A couple of decades ago, the British government

* gave 0.6% of GNP to overseas aid

* but the nation spent 15 times that sum on alcohol and tobacco…

* Half the aid was spent in the UK and

* much of the rest comprised loans with substantial interest rates…

(Source: Expository Times, April 1969, 221)

===>>> Anyone know the situation (in your country) today?

*****

Responses from Facebook friends:

* Australia gave .6 of one percent during the Whitlam years, but the level has declined steadily ever since, although some years have seen some restoration. The biggest cuts were by Howard and Costello in 1997 and 1998 which reduced our contribution to about .3%. Through the rest of the Howard years, the ‘official’ figure stayed the same but more and more each year was siphoned off to other projects not even remotely connected to aid. Remember the $300 million AWB bribe to Saddam Hussein? Well, it had to come from somewhere ..!

Australia’s real level dropped to .19% in 2007, making us fourth last in the developed world. The Labor Govt has promised to lift this but is hastening very slowly.

****

Slowly is good. The last thing we need is money being splashed around…

****

There is no evidence that targeted aid money is splashed around these days. Where do you get this idea from? Rowland and I both worked for a major Aussie aid agency and can vouch that the checks, balances and audits are extremely tight. Transparency is almost total. The solution to rorts by corrupt governments like John Howard’s is to get rid of those governments. Which is what Australia did, fortunately.

****

I visited in 1998 and 1999 several aid projects on the Indonesian islands of Alor, Sumba and Timor (West) where the medical clinics and the agricultural projects would not have been possible without Australian aid. In all cases, progress was being made towards eventual self-sufficiency. Although I haven’t visited other places I beleive this is the general experience.

****

Are we creating a self-perpetuating cycle of dependency on aid? Fair question.

My understanding is that profound acute poverty such as in African droughts or Asian tsunamis must be met with simple handouts. Fast. For immediate survival. But then longer term development programs must be put in place to enable the communities to weather future cyclical droughts or storms without need of continuing handouts. This is the aim of all aid agencies in Australia. My observations are that they do this well these days.

Problems certainly arose in the past where rich countries simply shoveled money to the governments of poor countries. This happens far less now. But Governments, including Australia, do employ contractors to distribute aid, as well as using established aid agencies. I don ¢â‚¬â„¢t know how effective these are, but some salaries are huge.

Good news buried in this year ¢â‚¬â„¢s generally depressing Budget documents on Australian aid is that a formal review of aid effectiveness is planned for 2010-11. Let ¢â‚¬â„¢s hope this is positive.

****

If we’re not gonna forgive their debts then we need to at least help them to survive. I believe there are ways for our government to give aid that can bypass a lot of the corruption, with so many foreign & native NGO’s out there on the ground.

The reason we’re giving less than 0.7% is not because we don’t want it to get wasted (coz we’re pretty good at wasting most of the other 99.3% on ourselves!), it;s because we’re a selfish people.

****

Since my brother has been studying soil and water science, I have become interested in this idea – that soil can support only so many people before it becomes overworked and eventually loses the ability to grow crops.

I guess this is where I’m coming from – at what point should aid be in the form of:

“Okay people, if you stay here this place will be a dustbowl. We’ll help you pack and pay for transport.”

****

Yes, this is happening in some countries, including parts of Central Australia.
Of course, it raises many further questions: Should some countries accept more migration on the basis of their available arable land? Why has Melbourne’s eastern suburban sprawl been allowed to cover the world’s most productive soil for orchards and market gardens? And why isn’t the country being run by you and me?

****

Of course here’s the rub. We’re all prepared to criticise our politicos (and none more than me!); yet Politics is the Art of the Possible, and were we in the same scenario, I suspect we’d make much the same kind of decision as those in power!

Alan, my brother is of the opinion that we need to stop migration into Australia. Now. In fact he wants negative population growth! Now, that’s not going to happen; both left and right want to expand the population (for different reasons). But it is worth recognising that we are not immune from the problem of overpopulating . . .

Seems weird with a population of 20 odd million, but it’s a hostile continent. . . .