What the h3ll is wrong with this country??????

[Divernan]

45. US foreign aid comes with profiteering strings attached

http://blogs.ubc.ca/datavis/2012/04/04/cutting-the-strings-attached-to-development-aid/

When foreign development aid comes with strings attached—forcing recipients to spend it on goods and services from donor country—it can double the time it takes the help to arrive. Children have died awaiting such “tied” aid, which also can increase costs by more than 30 per cent.

Understandably, these policies have led to sharp criticism by activists. The decision by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to untie it’s donations was big news.
Some of the nations with the highest amount of aid reported as “untied” still end up using companies within their borders to fulfill the majority of their aid contracts. Simply because less aid is coming with strings attached does not translate into investment in the poorest nations of the world.

Finally, food aid, pharmaceutical aid and automobiles were all excluded from the new agreement for USAID. Data at this level of detail is not readily available, but would make for a good target for a Freedom of Information Act request. It is interesting to note that these are all among the most powerful political lobbies in the U.S.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GA07Dj02.html

Relief organizations have calculated that as much as 75% of foreign aid is directly tied to trade access or other economic and political strategies. Some comes with so many strings attached, including preferential tendering on contracts and the hiring of consultants, that only 30-40% of dollar value is ever realized.

US policy dictates that much foreign aid be spent on costly imported medicines, weapons, agricultural produce or manufactured goods. Some European nations have a similar approach.

In the US, it was counter-terrorism activities and military cooperation that consumed most offshore funding through the first term of President George W Bush, in a period when other foreign development assistance from Washington stagnated.

As a proportion of gross national product (GNP), the US was the lowest aid contributor among the industrialized nations in 2001-03, allocating only 0.12% of total income in this period. Although Washington paradoxically displaced Japan as the largest donor in dollar terms, this was primarily due to its terrorism response.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance

In 1970, the world’s rich countries agreed to give 0.7% of their GNI (Gross National Income) as official international development aid, annually. Since that time, despite billions given each year, rich nations have rarely met their actual promised targets. For example, the US is often the largest donor in dollar terms, but ranks amongst the lowest in terms of meeting the stated 0.7% target.

Furthermore, aid has often come with a price of its own for the developing nations:

-- Aid is often wasted on conditions that the recipient must use overpriced goods and services from donor countries
-- Most aid does not actually go to the poorest who would need it the most
-- Aid amounts are dwarfed by rich country protectionism that denies market access for poor country products, while rich nations use aid as a lever to open poor country markets to their products
-- Large projects or massive grand strategies often fail to help the vulnerable as money can often be embezzled away

.