Aid pledge

walshb

The Irish Government are to pledge a further 2 Million Euro to the Pakistani earthquake appeal....terrible what happened and I hope these people stand strong and help each other, but surely Pakistan with all its military mioght and nuclear potential do not need our money. Why don't they sell off this military stuff or better still, not bloody acquire it in the first place. Then maybe us suckers here in Ireand wouldn't be squandering taxpayers money to the Aid agencies. No matter what, the aid agencies are in for a windfall....

http://www.unison.ie/breakingnews/index.php3?ca=9&si=80574

whiskeyman

walshb wrote:

The Irish Government are to pledge a further 2 Million Euro to the Pakistani earthquake appeal....terrible what happened and I hope these people stand strong and help each other, but surely Pakistan with all its military mioght and nuclear potential do not need our money.
http://www.unison.ie/breakingnews/index.php3?ca=9&si=80574

This same arguement arose for Hurricane Katrina and it had a better impact there.
However, the answer is the same for both.
The money is going to aid agencies who are on the ground doing the urgent rescue and humanitarian work. These agencies are independant of the Government and are better skilled to deal with the disaster.
People are dying and aid agencies need money to save lives - simple as that.

Why don't they sell off this military stuff or better still, not bloody acquire it in the first place.

Thats a long term discussion of their Governments policies. The same could be applied to so many African nations that squander millions on arms.
Why bother help them at all?

No matter what, the aid agencies are in for a windfall....

Yup, a massive windfall.
However, they'll be spending most of this income.... on goods and services that won't gain them any return.
I bet their shareholders are going to be annoyed... :rolleyes:

Then maybe us suckers here in Ireand wouldn't be squandering taxpayers money to the Aid agencies.

I'd rather we "squander" a couple of million on aid agencies who'll save lives rather than hundreds of millions of incompatible IT systems where many are laughing all the way to the bank...

walshb

Whiskeyman, let's be honest.....most of the money to these areas never reaches those in need as it is siphoned off in so many directions. Everyone gets their cut and whatever measley sum is left over is distributed to the needy. The exact same in Africa, the exact same as the Tsunami disaster. Where ever there are large donations of money, there is serious corruption and greed. Anyone who tries to speak out about it is called a scab and a racist....Well I am certainly neither, but if Pakistan can afford to spend so much on military matters and nuclear weapons, they can damn well afford to save their own lives. Why should I give my monet to that. I'm all for helping those in need, but money is not the answer here....it only ends up making the wrong people rich....This aplies to all those other countries who are spending Billions on weaponry, sure why the hell would they stop doing this when they've got the likes of the Irish funding it..........

whiskeyman

walshb wrote:

Whiskeyman, let's be honest.....most of the money to these areas never reaches those in need as it is siphoned off in so many directions. Everyone gets their cut and whatever measley sum is left over is distributed to the needy. The exact same in Africa, the exact same as the Tsunami disaster. Where ever there are large donations of money, there is serious corruption and greed.

Corruption and greed will always exist, but it all depends where the donations of money are coming from and where they are going.
Money that goes to charity will help those in need - many charities, like Goal, have to file detailed accounts and show yearly income and expenditure on specific projects.
However, a lot of countries often make offers of "financial aid" to another country.... and a lot of the time this gets used up in arms contract back to the offerer. US and Israel springs to mind here.


your main point is "they have the money... look at their arms etc... why are we sending any?"
I'll ask you this.... who do you think they're buying the arms from in the first place?
More than likely its the same nations that are giving the donations now. (sure, we'll chip in a few million as a gesture).
But its the Non-Governmental Aid Agencies (NGOs) that get a lot of funding from the public that are probably doing the most important job of all.
I sure wouldnt want to be the one to tell John O'Shea and Tom Arnold to pull out of so many countries just because they are financially able to deal with their own problems and they're squandering it on arms etc.
It's just one of the harsh realities of modern politics... people lives just dont matter.

walshb

Yes, John O'Shea and Tom Arnold, marvelous people when helping those in Africa and Asia. What have they ever done in Ireland I ask. How and why are these people so merciful and generous with strangers from afar, yet they have done nothing to alleviate poverty at home. According to Barnardo's, 1 in 7 chldren are living in constant poverty here in Ireland. We need the likes of O'Shea and Arnold to start doing some work at home first, then maybe they can tackle the Global issues.....Is is because the traceability of the funds is a lot harder to follow with foreign aid???. Who actually knows just exactly how Much Goal and Concern spent in the Tsunami region. We all know how much they collected, but where did it go....All I'm hearing is how generous the Irish are and thanks for the money. What I'd like to know is where the damn money went. You say they have to provide detailed accounts??, to who??. And how real and how detailed and scrutinised is this. I would say very little...

whiskeyman

You've got some very complicated issues.
I'd advise you to use the "enter" key in future too.... It assists with paragraphing and makes your discussions much easier to read

DadaKopf

walshb wrote:

Yes, John O'Shea and Tom Arnold, marvelous people when helping those in Africa and Asia. What have they ever done in Ireland I ask. How and why are these people so merciful and generous with strangers from afar, yet they have done nothing to alleviate poverty at home. According to Barnardo's, 1 in 7 chldren are living in constant poverty here in Ireland. We need the likes of O'Shea and Arnold to start doing some work at home first, then maybe they can tackle the Global issues.....Is is because the traceability of the funds is a lot harder to follow with foreign aid???. Who actually knows just exactly how Much Goal and Concern spent in the Tsunami region. We all know how much they collected, but where did it go....All I'm hearing is how generous the Irish are and thanks for the money. What I'd like to know is where the damn money went. You say they have to provide detailed accounts??, to who??. And how real and how detailed and scrutinised is this. I would say very little...

There's no shortage of agencies tackling poverty at home. At least we have strong state institutions to deal with the issue - if only the calibre of our electorate and politicians was up to scratch.

So what? There are also a good few Irish organisations trying to eliminate poverty and defend human rights in poorer countries afflicted by our own greed and inaction.

See, 'global issues' *are* our issues.

If you want to be reassured where GOAL's and Concern's funds went, wait until next year when their annual report outlays this year's turnover and spending allocations. If you want to ask the same of our national development co-operation agency, hop on to www.dci.gov.ie.

How about making the effort to find where this information is. I'll give you a clue... they're on their websites.

This kind of lazy, self-gratifying cynicism realy písses me off.

As for Lizzie Downes' comments in Metro Eireann yesterday of NGOs' use of "disaster pornography" to raise funds for Pakistan, I agree. Images like the ones Goal perpetuates - apart from the press - creates an understanding among the public that these people are helpless and can only but wait for us to rescue them.

Back to the topic of the thread, I think it's a tough predicament. Apart from the political motives for aid allocations (DCI's €1m pledge, India's provision of emergency relief), there's a human rights imperative to send aid ASAP to prevent further suffering and death. At the same time, the Pakistan government/junta spends way too much money on the military - and America bankrolls this. But this isn't *always* a bad thing - with such a bloated military, it would make sense that Pakistan's immediate relief efforts would be well funded and well organised, but it doesn't look like this has happened. So we have to assume the military doesn't care about the poor and vulnerable and are really an overfunded, oppressive force.

In terms of immediate protection of life, the aid is necessary. Pakistan is still a poor country. But you can be sure that private donations via Goal, Concern, Oxfam are going to go to the people, not some fat cat's pocket.

GOAT_Ali

Well I was always a believer in Charity starts at home and as far as I know, O'Shea and alot of these others have done pretty much zero at home. Start local, then National and then you can worry about globally saving the world. The exact same applies to the likes of Bono and Geldof...they love the world stage with all the media attention making them out to be heroes and saints. What have they done at home I ask of any real significance??...I'm all for helping those in need, but clean up your own home first....

DadaKopf

Assuming that we can never 100% sort out national problems, your logic suggests we should do nothing to eliminate global poverty.

Especially with globalisation, the local is intimately tied up with the global - consider, for example, the impact of EU farming subsidies on farmers in Africa, or how poverty-induced poverty in Africa causes mass migration to Ireland, which changes the face of the Irish political economy?

As I said, there are more agencies working for change at home, and considerably less working for change overseas. I also said we have well-established state institutions that work to minimise poverty and tackle other national problems. We're supposed to be one of the richest countries in the world now - certainly one of the most developed, so we have more than enough extra Euros to channel into helping our fellow man in the most exploited and vulnerable regions in the world.

What "national problems" would you rather we spend the money on? As far as I'm concerned, every human being deserves the same human rights wherever they are. This is international law actually. We have a legal obligation to contribute to this.

Anyway, this is a news/media forum, so if you want to discuss it, start a thread in Politics.

I'll go back to John O'Shea. I know for a fact that he's extremely disliked in the Irish development sector. He's worse than Bono. He's regarded as old fashioned, old skool, out of date and an arch-egotist. He perpetuates the myth that Africans are too wasted to help themselves - NOT TRUE. We've moved beyond charity. He fixes in people's minds the idea that Africans are congenitally corrupt: we can't give money to their governments or people because they'll go into Swiss Bank accounts - THIS IS A STRATEGIC EXAGGERATION. O'Shea's a nutter because he's the only member of an aid organisation in Ireland who's campaining against giving aid by undermining people's confidence in the practise to begin with. No one can speak out against O'Shea because he has the media tied up in a little bow - this is the worst bit. The worst thing about him is people who have worked closely with him know that he's racist and a sexist and an egomaniac. He sees himself as a Jesus figure.

I agree with George Monbiot in the Guardian that Bono and Geldof have done damage to the global justice movement, but at home, O'Shea is a svengali who needs taming. I frequently come across aid workers covertly getting a dig at O'Shea because they know he's ruining everything.

walshb

Interesting points you make on O'Shea. I don't know much about the man, it's just I am a little wary of his actual motives. I would agree fully with you, I think most of these aid bosses are ego trippers, him certainly. I just don't like the look or manner of him. He's so damn arrogant and 'uppity. I'll never forget seeing him on the Late Late show and he was talking about a young child who was holed up somewhere in Africa with a pen of Chickens. Basically the chickens were like her parents, O'Shea continuously referred to this child as 'it', how demeaning and degrading is that. A man who is meant to be so charitable and merciful and he didn't have the manners or decency to call her by her name or even refer to her as a child, something a little close to humanising her....Also Geldof and Bono, their motives are certainly not genuine, anything to raise their profiles.......Anyway interesting points mate, I'll call it a day....

DadaKopf

I would agree fully with you, I think most of these aid bosses are ego trippers, him certainly. I just don't like the look or manner of him.

No, O'Shea is an ego tripper. Bono and Geldof clearly are. I also don't doubt their sense of commitment. Credit where credit is due. Goal workers do good stuff. Bono makes boring issues cool. But the effect that Bono and Geldof had, I think, was mixed at best, and at worst, took wind out of the sails of the global justice movement (that being a coalition of developed and developing country NGOs, politicians, journalists etc.).

Tom Arnold of Concern is far from being an egotist. He's not at all egotistical. I honestly don't know of anyone in that area of work who is anything remotely like O'Shea in egotism. In opinions, maybe, but nuttiness, nope.