Foreign Aid – Value for Taxpayers’ Money?

Considering that the money is from the taxpayer, why is it that we never send an auditor with our foreign aid to Africa or other countries? How else can we be sure that the funds are being used for the benefit of the people and not for buying arms for the benefit of a general who wishes to rule by force and worse? Or half of it being spent on the luxurious life led by a President, his family and their cronies while the rest of the country starves, and the remainder of the money being transferred to a numbered Swiss bank account.

If we are going to help people living in Africa, for example, why would we send money to them with absolutely no guarantees as to its final use? Surely it would be far more beneficial to both the provider, being the Canadian taxpayer in our case, and the receiver, if we were to go and help the people on the ground in the struggling country. This may not be popular with the President of that country, but would be of far greater help to the people in need.

There should be no feeble arguments from heads of governments and the NGO’s saying that it would not be politically correct to question the trustworthiness of some of the African rulers by auditing them with regard to the use to which they are putting the aid that we give them. Surely, if we can suffer being inspected every year for tax purposes, let alone the odd occasions on which we are audited, the recipients of our tax dollars can answer a few simple questions as to what they are doing with our money.

Remember, it is NOT Government money, it is our, the Taxpayers’, money.
If the Government has resorted to printing money, other than for replacement bills, then we are in deeper trouble than the very nations we are trying to help. Let us not forget that there is no such thing as Government money, and that includes the World Bank, it is all coming from the taxpayers.

If you think you are getting good value for your money when it comes to Foreign Aid, please read the following from The Wall Street Journal of March 21st:

Over the past 60 years at least $1 trillion of development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Yet real per-capita income today is lower than it was in the 1970s, and more than 50% of the population -- over 350 million people -- live on less than a dollar a day, a figure that has nearly doubled in two decades.

As recently as 2002, the African Union, an organization of African nations, estimated that corruption was costing the continent $150 billion a year, as international donors were apparently turning a blind eye to the simple fact that aid money was inadvertently fueling graft. With few or no strings attached, it has been all too easy for the funds to be used for anything, save the developmental purpose for which they were intended.
Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire's president from 1965 to 1997, is reputed to have stolen at least $5 billion from the country. A month ago, Malawi's former President Bakili Muluzi was charged with embezzling aid money worth $12 million. Zambia's former President Frederick Chiluba (a development darling during his 1991 to 2001 tenure) remains embroiled in a court case that has revealed millions of dollars frittered away from health, education and infrastructure toward his personal cash dispenser.

As an example of what can be done, there is the wonderful work of the writer Philippa Gregory in Africa. Apparently Gregory and some friends put part of their royalties together and with the help of another who lives in Africa, they have started ‘Gardens for Gambia’ and have been going around village schools in The Gambia drilling wells for fresh water (over 100 wells to date) and then teaching the families, including the children, how to grow their own vegetables and flowers in a small market garden. Is this not the ultimate example of how it is better to teach people how to fish than to simply give them fish when there is some available?

Surely this, and other examples that can be cited, are far more worthwhile ways of helping people get on their feet and working towards a democratically driven economy, than simply throwing money at the problem. This type of aid costs far less, and needs very little administration even on the ground. But the main bonus, and it is a huge one, is that this type of direct work does not help keep corrupt governments in power, but may help the people to stay alive long enough to vote them out of power.

With some of the largest slums in the world and millions of the population starving, why is it that there are so many Range Rovers, BMW’s, and top of the line other makes of cars to be seen in the capitals of most of the African countries, along with the fact that there is plenty of smoked salmon, jewelry and some of the most expensive brands of Blended and Single Malt Scotch Whiskies on sale in these cities? Naturally the cache of arms and ammunition is well hidden, although there are some interesting conversations to be had with international arms dealers who are always active in these countries.

It makes you wonder what is behind all this at the donor end as well as the recipient’s; an interesting means of creating a feeling of political well being or rewarding others for services given and decisions ‘well made’? And yet our government is quite happy to join with others in sending more and more of our money to Africa in the form of Foreign Aid. Aiding whom? You may well ask.

Aid for Aid’s sake in the form of people helping people in need is a wonderful and enterprising activity. Aid for political purposes, or the purpose of creating a feeling of political well being, is nothing less than a sham and a connivance worse than the crimes being committed in some of these countries, and should be stopped at the next sitting of Parliament.

The Common Market

It is amazing to me just how much time is being spent on Common Market issues of finance without getting down to the real problem.

Anyone who knows anything about Greece or Italy will tell you that their problems stem from a chronic lack of taxation. Before you jump down my throat and tell me that taxation does not account for much, let me tell you that if you add up the amount of tax that SHOULD have been paid by professionals and corporations, not to mention personal taxes at the 'richest' levels, the total over the years adds up to billions, not millions.

I remember well when the Common Market was being put into place, at the time I lived in England, there were several of us who said it could only end in disaster. How could anyone with a modicum of common sense suggest that several countries all with different traditions, histories, lifestyles, politics and all other matters of importance, run like a United States of America, which was obviously what they were trying to create?

I remember well that as soon as the market was beginning to be built, Germany said that they would happily drop customs duties on goods and chattels being brought into Germany (Just after the war???) so what did they do, they simply put on a road tax which meant that every vehicle coming into the country had to be weighed and then was taxed for using the German roads. This actually cost more than the custom duties of old

This idea of a Common Market has been a dud from the start and should never have been attempted. Now, having bailed out the banks, several of the governments are on the edge of going into liquidation, and they should be left to do so, and have their monetary exchange values altered accordingly to reflect their situation. It goes without saying that Germany dislikes this idea intensely because, should the EU collapse, the German deutschmark would go through the roof against the other European currencies and would also climb against the US dollar, due to their relatively good industrial performance over the last few years, and consequently their exports would be severely curtailed due to increased pricing.

Once countries such as Greece and Italy take their governmental responsibilities properly and act like the politicians they are supposed to be, that is to say put into place proper taxation systems for all, and not just for the unfortunate few who do not know or are not related to them, then perhaps they can go back to trading in a competitive world without help from those who are more adult minded.

An Oil Pipeline.

It has been announced recently by a rare joint meeting of the Federal Ministers of The Environment, Finance, Small and Large Industry and Aboriginal Affairs, that there is to be a pipeline built to every Province in Canada and every State in the United States. All of these pipelines will be 'feeder' lines off the main line which will run from the Oil Sands to Texas.

"We can now divulge that the Alberta Oil Sands has such a large reserve of oil that it is uncertain if it will ever run out," said the Min of Small and Large Business. He did not refer to the phenomenal quantities of water and natural gas that will be needed to produce the oil.

The Min of the Environment stated that the main reason for these new 'feeder' lines, was so that the government of both America and Canada no longer have to concern themselves with the effects of off-shore drilling and the destruction to the environment that could happen from that activity.

"It is so much easier to clean up a spill on the land than out at sea," he concluded.

Initial reaction to this announcement has been mixed. The Chinese who own a large share of the Oil Sands are ecstatic; whilst certain large oil companies who have been investing heavily in off-shore technologies and applying for seabed concessions in the Arctic are even now preparing law suits against the American and Canadian governments in the hope that they can reap a large amount of compensation from them.

When asked about the possibility of the Russians drilling in the Arctic, the Min of Aboriginal Affairs said that he would deal with that problem as and when it arose, but as it was only the Eskimo nations who would be affected, he didn't feel that it was a priority.

On being a Canadian.

I came to Canada in 1975 and have thoroughly enjoyed my time here.

But I find that I am becoming a little embasrassed being a Canadian, especially in view of our Government's policy regarding global warming.

The Oil Sands may or may not be to your liking, depending how naive you are about the statistics being published around the economy and the job market; but one thing's for sure and that is that the cost of making a barrel of oil is becoming farcical.I am talking about the amount of fresh water that is being used up, not to say poisoned, in order to produce a barrel of oil.

Initially we were told that it took three barrels of (potable) water to make a barrel of oil, and I have no doubt that that is still the case at Fort McMurray and its environs. However, the Wilderness Committee has just put out a report about the delightful newish practice of Fracking. Our magnificent Rocky Mountains are now being 'fracked', as usual in order to make money for a few corporate execs and their shareholders.

Now, I have nothing against a good bit of capitalism, but I would like to see a reasonable amount of this wonderful planet left for my grandchildren to explore.

'Fracking', which by the way has been banned all over Europe and in several States in America, involves pumping large quantities of potable water mixed with chemicals, some of which are carcinogenic to the point of having to be held afterwards in yet more tailings ponds, at very high pressure down concrete lined pipes running deep into the ground, in order to break the rocks and allow the natural gas to be released so that it can be pumped to, guess where? Yes, the oil sands production units. But do you know how much natural gas is needed on a daily basis by these oil producers? 29,000,000 cubic metres per day!!

That's right 29,000,000 cubic metres per day, and that was a few years ago in 2007.

Good God, how much water does it now take to produce a barrel of oil? Oh, I know, the water is free. Really? What about the fact that there is less water around the more we burn oil and thereby increase the atmospheric temperature of our planet?

Of course this has nothing to do with the mining of Asbestos (Watch this space) which has been banned, not only around most of the world, but also in this country; but then we are only going to sell it to a third world country, so what's all the fuss about?.

And what about the idea of opening a new open-cast coal mine on Vancouver Island? Yes, that's the latest idea that is now going through the environmental test to see if enough cash is being promised by the company concerned when it comnes to election time. Haven't we just been over to China (at tax payers' expense) asking them to reduce their coal burning emmissions? But still it is worth going through the environmental exercise according to the Federal Minister of the Environment who recently sent me an email on the subject.
May be I should just hide my face and buy shares in these companies whose execs are clearly not concerned about their grandchildren. The trouble is I am concerned for mine.