doesn’t even bother meeting the Ugandan president, he hides behind the editorial pages of the national newspapers instead of meeting people of influence. People have told me he also isn’t interested to speaking to the Africans who work for him.

Don’t get me wrong, Goal workers do excellent work. However, John O’Shea is pedaling unhelpful stereotypes and inaccurate information and, most of all, damaging public support for aid.

As for his argument that developed world NGOs – i.e. Irish ones – are more virtuous than African governments smacks of racism. Why are NGOs instantly any better than governments? And what NGO can provide the services only governments can? Are NGOs and their projects sustainable? Can NGOs be trusted to provide national healthcare, for example? Why can’t African governments be helped to develop their own systems?

Which brings me to my final point: companies in rich countries fuel corruption. We’d be much better off ratifying the UN Convention Against Corruption, which our government signed but has not made into law. We should make it illegal for Irish companies to bribe officials in foreign countries

National governments should also seize the assets acquired by corrupt officials over the years, stored in banks in rich countries, and plough them back into African development. We should have laws to do this. The odious debts accrued by dictators must be cancelled.

Our government should provide further assistance to developing countries to enact their own anti-corruption legislation, fund their anti-corruption departments, continue support to local government reform, fund anti-corruption NGOs and support free press because a free press is instrumental in reducing corruption (ironically, this has happened in Uganda).

Finally, O’Shea only harps on about countries that he himself selects, regardless of the extent of corruption, in particular, Ugandan, Ethiopia and Mozambique. The thing is, there are way worse countries. According to Transparency International, Ethiopia is 21st from the bottom. Uganda is less corrupt still, and Mozambique is way up there. So his criticisms don’t really correspond to reality.

democrates

There's no sense in preaching to the converted.
I suspect he's deliberately targetting the unconvinced right wing and name-dropping their idols to get their attention rather than be instantly dismissed as a tree-hugging pinko.

lostexpectation

we've had this arguement before I don't know if it was me that brought it up that time, but it just seems O'Shea gets his letters in the papers automatically because its Goal.

And its 7,000 AU troops, I dunno you could just fund them more help them with logistics, I dunno I guess worrying about outside meddling its just as likley these AU troops mght peacemake in favour of their own countries too.

and its these rightwingers that need convinvcing are the most likley to want a sweetner for helping, so **** em

democrates

Mixed reports on JOS here.
I wonder if Goal have erred in deploying a public face as CEO. I imagine his media experience, public profile, energy, and enthusiasm for the work helped convince the board of his suitability, and it would seem he's on the attack and stirring up public interest. But if his output is as open to discrediting as it seems here and the Goal 'brand' is tarnished just as he's got everyones attention, and thereby achievement of Goal's goals is undermined, the board may now be considering the safe hands requirement for CEOs. Whomever fulfills the spokesperson role needs accurate information and a wisely managed diary.

There seem to be disparate views on what constitutes interference or 'meddling'.
Libertarians argue that almost everything should be left to the invisible hand of the free market, rather than state-controlled, which they call 'social engineering'.

But 'free' markets are used as a pr mechanism, a cover under which capitalism dominates. Capitalism is predicated on the division of society into company owners, employees who serve, and the rest who can rot. It's goal is to concentrate wealth with owners. It is often to the detriment of the many, and even when the lot of the many is improved, the lot of the few is improved vastly moreso - as planned. It's ultimate aim is to enable a parasitic investor elite. And as capitalism is not just a theory, but a reality that has spread almost everywhere, it is in truth a vast global exercise in anti-social engineering.

The IMF and World Bank are both based in Washington DC, and the USA has a sole veto in both. Nothing can get through unless the USA approves. They have thus been rendered as instruments of the washington consensus. Often Keynes is referred to as the father of these institutions which were born at Bretton Woods after WWII, but how wrong, it was the USA delegate Harry Dexter White who secured their institution, rejecting Keynes' revolutionary International Clearing Union concept that would equalise nations over time, in favour of the USA proposition where the rich got richer.

I postulated in my previous post that JOS may be appealing to right-wingers by quoting their idols, but on the other hand Goal must be careful not to alienate its core support base by appearing to align with the enemy. Perception is reality.

DadaKopf

But what's all this to do with John O'Shea? Like I said, I really don't think he espouses a 'neoliberal' viewpoint, I don't think he's ideological in any form. I don't think he gives too much power to BWI ideologues because they don't listen to him. His arguments are implicitly racist, though. He creates a perception of Africans are genetically unable to look after themselves, an argument that recasts the "white man's burden" for the 21st century. He is the gallant white man saving Africa from the Africans.

This isn't, however, to say that Goal employees (Irish and non-Irish) are like this.

So, while discussing ideology is interesting and all (and there are buckets of threads already on boards.ie about it), in discussing John O'Shea's part in it, I really think it's irrelevant except for what his views represent: "black baby syndrome".

JOS may be appealing to right-wingers by quoting their idols, but on the other hand Goal must be careful not to alienate its core support base by appearing to align with the enemy.

Well, put it this way. He's appealing to his constituency of core Goal funders - he's struck a chord with them that pays off financially for his organisation.

democrates

If he's saying Africans cannot develop without our aid I'd agree it's ott. But we know many Africans are and have been disadvantaged by external influences, from the cap to dictator support in return for resource extraction, to imf/world bank free market and privatisation prescriptions. It seems he's opposed to this, and wishes our effects were instead positive. I agree with that position, though I don't necessarily share his entire analysis of the problem.

In order to analyse the problems of africa and conceive solutions, recourse to your own moral code (ideology if you will), is inescapable. Accounts of transactions, the text of agreements, and other historical records are just data. We can only judge them as good or bad by reference to our beliefs of what constitutes right and wrong. This goes equally for a discussion of JOS and his statements. First we compare his facts to the historical record, then we compare his position against our own 'ideology'.

In any event the thread title includes ideology straight off. You don't wish to discuss ideology, fair enough, but others are happy to, in my book that's aok.

lostexpectation

DadaKopf wrote:

But what's all this to do with John O'Shea? Like I said, I really don't think he espouses a 'neoliberal' viewpoint, I don't think he's ideological in any form. I don't think he gives too much power to BWI ideologues because they don't listen to him. His arguments are implicitly racist, though. He creates a perception of Africans are genetically unable to look after themselves, an argument that recasts the "white man's burden" for the 21st century. He is the gallant white man saving Africa from the Africans.

This isn't, however, to say that Goal employees (Irish and non-Irish) are like this.

So, while discussing ideology is interesting and all (and there are buckets of threads already on boards.ie about it), in discussing John O'Shea's part in it, I really think it's irrelevant except for what his views represent: "black baby syndrome".


Well, put it this way. He's appealing to his constituency of core Goal funders - he's struck a chord with them that pays off financially for his organisation.

i actually thought his rhetoric was targeting African dictators, (and was no more guilty of black baby syndrome then any other overseas aid group), dictators that deserve targeting but he was being hypocrtical because the IMF/WB back these dictators to the hilt when it suits them and help depose elected leaders and worsen the democratic health of nations when it suits them too, I just thought he been hanging round with these neocon people too long. I wonder if he was involved in setting up GOAL USA and got socked into some multi-million greenwash type operation for the rich there.

DadaKopf

Honestly, I don't think African leaders read the Limerick Leader or Galway Tribune.

And considering he doesn't meet Ugandan ministers when they visit Ireland, I don't think he's too bothered "targeting African dictators", eh?

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making.

lostexpectation

presuming the Ugandan leader ain't too legit, I just think he was making a point, by not meeting him, yeah so all the Irish readers here is World bank this Bush that.

I guess he might be doing a bit of B.B.S. by not showing faith in the democratic peoples movement.

DadaKopf

Sorry, I didn't understand a word of that. Could you explain more clearly, please?

He makes a habit of not meeting Ugandan ministers. He also makes a habit of not reading things he pontificates about. For example, he was on RTE radio one morning saying the UN should be torn down - he was responding to Kofi Annan's launch of the UN reform document, In Larger Freedom. He went up against another expert from an Irish NGO and it was blatantly obvious O'Shea hadn't read the thing. The other guy talked circles around him, dissected and rebutted all of his nonsense.

But the Goal brandname got out there. That's what O'Shea does. It's publicity which transforms into fundraising with no regard for the damage his strategy doing to public support for aid, and the miserable way he talks about the world's poor.

gbh

What people like John O'Shea should be saying is that we should be weaning developing nations off of AID altogether and towards an alternative source of income. Of course starving people need aid, and of course there will always be corruption and therefore probably better to channel to those most at need. But Aid always will find its way to the corrupt no matter if you give it to the poorest of the poor...it will be confiscated by armies etc.

You don't make a country less corrupt by pouring free money and supplies into it. You make the people less self sufficient and you only encourage corruption in the long term.

democrates

Well put.
Reminds me of
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day,
teach a man a fish and you feed him for life."
except Africans know how to survive in normal circumstances, but wars, climate change and outside manipulation are keeping them on their knees.

I don't think aid should be a stigma. Handouts when they're not necessary are not a long term solution I agree, but things like schools, wells, clinics, training, medical supplies, seeds, farming implements, grain mills, and so on make a huge difference.

Rich nations have spent the last 500 years extracting resources from africa, yet our bankers and investment houses claim they owe us a trillion dollars. Frankly I believe aid should be renamed "class war reparations", but then I'm not a diplomat.

lostexpectation

gbh wrote:

What people like John O'Shea should be saying is that we should be weaning developing nations off of AID altogether and towards an alternative source of income. Of course starving people need aid, and of course there will always be corruption and therefore probably better to channel to those most at need. But Aid always will find its way to the corrupt no matter if you give it to the poorest of the poor...it will be confiscated by armies etc.

You don't make a country less corrupt by pouring free money and supplies into it. You make the people less self sufficient and you only encourage corruption in the long term.

no i don't think he is because by quoting his neocon friends he saying replace aid with foreign investment with only helps the few, and privitisation and new loans, which we know to be equally crippling.

gbh

Goal do a good job in a short time frame. They rank among the best in the world at reacting to disasters, natural or manmade, and putting the victims in a position to rebuild their lives. And you wouldn't expect more than this.

But to expect Goal, with its limited and stretched budget, and with the absence of say economic advisors for example, to turn around a country and solve poverty is too much.

So Goal have a place. But when they critise governments it is usually in the way aid is distributed, not in the way countries are ran and should be run.

And whatever you might say about the governments of some developing countries, many are still the legitimately elected government of the country and therefore deserve at least to be included in some way in the aid process.

gbh

lostexpectation wrote:

no i don't think he is because by quoting his neocon friends he saying replace aid with foreign investment with only helps the few, and privitisation and new loans, which we know to be equally crippling.

So now I am a neocon?

Anyways... you say that foreign investment only helps the few. You're wrong. This country survives on foreign investment. And labour goes where foreign investment goes. So if all foreign investors pulled out in the morning, both you and I would probably have to emigrate to find jobs.

Foreign investment is an incredibly powerful way to ensure fairness and equal prosperity in a nation. A closed society without foreign investment as Ireland mostly was up to the 1990's certainly benefiited the few with a lot having to go abroad to find employment. You seem to be advocating a return to that.

And the same goes for developing nations. Without foreign investment most are unsustainable. I also used to think that privatisation in developing nations was a bad idea, but have come to the conclusion contrary to your 'we know' view, that putting public money into inefficient industries managed and run usually by corrupt friends of the government, money which could be more wisely and democratically spent in schools and hospitals, is a worse idea.

As for new loans, not until countries prove that they would be able to pay them back. Giving loans to people like Mobutu will always be of course a bad idea as it would to his socialist counterpart in another country.

lostexpectation

gbh wrote:

So now I am a neocon?

Anyways... you say that foreign investment only helps the few. You're wrong. This country survives on foreign investment. And labour goes where foreign investment goes. So if all foreign investors pulled out in the morning, both you and I would probably have to emigrate to find jobs.

Foreign investment is an incredibly powerful way to ensure fairness and equal prosperity in a nation. A closed society without foreign investment as Ireland mostly was up to the 1990's certainly benefiited the few with a lot having to go abroad to find employment. You seem to be advocating a return to that.

And the same goes for developing nations. Without foreign investment most are unsustainable. I also used to think that privatisation in developing nations was a bad idea, but have come to the conclusion contrary to your 'we know' view, that putting public money into inefficient industries managed and run usually by corrupt friends of the government, money which could be more wisely and democratically spent in schools and hospitals, is a worse idea.

As for new loans, not until countries prove that they would be able to pay them back. Giving loans to people like Mobutu will always be of course a bad idea as it would to his socialist counterpart in another country.

foerign investment has not fixed all our ails(sp?) has it, and didn't say no foreign investment I was talking of unmoderated foreign investment

Sand

That’s a matter of debate. One person I know who worked there said something along the lines of, “I’ve never seen an organization filled with so many great people utterly strangled by one man”.

Wow, an ex-employee who doesnt like his old boss. Theres a first.

It requires a helluva lot more than this, and O’Shea pedals a childishly simplistic, and racist, image of Africa for the purposes of publicity.

Racist? They really need to redefine Godwins.

Trócaire’s most recent analysis of the UN Millennium Development Goals was so radical that it called for nothing less than a complete restructuring of the whole political, economic and social world system.

So it was a practical, easily achievable plan of action then? That should be easily sold to governments.

Exactly. “Don’t give those dirty N-words the money, give me, the honest Irish loveable rogue the money!”

Godwins * 2

And its 7,000 AU troops, I dunno you could just fund them more help them with logistics, I dunno I guess worrying about outside meddling its just as likley these AU troops mght peacemake in favour of their own countries too.

Well, I guess my source is lying then though with a country the size of France 2000-7000, its still not enough as the refugees will testify given that women going for water risk attack, rape and death or mutilation.

As for logistics, thats exactly exactly what white soldiers are for on UN missions. Read "We Did Nothing", by Linda Polman. In it she describes the UN camp in Somalia. The richer, more developed Europeans all camped in the the center where it was safest and sunbathed. They never went out on patrol in Mogadishu, instead cooking the food, or maintaining the latrines. The poorer, less developed Africans and (to a lesser degree) Asians were camped on the edges - if the camp was attacked, operation "Get behind Darkie" would go into effect. These were the guys who went out on patrol, and guarded the gates, and generally went where it was dangerous - hence 18 of them getting slaughtered by the militias in one ambush.

Justify it how you like, but despite boasting powerful, well trained and professional militaries European and other developed nations are very, very, very, very slow to risk even a handful of casualties for the sake of mere Africans. The people in Darfur do not require screams of "neo imperialism", nor do they require government aid to the government attempting to murder them. They require first and foremost their right to life to be defended, from their own government.

Oh and funding them more? Most poor nations do not provide UN bonuses to their troops - instead they pocket it for their own needs. Thats why theyre so eager to send their troops to UN missions - the government gets paid. Do you honestly believe extra funding will reach the troops on the ground in any shape or form?

Capitalism is predicated on the division of society into company owners, employees who serve, and the rest who can rot.

Actually thats class warfare - not a capitalist doctrine as far as Im aware. If capitalism even has a doctrine.

on the other hand Goal must be careful not to alienate its core support base by appearing to align with the enemy. Perception is reality.

Why? Surely what works to assist the desperately poor is most important, not bitter hatreds of rival idealogies? If that is truly the state of the aid industry then its no wonder Africa has fallen behind Asia in properity despite billions and billions of aid.

His arguments are implicitly racist, though. He creates a perception of Africans are genetically unable to look after themselves, an argument that recasts the "white man's burden" for the 21st century. He is the gallant white man saving Africa from the Africans.

Actually JOS as far as I know states some facts - such as, a lot of African governments are corupt. Please dont challenge that; its indisputable and Im not going to waste time on it. Instead you can talk to Irelands consul to Sierra Leone who wrote a letter to the Irish Times today describing the effect corruption had on the country during his time there. Oh wait, hes probably racist too.

Saying corruption is rife in African governments = racism!!!

JOS does not create a perception that Africans are genetically unable to look after themselves, he argues that corrupt governments need to be circumvented to ensure aid reaches the intended target. Dont blame him for any perception of Africans and their capabilities you may have.

He makes a habit of not meeting Ugandan ministers.

Oh really, I wonder why. Oh thats right - the Ugandan government has been a very real worry in terms of stepping backwards towards oppression and a number of aid agencies working with them have suspended co-operation due to "financial mismanagement". I guess the BBC are racist too now? Well, they are British, and we all know what the British are like.

Or maybe JOS had concerns about the Ugandan government before it became world news?

no i don't think he is because by quoting his neocon friends he saying replace aid with foreign investment with only helps the few, and privitisation and new loans, which we know to be equally crippling.

Take down the barriers to free trade, allow free movement of capital to provide investment, provide security and tolerable governance (this is where the government steps in) and Africa will bloom.

The defintion of madness is to keep trying the same thing and expecting different results. With Africa, it might be worth giving them a chance to compete on even terms. Foreign capital worked for Ireland - it can work for Africa as well.

foerign investment has not fixed all our ails(sp?) has it, and didn't say no foreign investment I was talking of unmoderated foreign investment

Has not fixed all our ails? You know, theres really no point discussing that particular point any further. There just really isnt. Ive got motivation for my DOD game now though. Cheers.

DadaKopf

Sand wrote:

Actually JOS as far as I know states some facts - such as, a lot of African governments are corupt. Please dont challenge that; its indisputable and Im not going to waste time on it. Instead you can talk to Irelands consul to Sierra Leone who wrote a letter to the Irish Times today describing the effect corruption had on the country during his time there. Oh wait, hes probably racist too.

Saying corruption is rife in African governments = racism!!!

JOS does not create a perception that Africans are genetically unable to look after themselves, he argues that corrupt governments need to be circumvented to ensure aid reaches the intended target. Dont blame him for any perception of Africans and their capabilities you may have.

Why would I say African governments aren't corrupt when they are? That'd be like saying European countries aren't corrupt. You won't find me lying. Did you know that the money in Africa lost to corruption is equal to amount of money lost to VAT fraud in the EU? Did you know that one of the most effective ways of making governments accountable to their people is through tax administrative reform and effective revenue collection?

Oh, and here's a whole website dedicated to corruption research and action in the aid industry that shows just how interested the aid industry is in corruption.

That's not racist, but refusing to talk to African aid workers for Goal with many more years of experience than the Irish wan beside him with much less experience is.

What O'Shea does is misrepresents how difficult it is to tackle corruption. You simply can't demand 'better governance' while ignoring the state. O'Shea erroneuously believes that conditionalities force African officials to become less corrupt. Numerous IMF, World Bank, Irish Aid, NGO and independent research reports (now reflected in official policies) agree that this is counterproductive. Conditions like these don't work. Creating a sense of ownership over development and pursuing deeper relationships with governments and societies of the developing world is actually working. When I get my list together, I'll show you exactly how this approach is working. Perhaps you saw in the Irish Times last Saturday how the Tanzanian Local Government Reform Programme and the Tanzania Assistance Strategy is working to reduce corruption and strengthen civil society to demand better governance. That's just one example of how deeper engagement is working.

See, O'Shea thinks development aid is emergency aid - his arguments for more money is fine in the short-term where you're engaged in firefighting actions, but real development work means you have to be in for the long haul.

When he trumps up about him being able to save Africa's problems instead of Africans themselves, he contributes to creating a potentially very bad policy situation for Irish Aid and NGOs.

gbh

I think we can all agree that Africa is lacking strong and effective political leadership on a range of levels. Now you can say this is the fault of the current crop of leaders. However, some are good, some are bad. I think the Nigerian Central Bank head was voted best Central Banker in the world recently.

Compare that with say Zimbabwe, where it is clear Mugabe has to go and is an impediment to better younger leaders coming to the fore, through his mix of populism and inability to make tough decisions for the good of the country.

I think we should all agree that three term and more for presidents is a bad thing for any country and only good for the president. This is where presidents need to put their country first. At the same time, two terms can fly by and you can't make an indent into poverty in that time usually, unless you have good policies.

However I think while we have a good basis in democracy in the west dating back to the ancient Greeks, Africans are really still learning the democratic process. Mostly they learn it the hard way, ie, one leader gets too big for his boots, won't leave and the people rise up. They have to learn power sharing as well, but they are thankfully coming around to this.

What Africa needs is stability across the continent and in politics so policies can be put in place to end poverty. Stability also attracts investment, as does democracy. Instability and lack of power sharing scares it away.

As for JOS and corrupt leadership, if he is speaking out on behalf of say the poorest of the poor in places like Uganda or Kenya, where there can be a large gap between rich and poor, then I am all for that.

But to be honest, I do see JOS in the same light as Mother Theresa, doing a vital job on the ground to keep people alive. But I am not so sure Mother Theresa was able to make India a more equitable society.