Goal John O'Shea rogue charity maniac not saint.

lostexpectation

Did anyone see him on the late late last week
http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/av_20071019.html?2302603,null,228

it was the 30 anniversary of goal, I didn't see a caring sensitive man,as he cried over his stories of impoverished kids, I saw a person broken by his own obsession to be the only man who can sort out the problems of the world. He may have started out to be a good fund raiser with connections to celebrity sports people but he has no qualifications to be in the position he's in or to judge social justice or development issues.

Has he ever done one of those development course or anything?

John O'Shea goes even further than that. He envisions a situation where Western governments would go into Africa and act as a huge international humanitarian agency, with an army to force policies. "What should happen, if governments had enough vision or determination, they should go in as a government and implement themselves but keep the chequebook. Go in as a huge aid agency - in other words as a huge multinational. So for example, the US goes into a country, Uganda, tomorrow. It builds 20,000 clinics, 50,000 schools, and hands them over to the government and warns that government that if it does not run them properly, it will turn everything against them that they have; the World Bank, the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the UN and if we had a standing army, we turn that against them. That's the only way to deal with these people," says John O'Shea. Back to colonisation, then? "I don't consider that colonisation... What the colonialists did was disgraceful in many, many ways. But do we have to worry about the sins of our forefathers? The governments that go in will need to act as a responsible humanitarian agency. If they go in to act in a corrupt way themselves then I would rather that they do not go in."

Back to colonisation, then? "I don't consider that colonisation... What the colonialists did was disgraceful in many, many ways. But do we have to worry about the sins of our forefathers? The governments that go in will need to act as a responsible humanitarian agency. If they go in to act in a corrupt way themselves then I would rather that they do not go in."

http://www.metroeireann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53&Itemid=54


now he didn't say anything that sounded crazy during the interview with pat, he pretty much said the same thing that the so called international community ie the US military should go whether they have the permission of Sudan and China is blocking greater use of force that he wants.

who is it that regulates the work done by these charities over seas?

why has goal been able to work unchecked for 30 years when most other irish aid agencies think what he does is crazy?

here''s another rogue charity trying to take a groups chadian/sudanese children to europe without permission
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mhmhmhsnidgb/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071026/ap_on_re_eu/france_darfur_children
http://fe6.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071026/wl_afp/chadfrancesudandarfurcrimechildren_071026144731

you can see in the picture beside the yahoo news article that one of the group is holding up a piece of paper from the chad authorities, but it doesnt' seem that every authority was happy about it the president is pissed at them.
ooh look they're called 'humanitarian mercenaries' http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2200125,00.html

tallaght01

John O Shea and and GOAL do, in my opinion, very good work. There's always a lot of debate about what the best strategies are when dealing with international development issues. I don't know if his ideas would work in practise, but i think he's just venting a little. We all know that the UN will never act on his suggestions. He nows that, he's not dumb. I rememebr watching him a few years back begging, literally begging, the UN and the international community to get involved in Dharfur 4 years ago when it all kicked off there. I watched him on the international BBC news channel, pretty much losing the rag as he was sat in a refugee camp telling stories of how most of the women in there had ben raped, the sheer unimaginable violence perpetrated towards innocent civilians and the starvation suffered by these people. This is only one of the many catastrophes that GOAL have been involved in,and where the west has failed so many innocents.

He, like many (in particular those who work FOR the UN) seems to me to be just broken, by years of inaction at govenrment level. I mean, it has to be said that the efforts of the internatiional community in dealing with the various crises that seem to develop annualy in sub-saharan Africa are truly abysmal.I mean they really make me ashamed to be represented by these people.

I don't know the answers. I don't have the solutions. But I reckon John O'Shea is one of the good guys, and I reckon GOAL do a lot of good work, and seem to be quite highly thought of in the NGO world.

Mick86

His constant ranting has turned him into a bit of a joke. To be honest I'm so fed up of his whining that I refuse to donate to these charities anymore.

lostexpectation

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't know the answers. I don't have the solutions. But I reckon John O'Shea is one of the good guys, and I reckon GOAL do a lot of good work, and seem to be quite highly thought of in the NGO world.

im sure the various medical clinics and schools that he sets up and funds, cure poor people and teach them to read thats fine but you gotta talk about his overall position on things, he's talking about overall solutions and they're invade them and FIX them by gun point. This are just his personal opinions,off the cuff rants , he calls for the US invade Sudan was press released by Goal itself under somebody else name(the head of GOAL USA)

you could talk about good intentions but I don't think his intentions are that good either, he's just one of these typical self obsessed hacks who always thought he knew best found suddenly found some vulnerable people to apply his bile too he who too impoverished to refuse help from anyone.

did you look at the interview, he admitted it himself at the end talking about him trying to get the child to eat after its family died of starvation, he was like I was sure I WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD GET HER TO EAT, crying as he says this, so what did he do, brought something sweet from the west to bribe her into eating and she died a couple of weeks later anyway, just like the people in the example of above not good people just people who trying to make themselves look better then others.

do the people who go to the fundraising balls of this respected NGO know his views? are they people involved professional charity glamour there to help the poor black babies

he's good guy cos he 'does charidee', he seems to be highly thought of, seems?, this the problem even these people, mother teresas, nelson mandela ya gotta question what they are doing.

he's not highly thought of the Irish NGO world...

Mr.Micro

Mick86 wrote: »

His constant ranting has turned him into a bit of a joke. To be honest I'm so fed up of his whining that I refuse to donate to these charities anymore.

Its a career for him I guess and he has become a celebrity of sorts fordoing his job. The rest of us do our jobs and thats that .

Mick86

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Its a career for him I guess and he has become a celebrity of sorts fordoing his job. The rest of us do our jobs and thats that .

A lucrative career perhaps.

Top charities defend 'fat cat' CEO salaries

Sunday August 19 2007

TWO of Ireland's leading charities have denied they are mis-spending donated money by paying their senior management fat cat salaries, insisting they are "value for money".


Away from the old image of ad-hoc charities, Goal and Concern are now operating internationally with multi-million-euro budgets with large staffs in Ireland, the UK and the US.

The denials come in the face of mounting questions over the practices of worldwide charities and the amounts of money involved, and particularly as the charities are operating in an unregulated market.

Since the advent of on-street fundraising, in which people agree to monthly contributions by direct debit, the budgets of such charities have soared. For example, last year alone Concern raised a staggering €122m.

Also, according to its latest figures, Goal raised so much money in 2005 that it was left with a whopping €16m surplus, leading to questions as to whether everything is in order in Irish charities.

The Sunday Independent has also learned that Concern, which delivers aid to over 30 countries, deliberately ran a budget deficit of €6m in 2006 and is expected to have a deficit of €15m this year, to reduce their substantial reserves which have fallen from a high of €50m to around €32m at the end of 2006.

On the salary front for example, Concern spent almost €13m on staffing costs alone and several of its key staff are on annual salaries in excess of €90,000. Chief Executive Tom Arnold is on a salary of just under €140,000, but insisted that he and others can justify their wages.

Mr Arnold is on secondment from the civil service and part of the deal to make him CEO was that his salary would mirror his civil service pay. Goal refused to disclose Mr O'Shea's salary but said he only became full-time CEO when the "workload became impossible to manage on a voluntary basis".

According to its annual report, Concern has just over 300 full-time staff but Mr Arnold insisted yesterday that the true number of employees around the world is closer to 4,000.

Speaking to the Sunday Independent, he said: "We have to pay the market rate to get top quality people. We need top people and if we weren't paying the going rate we wouldn't get them."

Jim Hynes, Concern's chief financial officer said, apart from Mr Arnold's salary, many of the other salaries are in fact behind the market rates. He said: "Many of our staff are on about €35,000 which is just about the average industrial wage."

On the reserves, Mr Hynes said: "We have to plan for long-term projects so we need to keep some money. However, because we get our money from the public, we can't be seen to be holding on to the money forever either. That's why we are running the deficits last year and this year."

In a statement to the Sunday Independent, Goal insisted that it is "lean and efficient organisation" which minimises its reliance on expensive expatriate staff. It said that its head office overhead costs never exceed 5 per cent of total expenditure.

Both Goal and Concern said that the monies in 2005 were much higher than normal because of the contributions made by the public in the wake of the Tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake.

Despite the high salaries being paid to their top people, they are minuscule to the kind of money being paid by the United Nations and Unicef to their top people. Many of the UN chiefs are on annual salaries of over €500,000 with some being paid close to a €1m a year.

The international NGO system has been criticised by a number of former aid volunteers who said that in many disaster locations, the aid agencies are often engaged in "turf wars" over who gets the best spot.

The Sunday Independent spoke to a number of volunteers who worked in Darfur, Asia and Pakistan who said that often the charities are "falling over themselves" in these disaster areas. "Often it is about the glory of being first in or being in the best/worst spot. It's surreal sometimes and the people who we are trying to help get lost in the mix," said one aid worker.

Tom Arnold acknowledged that in the wake of the Tsunami in south-east Asia this was the case, but he strongly denied it was the case in other areas, particularly in Darfur.

He said: "Everyone and their mother seemed to be in Asia after the Tsunami and the charities were tripping over each other. But many left soon after and only a few like Concern remained. However, in somewhere like Darfur, the opposite is the case. There are not enough NGOs."

Goal's John O' Shea echoed Mr Arnold's comments saying that his charity has been active in Darfur since the Eighties and said it is was proud to be "one of the first" to respond to the crisis.

In late 2004, the Sunday Independent exposed how, through on-street fundraising or "chugging", the budgets of the charities had exploded.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/top-charities-defend-fat-cat-ceo-salaries-1062042.html?r=RSS

Sonnenblumen

Though you have to admire his persistent drumming of the message, he is to me a good example of the Charity Industry, so much harping of what's needed and huge sums of money involved that somewhere along the lines the victims become a sideshow. People such as JOS are responsible for my rejection of the charity industry.

I think they will reach the point of diminsihing returns and I hope it comes sooner. Please stop those fecking 1850 broadcasts!!!

tallaght01

lostexpectation wrote: »

im sure the various medical clinics and schools that he sets up and funds, cure poor people and teach them to read thats fine but you gotta talk about his overall position on things, he's talking about overall solutions and they're invade them and FIX them by gun point. This are just his personal opinions,off the cuff rants , he calls for the US invade Sudan was press released by Goal itself under somebody else name(the head of GOAL USA)

Well, why was it OK to invade the former yugoslavia, but not Sudan? I'm not neccesarily advocating an invasion, but let's be honest. There are people being raped and tortured and mutilated and murdered there in a systemic fashion. It's one of the great humanitarian disasters of our time. I'm not sure that miltary force is such a crazy idea. Nothing else has worked, and it's been 4 years.

lostexpectation wrote: »

you could talk about good intentions but I don't think his intentions are that good either, he's just one of these typical self obsessed hacks who always thought he knew best found suddenly found some vulnerable people to apply his bile too he who too impoverished to refuse help from anyone.

That's not really evidence of selfish intention, is it? Again, it's opinion about JOS presented as fact.

lostexpectation wrote: »

did you look at the interview, he admitted it himself at the end talking about him trying to get the child to eat after its family died of starvation, he was like I was sure I WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD GET HER TO EAT, crying as he says this, so what did he do, brought something sweet from the west to bribe her into eating and she died a couple of weeks later anyway, just like the people in the example of above not good people just people who trying to make themselves look better then others.

Again, this is very much your opinion. I'm not sure others would agree. It's as valid as me saying that a lot of this is fuelled by typical Irish begrudgery, which happens to be MY opinion. I have ben the only person who's been able to get a kid to eat in the past. Does that automatically make me bad person. I've really no idea what your point is.

lostexpectation wrote: »

do the people who go to the fundraising balls of this respected NGO know his views? are they people involved professional charity glamour there to help the poor black babies

The second sentence isn't a sentence. In reply to the first...I don't know what the people who go tot hese fundrasing balls are aware of. But GOAL haven't been hiding their opinions. Hence we're discussing them. Fundraising balls presumably make up a very small proportion of GOAL's income?

lostexpectation wrote: »

he's good guy cos he 'does charidee', he seems to be highly thought of, seems?, this the problem even these people, mother teresas, nelson mandela ya gotta question what they are doing.

Again, I have no idea what I can say to that. It's not really a point, it's just an unfounded opinion.

lostexpectation wrote: »

he's not highly thought of the Irish NGO world...

I guess we would have to disagree there. My contacts in the NGO world, in Ireland and abroad seem to regard GOAL reasonably highly. The only Irish aid agency I hear negative things about are Trocaire. But, I guess you'll say otherwise. It's not the important point, I guess.

The important thing is that there's nobody doing anything about some of the most horrific human rights disasters imaginable, that are occuring around the world. I say we need ppl like JOS to kick politicians up the arses. Unless you guys think the international community have been doing a good job in Africa?

The article copied and pasted by Mick illustrates the fact that NGOs are paying a lot of money to their top people. I think that's fair enough. I think we should be paying big wages to top people. Its not easy to entice people from the private sector. Maximising revenue is an important part of the CEO/senior execs of any charity. I would argue that skimping on salaries and not attracting top candidates for the job is a false economy. As or the rest of the staff...I know from working with the red cross that their admin staff are paid less than they would, by and large, get in the private sector. Even their accountants and similiar professionals don't get paid enough to attract top qulaity people. It's one of the reasons I have always advocated good salaries for the right people. the red cross has lost many many good people because of relatively poor salaries. I also worked with another charity in the UK where, when we hired a new CEO, we had to pay him about 20k per annum more than the previous guy. But we thought he was worth it, and he was. He doubled our income, and turned us from a struggling charity, to a well funded outfit who was in a better position to provide the care that we were supoposed to be providing.

Mick86

tallaght01 wrote: »

Well, why was it OK to invade the former yugoslavia, but not Sudan?

Why is it OK to invade Sudan but invading Iraq was a bad idea?

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm not sure that miltary force is such a crazy idea. Nothing else has worked, and it's been 4 years.

Generally speaking invasions make these problems much, much worse.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Unless you guys think the international community have been doing a good job in Africa?

Does the international community (which realistically speaking means the US and Europe) have an obligation to sort out Africa's problems? Have we a right to decide that President X needs removing but Y can stay? Supposing Burkina Faso decided that Ireland's treatment of the Traveller Community was sh!te and they sent a few planes over to bomb Dublin to get us in line. Would we be happy? Not likely, the Sudanese might be miserable at the moment but their misery won't be alleviated much when their homes are Napalmed by the USAF.

tallaght01 wrote: »

The article copied and pasted by Mick illustrates the fact that NGOs are paying a lot of money to their top people.

More imprtantly it illustrates the fact that there is no accountancy on the part of these organisations for the massive amounts of money they handle every year.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think that's fair enough. I think we should be paying big wages to top people. Its not easy to entice people from the private sector. Maximising revenue is an important part of the CEO/senior execs of any charity. I would argue that skimping on salaries and not attracting top candidates for the job is a false economy.

Back up a minute. You're talking about professional managers here (being paid highly overinflated salaries ). JOS is supposed to be a Dudley Dogood, working for the good of the starving Africans, not as part of a career.

faceman

unfortunately im not as au fait with the politics about how some of our charities operate but i agree 100% with tallaght01's point about salaries for the top dogs.

Having lived in the third world - sub saharan africa and seeing many charities in action, Goal is the one that has always stood out to me.

Ive never seen much of Trocaire in my travels but thats not to say they werent somewhere. I think they work in select regions.

Mick86

faceman wrote: »

Having lived in the third world - sub saharan africa and seeing many charities in action, Goal is the one that has always stood out to me.

Goal probably does do a great job. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not it's CEO should be advocating regime change in those countries that he chooses.

Would it be acceptable for Bill Gates to demand an invasion of the Congo because sales of Microsoft Office are down in the area?

faceman

Mick86 wrote: »

Goal probably does do a great job. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not it's CEO should be advocating regime change in thsoe countries that he chooses.

Would it be acceptable for Bill Gtaes to demand an invasion of the Congo because sales of Microsoft Office are down in the area?

id rather john o'shea advocating change than Bono. Goal is doing a great job under the direction of John o'shea. Bono got third world country's debt written off. Thats great - Tanzania went out and bought air defense system the year their debt was written off.

Im sure john o'shea and his team's experience in these areas and what they need, they are afterall the ones who get their hands dirty. A simple analogy - I take medical advice from my doctor, and legal advice from my solicitor.

Not sure what you are trying to say with your bill gates analogy, it makes no sense.

DadaKopf

Thanks for the thread, lostexpectation, it's a cause very close to my heart! Last year, I wrote a resource for Dóchas (the Irish development NGO umbrella body) on how to tackle corruption in an international aid context, essentially setting the record straight after years of misinformed debate on the issue of corruption in the developing world. It's an issue John O'Shea also likes to beat us and the world's poor over the head with all the time. In effect, he says we should cut all aid to the world's most vulnerable (because it's their fault they're corrupt) and give it to him, so he can go in and fix the world.

So I was hired to write Tackling Corruption: Governments, Citizens and NGOs Working Together to explain the issue, dispell myths and facts about corruption and propose solutions. In effect, it's our fault as much, if not more, than those in the developing world.

I also had a wee spat with him in the Irish Times a few months ago - colleagues told me it was the first time ever that he agreed with someone, so here's the exchange below.

Madam - John O'Shea (Letters page, June 21st) seems keen to blame Africans for the continent's corruption problems, but in his haste neglects to mention that the West supplies much of it to the developing world.

While he cites the $148 billion lost to Africa each year through corruption, he neglects to mention the $145 billion in bribes which was paid by 294 American and European multinational corporations in the late 1990s.

He also forgets to mention the West's role in facilitating corruption.

Transparency International estimates that $1 trillion is laundered through western financial institutions each year.

If the cause of corruption is opportunity, the solution lies in transparency, education and prosecution. The UN Convention Against Corruption, not yet ratified by Ireland, would enable governments to prosecute companies engaged in corruption overseas. At the same time, people in the developing world must be supported in holding their own governments to account - the successful prosecution by Lesotho of four European firms for bribery, with little external assistance, shows the commitment of many in Africa to fighting corruption.

With more and more Irish firms announcing profits from oil and mining operations in Africa, would John O'Shea not be better off pressing the Irish Government to ratify the UN Convention Against Corruption, and by supporting anti-corruption initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative which is proving successful in urging governments to publish all payments and revenues from oil, gas and mining? That way, we could ensure that Irish firms operating in Africa are supplying jobs, not corruption. - Yours etc,

Madam, - I wholeheartedly agree with T. G. (July 2nd) that Ireland should ratify the EU Convention Against Corruption, which we signed in December 2003.

If I may be allowed to quote myself, I said in this newspaper on March 10th this year that "if African countries are to make the great leap forward one burning issue needs to be addressed: the manner in which bureaucrats and officials across the continent line their pockets daily, and refuse to relinquish power".

Mr G. is also correct that the West has an enormous burden of responsibility to stamp out the crooked dealings and backhanded channels of commerce that line the pockets of few while excluding most. Until recently in France, for example, it was not only legal to bribe officials of foreign governments, it was tax-deductible. This was clearly wrong - but things are improving.

Goal also believes that Ireland should not stop short at ratifying the EU Convention. It should bring action to bear. Given that, in a recent World Bank study, up to 40 per cent of private sector companies surveyed worldwide admitted to paying bribes to win government contracts, this is clearly a huge problem.

While institutional bribery by massive Western interests clearly sustains an environment where graft is acceptable - and expected - we cannot ignore the damage also being done by a litany of corrupt and despotic third world leaders. - Yours, etc,

JOHN O'SHEA, Goal, PO Box 19, Dún Laoghaire, Co Dublin.

He didn't get the point (and I never mentioned an 'EU Convention'), and he ignored this letter in the Sunday Business Post the following week where he was back to his old tricks.

faceman wrote: »

Having lived in the third world - sub saharan africa and seeing many charities in action, Goal is the one that has always stood out to me.

Ive never seen much of Trocaire in my travels but thats not to say they werent somewhere. I think they work in select regions.

GOAL don't do development work, they do disaster relief work. Important, but for all O'Shea's carping, his own organisation's policy is to not engage on long-term poverty eradication development work. The likes of Trócaire and Concern, who overwhelmingly use local staff and partner organisations to do the work, do engage in long-term development programmes (in addition to disaster relief when necessary). Perhas, due to this, they're not so visible on the ground. To put his 'plan' into action would be akin to neo-colonialism - "oh, the educated white man as once again come to save us from ourselves, yay!".

Not only is this patronising and racist, but it's profoundly anti-development: how on earth could a country learn to develop if they don't do it themselves? It'd be as if all the EU structural funds we in Ireland got were channelled through the St. Vincent de Paul. Would we be where we are now?

Having worked in the aid sector for the past three years, I'm very satisfied that most people earn salaries far below what they could earn if they worked in the private sector. And they work twice as hard. And to attract the most skilled, motivated CEOs, you have to pay that kind of money.

faceman

DadaKopf wrote: »

...Not only is this patronising and racist, but it's profoundly anti-development: how on earth could a country learn to develop if they don't do it themselves? It'd be as if all the EU structural funds we in Ireland got were channelled through the St. Vincent de Paul. Would we be where we are now?

I see your point. In many cases (as was mine), we were in africa to develop a particular area that was being under used by the country. It was mix of consultancy and operational. The goal being that after 5 years us western folk could walk away and the local people can run the show themselves etc and develop further.

lostexpectation

to dadakopf and other who work in the area? who does regluate or observe what these charities get up to...

seems we have some neo-colonialists in the house...
do you want to privatise aid, ie for profit aid companies?
do you want to have aid agencies work hand in hand with the military

guess who does?

Mick86

faceman wrote: »

Not sure what you are trying to say with your bill gates analogy, it makes no sense.

It's a bit tongue in cheek but for the sake of clarity...

Bill Gates is a CEO, JOS is a CEO.

JOS wants Sudan invaded so his organisation can work there. That is acceptable to some. Would it be acceptable for Gates to demand the invasion of some country for his organisation's benefit?

Just to counter the obvious point that Goal works solely for the benefit of the poor and starving-it doesn't. Goal is a sizeable employer whose employees do not operate solely out of altruism. It follows then that working on it's operations benefits the employees since failure to do so would see a reduction in the donations on which the organisation depends.

moe_sizlak

i like and admire john o shea , hes not at all pompous or holier than thou , very down to earth but full of common sense all so i see nothing wrong with him calling for millitary action in a place like darfur , hes not a politician , i think he says so because he cares about whats happening

im amazed at the synicism shown towards him in here

DadaKopf

lostexpectation wrote: »

to dadakopf and other who work in the area? who does regluate or observe what these charities get up to...

seems we have some neo-colonialists in the house...
do you want to privatise aid, ie for profit aid companies?
do you want to have aid agencies work hand in hand with the military

guess who does?

There's soon to be charities legislation enacted by the government - this legislation will apply to all NGOs, domestic and those working overseas.

Regarding NGOs, there are self-regulating bodies and initiatives that aim to improve transparency and accountability of NGOs, not just to those who fund these charities, but those who ultimately benefit: the poor and vulnerable.

Furthermore, those aid NGOs which receive government funding through Irish Aid must rigorously account for their activities to Irish Aid evaluators - not just how the money was spent, but its contribution to achieving agreed outcomes.

National donors - such as Irish Aid - are regulated by law to some degree, but also watched over by the Dáil by the foreign affairs committee and comptroller and auditor general, by civil society (aid NGOs mainly), and by the OECD Development Assistance Committee, among others.

Like any company, all NGOs must have a board of directors, and submit detailed accounts annually, which must be made public. Like any accounts, they don't entirely capture what an NGO did over a year, but this is already a legal obligation.

And it's interesting that of all aid NGOs in Ireland, it was GOAL that failed to submit its accounts one year (early 2000's, I think).

If you have any questions about the accountability/corruption angle, read the resource I wrote (above) - the myths and facts section may help you out.

jmayo

moe_sizlak wrote: »

i like and admire john o shea , hes not at all pompous or holier than thou , very down to earth but full of common sense all so i see nothing wrong with him calling for millitary action in a place like darfur , hes not a politician , i think he says so because he cares about whats happening

im amazed at the synicism shown towards him in here

I agree.

Maybe he keeps harping on about Darfur because he cares, he has seen what the UN does or in this case doesn't do !

How can the refugees and civilians be protected but through military action, and I don't mean a mickey mouse force comprised of soldiers from other corrupt African nations. But it is yet another case of non-white people and no oil.

The UN is useless becuase the security council is blocked by the Chinese and their interests, just like it is blocked by the US when any resolution is mooted about Palestine.

UN = total joke of a talking shop.

lostexpectation

jmayo wrote: »

I agree.

Maybe he keeps harping on about Darfur because he cares, he has seen what the UN does or in this case doesn't do !

How can the refugees and civilians be protected but through military action, and I don't mean a mickey mouse force comprised of soldiers from other corrupt African nations. But it is yet another case of non-white people and no oil.

The UN is useless becuase the security council is blocked by the Chinese and their interests, just like it is blocked by the US when any resolution is mooted about Palestine.

UN = total joke of a talking shop.

adovcating NATO action in Sudan its not caring it ridiculously insane did you see what happened in Iraq?

he's give the same reason to invade as the original colonisers did, look how well that went. look up 'liberal colonialism''

if china abstained in the UNSC, what would happen then? they'd still have to ****ing invade Sudan, bomb the **** out of the capital, and them somehow run the places for few year if not decades ala Iraq..

do you really agree with this?

John O'Shea goes even further than that. He envisions a situation where Western governments would go into Africa and act as a huge international humanitarian agency, with an army to force policies. "What should happen, if governments had enough vision or determination, they should go in as a government and implement themselves but keep the chequebook. Go in as a huge aid agency - in other words as a huge multinational. So for example, the US goes into a country, Uganda, tomorrow. It builds 20,000 clinics, 50,000 schools, and hands them over to the government and warns that government that if it does not run them properly, it will turn everything against them that they have; the World Bank, the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the UN and if we had a standing army, we turn that against them. That's the only way to deal with these people," says John O'Shea. Back to colonisation, then? "I don't consider that colonisation... What the colonialists did was disgraceful in many, many ways. But do we have to worry about the sins of our forefathers? The governments that go in will need to act as a responsible humanitarian agency. If they go in to act in a corrupt way themselves then I would rather that they do not go in."

Back to colonisation, then? "I don't consider that colonisation... What the colonialists did was disgraceful in many, many ways. But do we have to worry about the sins of our forefathers? The governments that go in will need to act as a responsible humanitarian agency. If they go in to act in a corrupt way themselves then I would rather that they do not go in."

what do you reckon about the chad humanitarian child trafficking story

faceman

lostexpectation wrote: »

adovcating NATO action in Sudan its not caring it ridiculously insane did you see what happened in Iraq?

ok this drives me mad. did you see what was happening in iraq before the US invasion? No you didnt, because the media did not splatter it all over our screens. How should the issue in iraq have been handled if invasion was not an option?

moe_sizlak

lostexpectation wrote: »

adovcating NATO action in Sudan its not caring it ridiculously insane did you see what happened in Iraq?

he's give the same reason to invade as the original colonisers did, look how well that went. look up 'liberal colonialism''

if china abstained in the UNSC, what would happen then? they'd still have to ****ing invade Sudan, bomb the **** out of the capital, and them somehow run the places for few year if not decades ala Iraq..

do you really agree with this?



what do you reckon about the chad humanitarian child trafficking story

good question , i dont have all the facts as yet but based on what i do know , i believe that those french charity workers were doing good by trying to rescue those poor kids from a god awfull place
what sarkozy said was pure politics

lostexpectation

faceman wrote: »

ok this drives me mad. did you see what was happening in iraq before the US invasion? No you didnt, because the media did not splatter it all over our screens. How should the issue in iraq have been handled if invasion was not an option?

oh so we do have neoimperialist, im not going to over the whole iraq/saddam story again, just don't talk to me, if you think the invasion of iraq was legit then your opinion on john oshea is complete codswallop too.,

jmayo

lostexpectation wrote: »

adovcating NATO action in Sudan its not caring it ridiculously insane did you see what happened in Iraq?

he's give the same reason to invade as the original colonisers did, look how well that went. look up 'liberal colonialism''

if china abstained in the UNSC, what would happen then? they'd still have to ****ing invade Sudan, bomb the **** out of the capital, and them somehow run the places for few year if not decades ala Iraq..

do you really agree with this?

what do you reckon about the chad humanitarian child trafficking story

I know that this will get all the PC brigade up in arms, but maybe some of these countries should be recolonised to a degree by a UN mandated administration for their own bloody good.

How many African regimes have squandered their countries' resources and brought nothing but war, poverty, famine, disease on their own people.

Look at Angola, where the oil and diamonds were used by both sides i to keep the civil war conflict going for nearly 30 odd years.
Look at Zaire/Congo where at one stage you had 5 different armies fighting.
Take a look at what Zimbabwe was like when Mugabe took over and compare it with the mess it is today.
It was one of the richest countries in terms of agriculture but now the people are starving.

Yes we can pump in loads of aid to help but how much of it is squandered by some tin pot dictator.

And before somebody says it, I do think that the former colonisers, western countries, USSR and now china created a lot of this mess in the first place.

Western powers, the former Soviet Union and recently China, have been playing games using these countries as pawns over the last 50 odd years.
Western companies have been raping these countries of their natural resources by facilitating some jumped up little army sergant to maintain power.
Before that the colonising powers created artifical borders, pittted tribe against tribe, treated the natives as slaves and planted foreigners all of which are the cause of problems today e.g Zaire, Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe.

Back to Darfur.
If the government of Sudan were, how shall we put it, lent upon then they would be forced to withdraw support for the Janjaweed and thus help cut down on attacks on innocent refugees.
But becuase the UN is inaffective, they issue bland statements with no iron fist to back them up.
Indeed the only thing that some regimes understand is getting the sh** bombed out of them.
That and their foreign bank accounts being frozen in Switzerland.

Also becuase I have these opinions does not mean that I condone the US and their zeal to spread their brand of democracy i.e. a friendly dictator. They have helped get some African countries into this mess in the first place.
The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with freeing political prisoners, getting the kurds justice or spreading democracy in the Middle East.
It had to do with oil, and the fact that a once friendly dictator had stepped out of line, pure and simple

lostexpectation

jmayo wrote: »

I know that this will get all the PC brigade up in arms, but maybe some of these countries should be recolonised to a degree by a UN mandated administration for their own bloody good.

How many African regimes have squandered their countries' resources and brought nothing but war, poverty, famine, disease on their own people.

Look at Angola, where the oil and diamonds were used by both sides i to keep the civil war conflict going for nearly 30 odd years.
Look at Zaire/Congo where at one stage you had 5 different armies fighting.
Take a look at what Zimbabwe was like when Mugabe took over and compare it with the mess it is today.
It was one of the richest countries in terms of agriculture but now the people are starving.

Yes we can pump in loads of aid to help but how much of it is squandered by some tin pot dictator.

And before somebody says it, I do think that the former colonisers, western countries, USSR and now china created a lot of this mess in the first place.

Western powers, the former Soviet Union and recently China, have been playing games using these countries as pawns over the last 50 odd years.
Western companies have been raping these countries of their natural resources by facilitating some jumped up little army sergant to maintain power.
Before that the colonising powers created artifical borders, pittted tribe against tribe, treated the natives as slaves and planted foreigners all of which are the cause of problems today e.g Zaire, Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe.

Back to Darfur.
If the government of Sudan were, how shall we put it, lent upon then they would be forced to withdraw support for the Janjaweed and thus help cut down on attacks on innocent refugees.
But becuase the UN is inaffective, they issue bland statements with no iron fist to back them up.
Indeed the only thing that some regimes understand is getting the sh** bombed out of them.
That and their foreign bank accounts being frozen in Switzerland.

Also becuase I have these opinions does not mean that I condone the US and their zeal to spread their brand of democracy i.e. a friendly dictator. They have helped get some African countries into this mess in the first place.
The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with freeing political prisoners, getting the kurds justice or spreading democracy in the Middle East.
It had to do with oil, and the fact that a once friendly dictator had stepped out of line, pure and simple

:rolleyes: *shakes head* are these that sorta of people the give money to John O'Shea. Is this is what we going to see discussed with Katy French at the GOAL Ball? http://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/data/gallery/temp/809988.jpg


are these the people whose money lets John O'Shea go virtually unchecked? who are Goal's other policy and implementation guys?

alot of people dismiss the notion of neoimperialism, I always ask when did imperialism stop, give us a date.

walshb

John's tears don't fool me one little bit and if anyone really listened to the start of his interview then it is quite clear that John is NOT all that concerned for anybody.
He basically said that he had no time and couldn't tolerate the drunks and down and outs in the Simon community. He had no time for them basically. These are Irish people on his very own doorstep, yet he couldn't tolerate them:rolleyes: Such a merciful charitable man:D....so he has to travel to Africa and Asia to help those in need:rolleyes:

He like Bono and Geldof and the vast majority of these egotists are more concerned with themselves and the glory, than actual poverty and the trouble is that nobody can say this, as when you do, then you are the problem

And then he has the audacity to lecture the Chinese on what they can and can't do.

If O'Shea had his way, we would be at war now with bloody China.

I wouldn't like to have been a Chinese person in Dublin and having
to listen to the likes of O'Shea slagging off their country.

Very disrespectful IMO to Chinese folk who live here, and there are
a lot.....

If O'Shea and the rest of these NGO's have their way they will
bleed this country dry....

jmayo

lostexpectation wrote: »

:rolleyes: *shakes head* are these that sorta of people the give money to John O'Shea. Is this is what we going to see discussed with Katy French at the GOAL Ball? http://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/data/gallery/temp/809988.jpg


are these the people whose money lets John O'Shea go virtually unchecked? who are Goal's other policy and implementation guys?

alot of people dismiss the notion of neoimperialism, I always ask when did imperialism stop, give us a date.

First off I am not a member of Goal or have any links to them.

Now what are your proposals?
It is easy to sit on the fence and knock other peoples ideas but let us know your own.

Are you saying that most African leaders since independence have actually done much to improve their countries and their citizens?
We all know a hell of a lot of them have benefitted the Swiss banks but not a lot else.
Look at some of the most famous on the long list...
Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Mobutu in Zaire, Idi Amin in Uganda, Sani Abacha in Nigeria.

Apart from Botswana what other sub-Saharan African country has been stable and prospered.

Here one example.
Believe it or not Ghana, which won independence in 1957, matched the economic development of South Korea at that time.
Ghana had more natural resources, educated professionals and had not recently suffered a devastating war.
But 40 years later, South Korea’s income per capita is ten times that of Ghana: $4,400 versus $420.

I am not even mentioning Zimbabwe/Rhodesia as an example of utter mismanagement and corruption.

In 2006 Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo estimated, "Corrupt African leaders have stolen at least $140 billion from their people in the (four) decades since independence."

What should the west do, give more money so that half of it can be siphoned off to another Swiss bank account or used to buy more foreign property, or used to buy more weapons to keep the people down?
Was it last year that corrupt African leaders who have proved unresponsive were being offered a $5 million (€4 million) reward and a stipend for life if they clean up their act.

Do you subscibe to theory that if we are really nice to them they will mend their ways eventually ?
That is equivalent to basically what some batterered wives beleive about their abusive partners.

What is your proposals for Zimbabwe?
What about Darfur, do you want to send the Sudanese government a stern letter together with a visit from some UN bureaucrat?

At the very least there should be strick sanctions, freezing of foreign assets and then bomb them untilthey get the message.
Remember Milosevic, he just kept going until finally Serbia got it's ass kicked.
The only thing these people understand is getting hit finanically and then ultimately voilence.

gbh

Even the UN agree that the end goal of aid agencies and foreign ngo's in the developing world must be to promote the self sufficiency of the people but in his rants I don't see John O'Shea arguing this, in fact quite the opposite. O'Shea seems to believe that developing countries should have the begging bowl in their hand forever. Indeed Africa for example has made progress in recent years out of war and poverty. Yet I have a feeling O'Shea hates to see poor countries making such progress because it means GOAL might just go out of business. O'Shea is in the business of raising money for underdeveloped countries who don't have the capacity to do it themselves or feed and house their own people, but GOAL should be focused on increasing the capacity of these people to look after themselves and not depend on handouts from the West. But O'Shea is also part of an industry that is encouraging dependency in developing countries on free aid. This in the longterm is a disastrous way to run countries and leads in turn to an inability of countries to work or innovate their way out of trouble. Personally I think its time the Western NGO's packed up and left the developing world altogether. Raising money for the developing world is a multi-billion dollar industry and heads of the ngos are not afraid to take the cream for themselves. And there are countless examples of the ego's of ngo's being more important that the people they are supposed to be helping.

Mick86

moe_sizlak wrote: »

i believe that those french charity workers were doing good by trying to rescue those poor kids from a god awfull place

Please tell me you are joking. They appear to have kidnapped children with the intention of selling them. Some of the children they stole weren't even orphans. Thechildren might live in a sh!t hole but nicking them and selling them on isn't the way forward.

Whoever kidnapped Madeleine McCann could justify that action by saying she wasn't being cared for properly. Would you say he or she was doing good?

moe_sizlak

Mick86 wrote: »

Please tell me you are joking. They appear to have kidnapped children with the intention of selling them. Some of the children they stole weren't even orphans. Thechildren might live in a sh!t hole but nicking them and selling them on isn't the way forward.

Whoever kidnapped Madeleine McCann could justify that action by saying she wasn't being cared for properly. Would you say he or she was doing good?

newsflash , i posted that comment days before you showed up here , i stated in that post that as yet i had,nt all the facts

i still dont have them all either and i dont believe that you know for sure that they intended to sell them , seems unlikely that a charity group that size would moonlight as international human traffikers

Mick86

moe_sizlak wrote: »

newsflash , i posted that comment days before you showed up here , i stated in that post that as yet i had,nt all the facts

i still dont have them all either and i dont believe that you know for sure that they intended to sell them , seems unlikely that a charity group that size would moonlight as international human traffikers

Doesn't matter when you posted it, your comment is bollocks. Incidentally you might like to go back to post 3 on this thread to see when I showed up here.

According to Reuters, they had been pre-paid by "host families" for the children. Since they were caught red-handed trafficing humans, for whatever purpose, your argument doesn't cut mustard.

A bona fide charity group surely would not be run by such simpletons. Christ almight what were they thinking.

jmayo

gbh wrote: »

Even the UN agree that the end goal of aid agencies and foreign ngo's in the developing world must be to promote the self sufficiency of the people but in his rants I don't see John O'Shea arguing this, in fact quite the opposite. O'Shea seems to believe that developing countries should have the begging bowl in their hand forever. Indeed Africa for example has made progress in recent years out of war and poverty. Yet I have a feeling O'Shea hates to see poor countries making such progress because it means GOAL might just go out of business. O'Shea is in the business of raising money for underdeveloped countries who don't have the capacity to do it themselves or feed and house their own people, but GOAL should be focused on increasing the capacity of these people to look after themselves and not depend on handouts from the West. But O'Shea is also part of an industry that is encouraging dependency in developing countries on free aid. This in the longterm is a disastrous way to run countries and leads in turn to an inability of countries to work or innovate their way out of trouble. Personally I think its time the Western NGO's packed up and left the developing world altogether. Raising money for the developing world is a multi-billion dollar industry and heads of the ngos are not afraid to take the cream for themselves. And there are countless examples of the ego's of ngo's being more important that the people they are supposed to be helping.

It is easy to say that Goal should be helping people to look after themselves and make them self sufficient.
But in the case of Darfur that would really involve giving them arms and military training to allow them protect themselves. Otherwise these people are slowly being raped and murdered out of existence i.e. it is genocide pure and simple and is being carried out with the backing of the Sudanese government.
What O'Shea is urging is the international community to do something to stop the rape and murdering of inoccent civilians.
Yeah you can give them food today, hell you could give them running water and animals to farm, but that is not a lot of good when you are raped tonight, now is it?

It is yet another case where the international community is blocked by one nations interests (China) and where they sit on their hands while innocent people live through hell and are slaughtered.

God forbid we would say anything bad about the Chinese regime that is fu**ing up Sudan, Burma and has f**ked up Tibet, Cambodia as well as it's own citizens in the past.

I suggest people read the opinion of the current Tutsi leader of Rwanda on the international community. I bet he would quiet readily spit on the un flag and that incompentent bast*** Kofi Annan that prevented General Daillaire raiding arms caches pre the slaughter and sending more troops into Rwanda.

And we keep saying never again. Hollow words indeed.

moe_sizlak

Mick86 wrote: »

Doesn't matter when you posted it, your comment is bollocks. Incidentally you might like to go back to post 3 on this thread to see when I showed up here.

According to Reuters, they had been pre-paid by "host families" for the children. Since they were caught red-handed trafficing humans, for whatever purpose, your argument doesn't cut mustard.

A bona fide charity group surely would not be run by such simpletons. Christ almight what were they thinking.

youve clearly gotten water tight evidence and have subsequently moved to act as judge jury and executioner

gbh

What's clear to me is there is no alternative to Africans sorting out their own problems amongst themselves. Europe did this after WW2 and this brought about the European Union and the prosperity that has arisen from that. The Soviets and Americans were able to make agreements during the Cold War. So there has to be compromise on both sides.

You also have to have a situation where things get progressively better. I think in Africa things are getting progressively better. Whereas a few years ago you would struggle to count the number of conflicts because they were so numerous, now you can count these major conflicts on one hand. Now I agree this is terrible for those people going through these conflicts, but again the only viable long term solution is for the Sudanese Arab government and the Black Africans in Darfur to resolve their differences through dialogue and I know that won't be easy, but there is some progress being made I think. Because conflicts are now less numerous more resources can be put into solving these fewer conflicts.

Sure the Sudanese government seem like a bunch of thugs but what can you do? If you invade and overthrow them what will replace them? More than likely religious extremists such as Al Quadi. The country has a lot of ethnic groups and you would probably have a civil war like in Iraq. More than likely, Western troops would be targetted by insurgents and then they would pull out and Sudan would end up like Somalia, a failed state where the men with guns rule, religious extremism is the order of the day, women are oppressed, etc. etc. I think John O'Shea should recognise this would happen.

So yes its a bad situation in Sudan now, but a Nato invasion would be far worse.

Mick86

moe_sizlak wrote: »

youve clearly gotten water tight evidence and have subsequently moved to act as judge jury and executioner

This is a discussion board not a court of law.

moe_sizlak

Mick86 wrote: »

This is a discussion board not a court of law.

you dont say

Mick86

moe_sizlak wrote: »

you dont say

I do, hence there is no requirement for judge, jury, executioner or the level of evidence required to prosecute a criminal.

walshb

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Though you have to admire his persistent drumming of the message, he is to me a good example of the Charity Industry, so much harping of what's needed and huge sums of money involved that somewhere along the lines the victims become a sideshow. People such as JOS are responsible for my rejection of the charity industry.

I think they will reach the point of diminsihing returns and I hope it comes sooner. Please stop those fecking 1850 broadcasts!!!

Well said. I am sick to the tits of opening up a newspaper or listening to the radio or tv and there's someone begging and using Africa or Asia as a means to get money from people. It's just OTT to the absolute extreme.
They cannot all claim to be genuine. It's a bloody racket IMO and it's about time people realised this.....

I mean how can any NGO here justify begging on behalf of India?
One of if not the most powerful countries in HISTORY and we have Irish
NGO's demanding and begging for Irish money to cure India's problems?
It's obscene and wrong...

Does anyone really believe that the 'poor' in India are waiting on the Irish
to cure their problems??

I know several Indian people where I work who themselves have said that
what the Irish NGO's are supposedly doing in India is all 'smoke and miorrors'
and that India is well well capable of alleviating poverty without
waiting for an Irish NGO to free them....

DadaKopf

walshb wrote:

I mean how can any NGO here justify begging on behalf of India?
One of if not the most powerful countries in HISTORY and we have Irish
NGO's demanding and begging for Irish money to cure India's problems?
It's obscene and wrong...

And this is different from what GOAL does how?

See, it's the charity model that's all wrong in the first place. It's the begging bowl approach to 'aid'. Perpetuate an image of the global poor as passive victims, with no free will of their own. Use this repulsively demeaning image of other human beings to raise cash, and go and firefight but whatever you do, don't do anything about addressing the real causes.

Contrast that with a solidarity model that portrays the global poor as active participants, who every day struggle to improve themselves against the odds, accepting our responsibility in much of this, and you have a very different approach to things. Yes, show the reality of global socal injustice - good and bad, but don't demean people. We should treat every human being with dignity (it's what we all strive for), and that includes how we go about improving the lives of people we affect, but cannot put a face to.

The developing world is alive with exciting, innovative ideas and movements to help them help themselves. We should act in solidarity with them by supporting their efforts, not expecting them to support ours.

lostexpectation

Now what are your proposals?
It is easy to sit on the fence and knock other peoples ideas but let us know your own.


im not sitting on the fence at all, I think his proposal too extreme, I don't think I need to come up with counter argument to such proposals I can assuredly say they are crazy, wanting to privatize a countries services by military force in some effort to save it I don't think so.

moe_sizlak

walshb wrote: »

Well said. I am sick to the tits of opening up a newspaper or listening to the radio or tv and there's someone begging and using Africa or Asia as a means to get money from people. It's just OTT to the absolute extreme.
They cannot all claim to be genuine. It's a bloody racket IMO and it's about time people realised this.....

I mean how can any NGO here justify begging on behalf of India?
One of if not the most powerful countries in HISTORY and we have Irish
NGO's demanding and begging for Irish money to cure India's problems?
It's obscene and wrong...

Does anyone really believe that the 'poor' in India are waiting on the Irish
to cure their problems??

I know several Indian people where I work who themselves have said that
what the Irish NGO's are supposedly doing in India is all 'smoke and miorrors'
and that India is well well capable of alleviating poverty without
waiting for an Irish NGO to free them....

dont know which history books you read , india is and has never been a powerfull country , up untill about 10 yrs ago it was a 3rd world post colonial country with over a billion mostly dirt poor people , now due to globalisation , its one of the fastest growing economys in the world with a few hundred million relativly speaking by developing world standards , middle class people and a further several hundred million still dirt poor people but politicaly its still not powerfull as a world player compared to say the uk or france

purple'n'gold

I know several Indian people where I work who themselves have said that
what the Irish NGO's are supposedly doing in India is all 'smoke and miorrors'
and that India is well well capable of alleviating poverty without
waiting for an Irish NGO to free them....

You mean smoke and daggers of course? (benchmarking Bertie, changed that saying)

Mick86

moe_sizlak wrote: »

.....india is and has never been a powerfull country , ....

Yes and while we were feeding the poor Indians they were developing a nuclear arsenal and a huge military. Nothing like getting your priorities right.

DadaKopf

lostexpectation wrote: »

Now what are your proposals?
It is easy to sit on the fence and knock other peoples ideas but let us know your own.

im not sitting on the fence at all, I think his proposal too extreme, I don't think I need to come up with counter argument to such proposals I can assuredly say they are crazy, wanting to privatize a countries services by military force in some effort to save it I don't think so.

Eh, what?

moe_sizlak

Mick86 wrote: »

Yes and while we were feeding the poor Indians they were developing a nuclear arsenal and a huge military. Nothing like getting your priorities right.

nuclear armed countries are 10 a penny nowadays , north korea is poverty stricken yet has nukes

Mick86

moe_sizlak wrote: »

north korea is poverty stricken yet has nukes

As I said. Nothing like getting your priorities right.

gbh

I do agree with John O'Shea on a few points.

I think its the biggest waste of time money and effort giving millions or billions of euros or dollars to countries who are not accountable or if there is a reasonable amout of corruption in that country. You only feather the nests of the corrupt in that case and make it all the harder for democracy to thrive.

The ideal way is for deep and lasting reform to take place first before any substantial aid should be given to governments. ie, there should be press freedom, seperation of powers, an active parliament, strong political opposition, regular elections. Without these its pointless giving aid to governments because they will just use the money badly and not for the long term good of their people.

That certainly is the european model where you dont get to join the european union and reap the benefits until you meet certain strict criteria essential for the prosperity of all your people.

walshb wrote: »

Well said. I am sick to the tits of opening up a newspaper or listening to the radio or tv and there's someone begging and using Africa or Asia as a means to get money from people. It's just OTT to the absolute extreme.
They cannot all claim to be genuine. It's a bloody racket IMO and it's about time people realised this.....

I agree...if you give support to countries like Malawi where democracy is virtually non-existant and where the welfare of people are a distant priority of the government and politicians then there is no reason for them to reform. I suspect the whole aid industry which started with helping the black babies is a bit of a racket and actually over the long term hurts the countries and people it is sent to.

walshb

purplengold wrote: »

I know several Indian people where I work who themselves have said that
what the Irish NGO's are supposedly doing in India is all 'smoke and miorrors'
and that India is well well capable of alleviating poverty without
waiting for an Irish NGO to free them....

You mean smoke and daggers of course? (benchmarking Bertie, changed that saying)

Without a doubt the quote of the year.....:D

lostexpectation

gbh wrote: »

I do agree with John O'Shea on a few points.

I think its the biggest waste of time money and effort giving millions or billions of euros or dollars to countries who are not accountable or if there is a reasonable amout of corruption in that country. You only feather the nests of the corrupt in that case and make it all the harder for democracy to thrive.

The ideal way is for deep and lasting reform to take place first before any substantial aid should be given to governments. ie, there should be press freedom, seperation of powers, an active parliament, strong political opposition, regular elections. Without these its pointless giving aid to governments because they will just use the money badly and not for the long term good of their people.

so if particularly bad famine happens you don't give aid or disaster relief( through government channels) no matter what?

gbh

well it depends on the circumstances - in a place like Zimbabwe i wouldnt nor in Darfur...

gbh

Case in point:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7092861.stm

This is the norm in sub-Saharn Africa rather than the exception. Corruption is one of the biggest reasons holding back development and it is usually the government and friends of the government who cause it. Until the cycle of corruption is beaten, then the cycle of poverty and mismanagment will continue.