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.
