2004-1-26 06:20:00
Andy writes:
Hi JJ, l don't mean to take issues with you. But I'll just like to shed some light on the above. $15 billion dollars is really a large sum of money. But the question is how much of this amount is actually disbursed after it has been allocated? How is it spent? and who spends it?
I happen to work in an organization that carries out development projects. And one of the organizations we partner with is USAID (United States Agency for International Development). I can give you a little insight on how the money goes.
First: the Congress demands that all U.S funds for development must be awarded to U.S organizations.
JJ:
This makes a lot of sense to me and is the reason most countries of the world do this same thing as much as is possible. If you just dump money in the lap of some governments all they do with it is use it to control their populace and the designated use gets ignored. We have had this happen time and time again with food aid, for example. Often is the time that the food either rots or is used to control the people or reward the ruthless.
Andy:
Secondly: Several experts are flown in from the US to implement and oversee the projects. And these experts usually require a high level of upkeep which might not even be provided for them in America. As a result a high percentage of the money is spent on personnel management and administration rather than on the project.
JJ:
So what else is new? This is always the case that bureaucracies take a lot of money for upkeep. Any type of welfare in most countries of the world takes over a dollar to pass out a dollar.
You can't blame the United States or any other country for favoring it's own people in the disbursement of funds. I'm sure that if Nigeria were to just give the United States a billion dollars (dream on) that it would attempt to employ as many Nigerians living here as possible in its use.
If you criticize the United States for doing this then you must also criticize every other nation of the world for seeking after its own interests.
If this process really bothers any country in Africa they can just reject the aid and then they do not have to complain.
Andy:
In fact, there was this case in 2001-2003 when it was announced that some handsome amount had been allotted by USAID to carry out microfinance and other economic empowerment programs. You may find it hard to believe that the USAID office spent over 2 years planning the program, eventually the officer in charge ( with whom we had had several meetings)was transferred to another country. After that another round of planning and re-designing with more experts coming in from the U.S began, we had the last consultative meeting in May last year. Even as I am writing this mail that project has not yet taken off. Yet new allocations have been made and reported.
JJ:
This is typical of government bureaucracy at work, not only for the United States, but for all countries.
Even so there is probably a better chance of the money being put to good use than if we just dumped it in some government office.
I think we should work with small business people and religious and civic organizations and disperse the money to the many in the hope that a few more will benefit. If I were in charge I wouldn't dump the whole thing in any leader's lap or work much through bureaucracy.
Andy:
This can give you a little idea on why there is very little excitement when these policies are announced. Perhaps this particular project was fraught with a lot of obstacles.
JJ:
If nothing else $15 billion sent to Africa which is spent in any way will get money in circulation and should get someone excited.
If any country feels it is too inconvenient to take our money I'm sure the taxpayers here would be happy to take it back in the form of a tax rebate. That would be about $300 per family that pays federal taxes.
In a previous post you (Andy) wrote:
The war in Iraq appears to be the last straw that has broken the backs of those who were giving America the benefit of the doubt. President Bush and his club are succeeding in a way No terrorist could to erode American goodwill and respect. Suddenly America has become the aggressor, the breaker of rules, the defaulter and the one from whom the world needs protection. Dislike for America (not Americans) is at an all time high.
JJ:
America did not break any rules that I am aware of but sought to enforce them.
In 1991 we had a cease fire with Iraq, but not an end to the war. Because Saddam was still seen as a threat, a state of war was still in force until he was somehow removed from power. In the cease-fire agreement signed by Saddam it was agreed by Iraq that hostilities would resume if he violated any of the weapons restrictions or violated the human rights of his people.
Even though he violated both of these conditions there are over a dozen UN resolutions giving him one more chance.
Resolution 1441 in Nov 2003 gave him one last chance and was supported by all members of the security council. Saddam did not live up to the resolution so Bush and Blair had full legal authority to resume hostilities.
Those who did flagrantly violate UN resolutions though were France, Germany and Russia who supplied Iraq with illegal arms right up until the time of the last war. One of the reasons they were so against the war was the embarrassment they would have if all their illegal acts were to be revealed. In addition to this all three had a big investment in Saddam and his oil which would only be protected if Saddam remained in power. The United States and Britain became a spoiler of their illegal activities and thus they lead the pack in attack against their prime target - Bush.
Andy:
And sometimes it is not so much what GB does that annoys but how he does it. He seems to have a gift for irritating the rest of the world, and worse still he doesn't seem to give a damn. I've heard people say that Bill Clinton with all his faults could have done some of the things that GB has done ( eg the war in Iraq) and yet would not have ruffled too many feathers because he is more persuasive, suave and would have known how to go about it diplomatically.
JJ:
Let me see... What situation in history does this situation remind me of?
It reminds me a lot of the situation that existed in the Election of 1864 where the rough hewed Lincoln ran against the polished ex-general McClellan. The war was going very badly and many felt that the polished McClellan who was more respected at home and abroad would be able to make a compromise with the South. The fact that all the blacks would remain slaves took second place to a compromise that would win back the respect of the South as well as other nations.
Most of the media of the time painted Lincoln as either a dumb ape that didn't know any better or some demon leading the nation down to the gates of hell.
Thank God the North had a couple last minute victories that turned the tide and Lincoln was re-elected to finish his extremely unpopular job.
It wasn't until he was assassinated that the world began to take an objective look at the man to see what be really accomplished. If Bush succeeds in creating a democracy in the Middle East and the work is not undone by his enemies he will create an effect as powerful as the emancipation of the slaves. We are in danger now because of pressure from do-gooders to turn over power prematurely and run the risk of loosing many of our gains. If, on the other hand, success can be gained and a true democracy established a domino effect will be created that will eventually transform the Middle East and even lead to a resolution of problems facing Israel there.
Andy:
I think it is the spreading of goodwill that will bring the greatest protection for America.
JJ:
Goodwill has its place, but if a nation, state or individual will not stand up for human rights then he will be trampled on by those who care nothing about good will. Jimmy Carter was the champion of goodwill but during his administration we suffered humiliation after humiliation by tin horned dictators who held our people hostage or violated agreements.
Reagan applied firmness as well as goodwill and no one dared take our citizens as hostage while he was President. The Middle Way of judgment must prevail and not a black and white path of decisionless do-gooderism.
I think Bush showed tremendous good-will by giving $15 billion to Africa to help with AIDS, but by the tone of your response it sounds like this very costly goodwill may not be reciprocated.
To Iran after the great earthquake he showed great goodwill by immediately offering aid to a country bent on our destruction. If that is not an example of taking good will to the extreme I do not know what is.
Can you give me an example of where he is sending ill will to any world leader? He even sent his own wife to charm Chirac who hates him.
Andy:
I have a message for the ordinary American: the rest of the world is not as dangerous as the government would wants you to feel. Part of the problem is that many Americans are among the least traveled people in the civilised world. I mean travel outside the U.S. On CNN it was said that GB had only traveled to 3 countries outside the US before he became president; that must be among the lowest for any world leader.
JJ:
I have a message for the rest of the world that they seem to be numbed toward. On Oct 11, 2001, America was attacked by people who hate us and want to completely wipe our civilization out of existence. In addition to the deaths of 2700 people the Twin Towers were destroyed creating a financial devastation that cost over a trillion dollars world wide. Ripple effects of this cost lives of over 100,000 children worldwide who did not receive the financial help they needed to survive.
In addition to this many thousands lost retirement funds and jobs and suffered stock market losses.
If we were to have two more attacks like this in quick succession it could induce a financial collapse that could threaten Western civilization itself. There is a lot more at stake here than meets the eye by those who want to see only peace and good will while ignoring the dangers we face.
I'll tell you what I think is a big difference between Americans and many foreign nations. I woke up to this when I lived in England for two years during between 1964-66.
Before I went to England I thought we were great friends as far as two nations go. Before I set foot on their soil I had never heard or read anything negatively being said of our sister country. Any English person visiting America was loved and embraced as well as admired for the interesting accent. Because of all the good things being said of England I thought that we loved the English and the English loved us.
Now if I had gone as a tourist I could have an excuse for coming back with a warped viewpoint, but I actually lived there for two years in six different parts of the country living in an English residence.
What blew me away on my arrival was how hostile many were toward not only the country of America, but Americans themselves. A day rarely passed that I did not hear through the media or from someone I met what SOB's Americans were. Most of them thought I was OK, but by damn those other Americans were arrogant SOB's.
I was baffled by this great difference in attitude between the two countries for the entire two years I lived there. I kept looking for some reason that they would not like us as much as we liked them - Why they regularly spoke negatively of us and we spoke positive of them.
After two years reflection all I could come up with was this:
(1) They didn't like our more outgoing personalities and confidence. (2) There was some jealousy because of the power and wealth America had that they did not.
Later I found out that despite the fact that the English are continually annoyed by us that the country is still one of the friendliest nations toward us. Some nations are much more than annoyed but hate us passionately and often for no more reason than the case England has against us.
Of course, there are fair-minded people in every land who judge correctly and I made many good loving friends during my stay in England. But the basic difference I saw between the two countries which is amplified in other countries is this. In America there was universal good will toward England. No one said anything but good toward the English. But In England rarely a day went by that I was not accosted with ill will toward America or Americans.
This woke me up toward the reality of the world view, but it was not a pleasant awakening, nether did it have a logical reason behind it.
I do not see danger wherever I go, but if we are not aware as a world we are likely to sink into apathy as did the world in 1938.
Andy:
I ask if freedom was paramount motive (for the Iraq war) why was it that when the army moved into Iraq the first things they secured and guarded were the oil installations while leaving the hospitals and museums to be looted.
JJ:
The answer should be obvious.
(1) If Saddam was successful in lighting all the oilfields it would have created tremendous environmental damage as well as create the possibility of climate change for the whole planet.
(2) The destruction of the oilfields would have caused financial ruin for the people of Iraq and doomed the average citizen to a life of poverty for years to come.
Many here accused Bush of going to Iraq to steal their oil. But after the war he insisted that we give over $18 billion for reconstruction with no repayment on their part due. The funny thing is that those who accused him of going in for the oil demanded that we use the oil to pay back the 18 billion. Bush refused to go that direction and convinced Congress to approve the funding with no demands for oil money.
Once again his actions went contrary to the distorted picture presented by his accusers and the world media.
Andy:
When America was supporting Saddam, Bin laden and many other despotic regimes did they not know that rights were being impinged upon, that atrocities were being committed. Why is it that only when these become a threat to her does she wake up.
JJ:
We rarely have ideal choices in life. During world War II we had the choice between Stalin and Hitler. If we had not supported Stalin then Hitler could have conquered the world.
The USSR invaded Afghanistan and in the name of freedom and justice we supported Ben Laden. This was one of the causes of the fall of the USSR and the Berlin wall. Would you go back in history and change this?
In the eighties Iran was much more of threat to us than Iraq so of course we gave more support to the friendlier nation. This is always the case with every nation on earth - not just the United States. Like Stalin during World War II Saddam later became a threat to the world, but both abused their people while we supported them.
If I was in charge I may have done things differently, but I can certainly see the reasoning behind the support that was given. I would have certainly supported Afghanistan after they were invaded by the USSR.
Andy:
North Korea already possess nuclear technology ( at least they bluffed about it) Why are the citizens not being freed. or haven't you heard that the level of personal freedom in North Korea is at such a level that even the Iraqis under Saddam fared better. The average North Korean is almost literally possessed by the government. Iraq was attacked because she was perceived as an easier prey.
JJ:
First, before one goes to war it would be total insanity to not consider the cost and chance of victory. A war with North Korea would be more dangerous than the one with Iraq. Such judgments have to be made whether one is on the right or wrong side of the equation.
North Korea was not attacked because she has not yet attacked another country.
Iraq was attacked because they made an aggressive move toward Kuwait and we continued in a state of war with them through 2003. We are not are war with North Korea.
With nuclear weapons in the equation then there may come a time that some form of attack must be made to save the destruction of billions. This is a situation we have never had to deal with before and will require great wisdom.
Andy:
What I am complaining about is the idea of unilateral action.
JJ:
There are sixty nations that have supported us in this endeavor. Even the support of England makes it something that is not unilateral.
Andy:
DK says in the externalization of the hierarchy that no one nation or group of nations can be classified as being good or evil, but that within each nation are agents both of good and evil.
JJ:
But he says that nations and groups of nations can support good or evil. He stated that the Hierarchy took the side of the Allies during World War II and the Christ worked directly with Allied leaders such as Churchill. He stated that the Dark Brothers were on the side of the Axis powers and Hitler was an agent of the Dark Brothers. Why would you think that both sides would be neutral today?
Here is another quote from The Externalization of the Hierarchy:
It should be remembered, in countering these ideas and in justifying the fighting spirit of the Christian democracies, that it is motive that counts. War can be and is mass murder, where the motive is wrong. It can be sacrifice and right action, where the motive is right. The slaying of a man in the act of killing the defenceless is not regarded as murder. The principle remains the same, whether it is killing an individual who is murdering, or fighting a nation which is warring on the defenceless. The material means, which evil uses for selfish ends, can also be employed for good purposes. The death of the physical body is a lesser evil than the setting back of civilization, the thwarting of the divine purposes of the human spirit, the negating of all spiritual teaching, and the control of men's minds and liberties. War is always evil, but it can be the lesser of two evils, as is the case today.
The present war, if carried forward to a successful completion by the defeat of the totalitarian powers, constitutes a far lesser evil than the subjugation of many nations to the unparalleled cupidity, the appalling educational process and the defiance of all recognised spiritual values by the Axis powers. If the totalitarian powers should conquer, it would mean years of turmoil and revolt; their victory would result in untold misery. Pages 179-180
Let me end this post with a quote from President Obasanjo of Nigeria who seems to have a positive attitude toward Bush:
July, 2003 It is, indeed, a matter of general honor and pleasure for me to welcome you, Mr. President, to our country, Nigeria. On behalf of all the people of Nigeria, I sincerely extend to you our warmest greetings on this historic visit to our continent of Africa, in general, and to Nigeria, in particular.
President has generally acknowledged that much has changed in the world since the end of the Cold War. There's no doubt there is an emerging new world order, with new realities of nations and people throughout the world -- their international outlooks, seek new friends and confirm old realities in the bid to find fresh places for global peace, harmony and security.
In this imagined new world order, Mr. President, the rest of the world acknowledges that the United States of America will remain a key player, politically, economically, and militarily. Thus we appreciate your visit to our continent as indication that Africa is to be reckoned with in the emerging world order. We salute your visit to so many African countries -- four of them -- and now Nigeria, in particular, as an expression that Africa should not be sidelined, or even detached from the -- of the emerging world order.
We, in Africa, realize the extent to which we are ultimately responsible for our own development, and that we are the architects of our fortune or misfortune. Nevertheless, this is also generally true that hardly any country has transformed its fortunes without external support from friends and well-wishers. That is why we acknowledge with deepest appreciation the role that the United States has played and continues to play, particularly within the G8, in supporting the vision of the New Partnership for African Development, NEPAD. As you are well aware, Mr. President, NEPAD is our vision, as well as our blueprint for making our continent great.
Through the NEPAD, African leaders have made a commitment to the African peoples and to the world to work together in developing the continent by consolidating democracy, good governance, and implementing such general social, economic development programs. Implicit in the NEPAD program are all the universal values, such as democracy, human rights, rule of law, eradication of corruption, conflict resolution, and fight against terrorism. We are hopeful that NEPAD will strengthen Africa's position in the emerging world order.
Here, in Nigeria, we are making bold strides to consolidate democracy and reform our government structures, as well as the national economy. We also have continuing and new regional responsibilities, especially in the area of maintaining security. These areas require global understanding, cooperation and substantial financial support. You will agree with me that sustainable national reforms are central to regional and global transformation and for development.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Copyright 2004 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved