Poor paying for war on terror

[rokus2595]

Some of the world's poorest people are suffering as a result of the war on terror, a leading UK charity has said.

Christian Aid says the UK Government must reverse a "dangerous drift" towards linking aid to the fight against terror.

The charity is holding events and door-to-door collections aimed at raising over £14.3m for Christian Aid Week.

A report to mark the event cites Iraq, Afghanistan and Uganda as places where funds have been "wrongly diverted".

'With us or against us'

The report's lead author, John Davison, told BBC News Online: "Some of the world's poorest people already paying for the war on terror as the giving of aid by the world's richest countries is ruled by the rhetoric of 'with us or against us'.

"This must not be allowed to continue.

"The blurring of the line between humanitarian and development activity and military and security activity by donors' governments is dangerous."

He said that in October 2003, the government diverted aid to fund reconstruction in Iraq - a three-year commitment totalling £544m - resulting in less money for "middle-income countries".

However, the term is a misnomer, Mr Davison said, as 140 million of the world's poorest people live in "middle-income countries".

Some of the world's poorest people already paying for the war on terror as the giving of aid by the world's richest countries is ruled by the rhetoric of 'with us or against us'
Christian Aid's John Davison

Britain is unique in having legislation that states all aid must be targeted at poverty alleviation.

The charity now wants the government to help halt and reverse the "dangerous international drift towards linking aid to the war on terror".

In its report, the charity cites two particular case studies - Afghanistan and Uganda.

Afghanistan's $2.2bn in aid for 2004 is being diverted to military projects and emergency relief rather than long-term redevelopment, it said.

Mr Davison said: "Afghanistan is all about the security situation. The priority on security is a US priority - the hunting down of the Taleban and al-Qaeda."

He said aid workers are seen as agents of the US and are being killed. In recent months, at least 11 have died, including two during a targeted raid on their Kandahar office.

Mr Davison said two-thirds of the country is now off-limits to UN staff and "reconstruction is just not happening".

Ugandan conflict

Uganda, meanwhile, is heavily dependent on aid donations which make up more than 50 per cent of its budget.

The country is the third-largest recipient of aid from the UK's Department for International Development (DFID) - receiving £68.5m in 2002-03.

However, an 18-year-old war being fought between The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and the country's government saw almost a quarter of the social services budget in 2002 being used to fund military operations.

Fighting is predominantly in remote northern districts of the east African country and has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being displaced.

Villagers bear the brunt of the violence and in the worst recent attack, more than 200 civilians were burned, shot and hacked to death when the rebels attacked a refugee camp.

"The Ugandan conflict needs to be resolved, but not through a military solution. Military operations have made the situation worse. In the midst of that, a lot of the budget went to defence," Mr Davison said.

"Abandon the military solution and re-establish peace talks. How do you implement an amnesty if you can't talk to them?"


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/3696683.stm

[Beowulf]

It is unfortunate that we must now scrutinize charities, and the paths their money travels.

But this is not to be blamed upon the war on terror, but rather the terrorists who have made this necessary. :|

[weedman]

But this is not to be blamed upon the war on terror, but rather the terrorists who have made this necessary. :| rofl rofl

[hood]

And of course because we've given away free aid and money in the past, we're obviously obligated to continue it. We don't OWE them anything. This is another case of damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we don't give to charity, they blast us. If we give to charity, they'll say it's not enough. blah.

[TALOS]

And of course because we've given away free aid and money in the past, we're obviously obligated to continue it. We don't OWE them anything. This is another case of damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we don't give to charity, they blast us. If we give to charity, they'll say it's not enough. blah.
Its funny, the very same countries that demand the aid are the ones that mos6t hate the states, go figure eh.

And weed, are you one of those people that believes the US should be obligated to give? arent you one of those that says the US should be minding their own business?
Cant have it both ways man

[Tane Angle]

I missed the joke, weedman. :|

[HELEX]

I got the Joke....... :roll:

[fdt]

Why foreign aid at all? Why don't just US and EU lift their food export subsidies...? Third World countries are capable do deliver the good quality and cheap foods... nothing else for now. Give'em angle not fish... Pull'em up to the world economic exchange system instead of washing Your consciousness with "charity" crap.

This beauty contest of the "charity donors" is sick... Title of the thread is a typical propaganda mismatch of causes and effects.


Agri subsidies killing Africa
03/10/2002 08:07 - (SA)

Dar es Salaam - Strolling around supermarkets in Dar es Salaam, it is easier to find boxes of orange juice from Dubai, lines of canned beef from the UK and butter and cheese from as far away as New Zealand, than it is to find local produce.

This, critics of the developed world's $380bn agricultural subsidies say, is real proof of the impact that the policy has on the development of local markets and industries.

"Because of these subsidies, Shoprite [a supermarket in Tanzania] will find it easier to import something than buy it locally. This is because Tanzanian farmers find it very difficult to compete with western farmers because their production costs are much lower," explains Professor Pius Mbawala, Tanzania's Deputy Minister for Agriculture and Food Security.

Agricultural economists, development workers, the World Bank and the UN tend to agree. Yet, after the recent summit on sustainable development in South Africa, critics feel that the situation is no closer to being resolved and the subsidies are continuing to have "devastating" impact on development.

Cotton

According to UN figures, approximately 5 million people are involved in cotton production in Tanzania, but for the last few years, the industry has remained idle.

"It is a useful example of the impact of this issue as there are heavy cotton subsidies (50%) in the United States," said Justice Kabyemera, a programme officer for the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) in Tanzania.

"Since the farmers in the US are given subsidies, they are definitely on a better footing, in terms of productivity and production costs, than Tanzanian farmers," explains Kabyemera. "Many of their costs are covered by subsidies and, at the end of the day, the government will always make sure that farmers can sell at a price that suits them."

Tanzanian farmers, however, must wait for the prices to be fixed, without their consultation, and try and sell their cotton accordingly, often in an already flooded market, he says.

"A Tanzanian farmer will only ever benefit if there are problems for cotton producers elsewhere, and the imbalances are reversed. Otherwise, it is very difficult," Kabyemera added.

To make matters worse, he warned, following the liberalisation of the markets, it is the private sector that buys the cotton and if they don't believe the prices are good for that year, they won't even bother going to the fields to buy the crop.

"In Mwanza and Shinyanga regions, this has resulted in two or three successive years of the cotton being left in the fields without being bought, greatly affecting the farmers' livelihoods," he concluded.

Hypocrisy

This is just one of the many examples that has spurred organisations such as Action Aid to expose "double standards and the damaging effects on the world's poor farmers" that the subsidies have.

"It is unfair that the G7 countries demand that G77 countries open their markets, while they close theirs through subsidies and dumping excess subsidised food on the developed world, therefore depressing local prices," complains the organisation's Farmgate report, published last month.

"It is not just cotton. In Tanzania, we are seeing the effects of subsidies in traditional industries such as beef, wheat and dairy products, but also in non-traditional markets like spices. The market potential is not being fulfilled," Dr Andrew Temu, an agricultural economist at the Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania, told IRIN.

Dr Temu believes that removing subsidies in the US or the European Union is not a question of making people richer, but rather improving the living standards of rural populations, which account for some 85% of Tanzania's 31 million people and 350 million people across sub-Saharan Africa.

Tanzania was last year given HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Country) status and, as a result, was awarded substantial debt relief. However, development workers in the country see the impact of subsidies in terms of long-term development.

"Their impact is far bigger than the small bit of aid that this country is receiving. If people are going to talk about sustainable development, then they should get rid of subsidies. That would do more for this country than anything else," Jens Kristensen, an agricultural private sector support advisor, told IRIN.

African Growth and Opportunity Act

However, the US has vigorously defended its policy, saying that "misconceptions", specifically over the latest farm bill, have led to people getting the wrong impression of its agricultural policy.

"The negative rhetoric about our policy is unfortunate, because it threatens to discourage Tanzanian farmers and exporters from taking advantage of the market openings created by the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa)," Robert Royall, US Ambassador to Tanzania, wrote in a recent open letter to the press.

"I want to encourage entrepreneurs and business people in this country to keep pushing forward and investing in export-orientated agriculture and other ventures... The door to trade is open, and America is ready to do business with you," he declared.

The way ahead

Professor Mbawala believes it is not so easy.

Faced with the economic powers of the US and EU, he says that developing nations like Tanzania are in a difficult position to call for change in agricultural policy and, when they do, are told "not to interfere".

However, others, including Dr KY Amoaka, the head of the UN's Economic Commission for Africa, believe there is a need for a more collective voice and, through regional organisations such as the New Partnership for African Development (Nepad), change can be brought about.

"It comes to our capacity to negotiate international agreements. African countries have not been able to negotiate, but if we pool together and do our homework, this can change," he said during a visit to Tanzania last month.

"There is a crack in the door - the question is how hard we kick it open," he added. - IRIN

>This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations< rofl rofl rofl

[scm77]

I got the joke. Countries say, "Down with America" and "Bush is Hitler" then they want Hitler to give them money. :bash:

[pinkeye]

And of course because we've given away free aid and money in the past, we're obviously obligated to continue it. We don't OWE them anything. This is another case of damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we don't give to charity, they blast us. If we give to charity, they'll say it's not enough. blah.

fine, don't help others, despite the fact that western post-industrialised countries are partly to blame for the mess in africa, asia, the americas, etc. let's conveniently forget our involvement in screwing much of the world, be it in supporting brutal regimes and/or allowing our corporations to ruthlessly exploit the natural resources of said regions. let's turn a blind eye to our role in fomenting discord and unrest. as ftd points out, the current trade barriers are also a big problem, but that's none of our concern because we owe the poor of this world absolutely nothing...

so if you want to fight and defeat terrorism, bombing the crap out of poor countries is the only way to go, right? let's not address the fundamental problems that generate the threats to national and international security; our smart bombs and ac-130 gunships will solve all problems.

let's forget our sense of compassion, our humanity. you obviously are not a religious man because your views certainly do not reflect any religious tenets.

your views are the reason why we will undoubtedly lose the war on terrorism...