 |
Afternoon Open Thread: USAid to Afghanistan Pocketed by Highly-Qualified Americans |
 |
The BBC is reporting that USAid to Afghanistan and Pakistan is (brace yourself) less efficient than it could be.
[A] regular complaint about USAid-funded contractors is that too much of the money that could be spent building a school or training teachers in the target country is instead spent on salaries of well-qualified experts and on overheads such as their offices in the US or Europe.
For instance, schools being built in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) have to be earthquake-proof as per US standards.
"That is more expensive. It needs an expertise that will probably bring with it some overhead," said Mr Ward.
The counter argument given by many is that there are standard designs for such schools and those can be implemented locally.
While this particular scenario is unique, criticism of USAid is nothing new. Failures and flaws have dogged it from the start, and have come from multiple fronts.
Some criticize it as an "opiate for the Third World," using rhetoric similar to that employed when denouncing programs such as welfare. As Reagan put it, "unless a nation puts its own financial and economic house in order, no amount of aid will produce progress."
Others fault the application of the aid. James Bovard, writing for the Cato Institute, said:
American foreign aid has often harmed the Third World poor. In Indonesia, the government confiscated subsistence farmers' meager plots for AID-financed irrigation canals. In Mali, farmers were forced to sell their crops at giveaway prices to a joint project of AID and the Mali government. In Egypt, Haiti, and elsewhere, farmers have seen the prices for their own crops nose-dive when U.S. free food has been given to their countries.
Men like Marvin Weinbaum, an ex-state department analyst, see a problem in the predatory behavior of US firms. "I know of a case where the US company never built the schools in Afghanistan for which it was awarded a contract," said Weinbaum.
In light of all these failures, USAid seems more about the act than the effect. So long as we give money we have a conscience-cleanser, regardless of its consequences. But is it as simple, or as cynical, as that? Is the United States government really trying to help out other countries? Or are we just maintaining the semblance of a nation on the moral high-ground, while adding another laying for corrupt bureaucrats to skim off?
Take the thread and run with it.
But is it as simple, or as cynical, as that? Is the United States government really trying to help out other countries? Or are we just maintaining the semblance of a nation on the moral high-ground, while adding another laying for corrupt bureaucrats to skim off?
- I think the aid we give other countries parallels the aid we give our own country in times of crisis, it's a facade. When the problem we are throwing aid at isn't one of vital importance, or perceived vital importance, then we just throw a little money at the problem and hope the people shut the fuck up. Although, at the same time the political architects hope the pigeons we gave $ to point fingers and say "that America is so generous and sweet". This scene is much like naive schoolgirls when Joey Facebook gets into their pants buy renting "Blank Check" and buying them a Tulip all the while Joey Facebook is really pimping 20 other hoes. Our aid is as political as a photo op with minority kids suffering of cancer in lower class Detroit. We give only when it benefits us in some round about way. Hey we give here maybe they like us more and we can exploit their resources, land, and people. Christ sake if this Washington had a soul it wouldn't have had an excuse Rolodex handy when Katrina hit. Seriously a whole city is flooded and it takes a week for help from the government. They don't care. You hit it on the head, they want maintain some semblance of being caring kind hearted nation even if we are water boarding people while watching Jason Taylor do the electric slide. They won't see the hypocrisy in our aid, they'll love us. But eventually you have to believe Nancy Sugarpants catches on and goes Lorena Bobbitt on old Joey. Hollllllaazzzzzzz………
Hastily written. Don't get it? Call me and I explain what I meant…1-888-EATSHIT.
What evil people. Though, our approach since the Marshall Plan was to rebuild countries and take their business at the same time. Make money and do good, it's the American way! Except when it doesn't work, like in Iraq, and apparently, Afghanistan.
I agree with the cynicism above. US foreign aid seems like the equivalent of sprinkling pennies on people that we've bombed the hell out of so we can all get some sleep. I think the biggest problem is one of expectations - both from the perspective of the government and for those out there who think we have an obligation to clean up its messes. The photo-ops won't change the way a country views the US. Building schools to "combat terrorism" doesn't work because "terrorism" isn't something taught or fixed in schools - and the assumption that "they hate us cause their taught to hate us" delegitimizes people's valid political grievances against our country. And everyday we read about another corruption case in USAID. Or how focusing aid in conflict areas in Afghanistan, causes those peace-loving folk to wonder if they're on the wrong side. William Easterly (who I don't always see eye to eye with) calls for a "realistic vision for foreign aid" and urges development agencies to set more modest objectives and stop looking for the panacea of "the Next Big Idea". He wrote: "The goal of having the high-income people make some kind of transfer to very poor people remains a worthy one, despite the disappointments of the past. But the appropriate goal of foreign aid is neither to move as much money as politically possible, nor to foster society-wide transformation from poverty to wealth. The goal is simply to benefit some poor people some of the time" Maybe that's a defeatist stance. We still have a responsibility to demand accountability and efficiency of our foreign aid agencies. But after reading jargon-packed report after report on how some little project is going to transform an entire country only to discover the money never even made it there - I think some help, some of the time, is about all we can hope for.