RICHER, MEANER AND LESS SECURE

Richer and Meaner
The latest (2002) data on foreign aid is just out, and the subject of the biennial Reality of Aid report from a global consortium of aid agencies including CARE and OXFAM. In real dollar terms, the gap between income per capita and foreign aid per capita in the developed world continues to grow. And the gap between military spending and foreign aid spending is growing even faster.
Richer and Meaner chart 2
And the news behind the figures is even worse:

  • Much of the foreign aid money represented by the tiny green bars above never leaves the donor country — it goes to pay for activities ‘related’ to the foreign country that take place at home.
  • Much of the foreign aid money is earmarked for donor priorities, or subject to ideological restrictions (like the Bush Regime’s prohibition on foreign aid money going to agencies that counsel birth control or abortion), so it doesn’t go where the need is greatest or where it would achieve the greatest good.
  • An increasing share of ‘foreign aid’ money is actually going to ‘anti-terrorism’ activities that provide increased security for donor country nationals, rather than benefiting the country’s citizens.
  • Donor nations have great latitude to define what constitutes “foreign aid” and have recently been using more generous and inclusive definitions of the term.
  • Less and less of the money goes to the world’s poorest and most destitute nations, and more and more to third world nations in which the donor country has a financial interest.
  • The countries with the most crippling foreign debt burdens tend to receive the least foreign aid.
  • While the green foreign aid data above is from 2002, the red military spending data is from 2000, before these countries dramatically increased military spending to combat terrorism.

There are two ways to fight terrorism: Fight the symptom (terrorist violence) militarily, or fight the disease (poverty, disease, lack of infrastructure, and hopelessness) through humanitarian aid. The charts above make it clear which option we have chosen. We should not be surprised at the consequences of our miserliness, or our poor judgement.

This entry was posted in How the World Really Works. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to RICHER, MEANER AND LESS SECURE

  1. Raging Bee says:

    Where do you get the idea that “poverty, disease, lack of infrastructure, and hopelessness” cause terrorism? If all poor helpless people resorted to terrorism, then China, North Korea, and India (to name just a few) would have imploded into unspeakable bloody chaos long ago.This lazy logic only rewards and legitimizes terrorism, by implying that it is a legitimate response to “poverty, disease, lack of infrastructure, and hopelessness.” Not only that, you fail to mention the obvious fact that terrorism is an IDIOTIC response to these evils, as it makes all of them worse, not better. How many Palestinians are enriched by the chronic violence done in their name?If you want to address poverty, disease, lack of infrastructure, and hopelessness, then do so directly. Don’t flush your credibility down the toilet with lazy, shortsighted emotional logic.

  2. Some foreign aid, particularly the U.S. numbers, have to come with a big asterisk because really, they aren’t so much foreign aid as they are to help out allies or promote self interests. Lets look at who the top recipients of U.S. foreign aid are.1. Israel: $2.1 billion in military aid and $600 million in economic support. Much of the military aid is to buy U.S. made weapons.2. Egypt: $1.3 billion in military aid and $615 million in social programs. This was a part of the agreement between the U.S., Egypt and Israel in which the Americans essentially bribed the Egyption’s to become peaceful with the Israeli’s.3. Columbia – $540 million to help fight the drug trade (i.e. to stop drugs making it to American cities).4. Jordan – $250 million in economic support and $198 million in military financing. This was negotiated in a deal similar to the Egypt-Israel agreement.Can we truly call these donations foreign aid or just another tool to promote American or American-Israeli interests. In fact, the Israeli, Egypt and Jordan foreign aid does more to promote terrorism than fix it as it drives to the heart of the conflict – Israeli-Arab tensions and the United States pro-Israel stance.You can read more about U.S. foreign aid and terrorism here: http://cfrterrorism.org/policy/foreignaid.html

  3. Let’s be clear on what terrorism is. Terrorism is a form of war. The primary cause of war is hatred, mistreatment often developing from religious or cultural differences. Arabs don’t like the Israeli’s. That is a fact. Most tolerate them, many don’t, and a few are willing to go to war against them. The United States almost unconditionally supports Israel and as I posted above, gives them large sums of money to build up a large military, probably the strongest in the region. Israel then uses that military against Palestineans. Because of this, the United States is considered by most Arabs as a primary supporter of an enemy. As a result, many feel the conflict against Israel is also against the United States. Even in American ally countries like Egypt and Jordan (which as I explained above, were bribed for peace) the general population is anti-American.So, there are many arabs who want to go to war with Israel and the United States. But Israel and the United States have huge militaries and those against them are poor, have no missles or tanks or jet fighters or helicopters. So, how can they fight such a powerful foe? You got it, terrorism.So, while poverty doesn’t directly cause war, it is the reason why terrorism is used over other types of warfare.

  4. Raging Bee says:

    “But Israel and the United States have huge militaries and those against them are poor, have no missles or tanks or jet fighters or helicopters. So, how can they fight such a powerful foe? You got it, terrorism.”Here’s a radical notion that’s bound to get me pegged as an obsolete fascist fuddy-duddy: if you can’t win your struggle by fighting…STOP FIGHTING! Try another tactic, like, you know, nonviolent civil disobedience. Hello? Does anyone here remember nonviolent civil disobedience? King? Gandhi? It worked for Black Americans, the Phillipinos, and the peoples of the former Warsaw Pact nations. Has anyone ever TRIED to see if it might work for the Palestinians?Israel’s superior armed force is no excuse for murdering whoever you can reach and calling it “a form of war.” This is no better than saying that if a woman can’t beat up her abusive husband, then it’s perfectly okay for her to beat up their kids instead.

  5. Raging Bee says:

    “…Americans essentially bribed the Egyption’s to become peaceful with the Israeli’s.”And this is a bad thing…how? The least I can say for Egypt is that they made peace with Israel, and got the entire Sinai Peninsula back from them (which probably meant more to them than US money), and that peninsula is not currently a place of chronic senseless violence. And yet you allege that US support for Egypt “promotes terrorism.” Your logic needs work – not to mention your values.

  6. Ok, I have got to defend myself because Raging Bee has got me completely wrong.Raging Bee:You are completely misinterpreting what I have said and have immediately jumped to the conclusion that I am siding with the terrorists. Please, do not make judgements on what I believe or what I am thinking because you are completely wrong. I know you want to attack the messenger so the message looks muddled but please, lets stick to discussing the message. The world would be a better place if we all did this.”Israel’s superior armed force is no excuse for murdering whoever you can reach and calling it “a form of war.” This is no better than saying that if a woman can’t beat up her abusive husband, then it’s perfectly okay for her to beat up their kids instead.”I never once said that terrorism was just or acceptable or even beneficial. I am just stating why I believe the terrorists resort to acts of terrorism.”And this is a bad thing…how?”Likewise, I never once said it was a bad thing. You just wrongly assumed that I believed it was.”And yet you allege that US support for Egypt “promotes terrorism.” “Again, I never said that. The US support of Israel is a root cause of terrorism, not its support of Egypt. Although, in a round about way I am sure I could argue that the U.S. support and influence of Egypt does embolden a small number of extreme, hard line terrorists who want all American/Western influence in the region to stop.But getting back to the real point of the post and that is to say that most American foreign aid is to promote American interests around the world and not so much to ‘help humanity’ out of the goodness of their hearts which is what I think Dave was really trying to get at in his post and in fact a good portion of American foreign aid goes directly to building foreign militaries.

  7. Raging Bee says:

    Mr. Johnson: If I have misinterpreted your message, you have only yourself to blame, as you should have chosen your words more sensibly. Let’s go through your defense point by point…First, you say “I never once said that terrorism was just or acceptable or even beneficial.” But you did indeed say this, when you called it the only possible response to Israel’s superior military power, without mentioning non-violent forms of protest. When you blame Israel for the actions of Palestinian terrorists, you absolve the terrorists themselves of responsibility for their own actions.Second, you deny saying that US aid to Egypt promoted terrorism. But you said exactly that in this sentence, which I paste from your post: “In fact, the Israeli, Egypt and Jordan foreign aid does more to promote terrorism than fix it…”Also, you accuse me of “want[ing] to attack the messenger.” Are you saying that you’re just a delivery-boy, posting someone else’s “message” here?

  8. “But you did indeed say this, when you called it the only possible response to Israel’s superior military power, without mentioning non-violent forms of protest.”I never once said it was the only response to Israel’s superior military power. I said it was a response and the one some extremists are using. You are putting words in my mouth. But, since you want to get into this debate let me say this. Do you honestly believe that non-violent political protests in Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Arab nations will have any impact on the United States unconditional support of Israel and force the Americans to pull back and no longer have an influence on the region (which is the root case of terrorism against the United States)? Right, I didn’t think so.”When you blame Israel for the actions of Palestinian terrorists, you absolve the terrorists themselves of responsibility for their own actions.”There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Both sides actively promote violence and Israel certainly causes anger amongst palestinians because of their actions. Both sides need to commit themselves to promote a cycle of peace as opposed to a cycle of violence. Yes, Israel has to be accountable on some level and yes they need to realize that their actions only create more hatred, and thus more violence, toward themselves. The United States needs to take on some of the blame as well for (almost) unconditionally supporting Israel and not being an ‘unbiased broker to peace’ more along the lines of what happened in the Egypt/Jordan peace agreements. The Palestinians feel helpless with two dominant powers (one regionally and one globally) against them. As long as they feel hopeless they are going to lash out however they can and the reality is, peaceful rallies, at least in their minds, won’t accomplish that.Let me ask you a question. If Israel ignored Palestinian bombers and took no counter action would the bombings continue? If nobody paid any attention to a school yard bully, would he continue to bully other kids? Sometimes the best response to terrorism is no response. Terrorism works because it brings attention to their cause, be that positive or negative.”Second, you deny saying that US aid to Egypt promoted terrorism. But you said exactly that in this sentence, which I paste from your post: …”What I am saying is it is the United States aid to Israel that causes the most problems. Arabs resent that as it is just more evidence of pro-Israel bias. The extremists don’t say ‘oh, but the Americans are giving money to Egypt and Jordan as well so all is good’. They just look at the Israel part of the equation. That is the point I am trying to make. But again, the ultra-extremists will look at the Egypt aid and say that is the United States influencing the region for the betterming of itself and Israel and resent that as well. The ultra-extremists want no American or Western influence in the region.”Also, you accuse me of “want[ing] to attack the messenger.” Are you saying that you’re just a delivery-boy, posting someone else’s “message” here? “No, it is my message but it is mostly factual which cannot be disputed. When the facts go against your beliefs, you attack the messenger in hopes of discrediting the information. It is a very common tool used in politics. If you can’t fight the message, discredit the messenger. I’ll be happy to debate the issues with you but not if you are only interested in playing political games.Mind you, this is all off topic. I still stand by the point that American foreign aid is mostly not “aid” as would be typically defined but rather foreign policy money used to promote their own interests. Again, I think this is the jist of Dave’s post. Raging Bee, do you have any dispute with this statement?

  9. Raging Bee says:

    Mr. Johnson: First you make an enormous amount of insultingly idiotic statements, THEN you try to get away from them by saying “this is all off topic.” If staying “on-topic” is important to you, then why did you not stay on-topic? Sorry, that hypocritical evasion won’t work.Your cowardly victim-bashing mentality is best summarized in this paragraph: “If Israel ignored Palestinian bombers and took no counter action would the bombings continue? If nobody paid any attention to a school yard bully, would he continue to bully other kids? Sometimes the best response to terrorism is no response. Terrorism works because it brings attention to their cause, be that positive or negative.”Right – Israel is to blame because they responded to the unrelenting murder of their noncombattant fellow citizens; if they ignored the atrocities, they would just go away.Let’s answer your idiotic questions one by one…”If Israel ignored Palestinian bombers and took no counter action would the bombings continue?” Yes, because the bombers want to destroy Israel, and ignoring them would not lessen the damage they do to their sworn enemy.”If nobody paid any attention to a school yard bully, would he continue to bully other kids?” Yes, because he would have his victim’s attention, and because the bully would know that he would get away with exercising raw power for his own purposes, regardless of whatever values the adults preach. (And no, the victim cannot “ignore” a bully who is beating him into the ground.)First you say “There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.” Then you explicitly excuse terrorism against Israel, blame Israel for not ignoring said terrorism (but you don’t blame the Arab states for not ignoring Israeli actions), then blame Israel for causing hatred against itself, then totally ignore well-documented actions by Arab states that also contribute to such hatred. You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you neither know nor care what’s really happening in the Middle East. Now go back to bed.

  10. Dave Pollard says:

    Enough is enough. I have notified Raging Bee, a/k/a/ Dave the Pony Tailed Writer, that his comments are no longer welcome here. I am open to opposing views and have been patient, but I have no tolerance for his vituperative personal attacks on my readers, or the long and incoherent harangues that he has been posting here in great numbers. Please “don’t feed the troll” — this only encourages longer and less polite rants from this man. Thanks, and to my other readers, sorry for this nuisance — your comments are welcome.

  11. la says:

    Foreign aid won’t help countries become rich. Only they can do that themselves.

  12. Dave Pollard says:

    Lynne — you’re right, but they can help a country reeling with crises (not all of its own making) tread water until it can save itself. And in the meantime, generous countries make lousy targets for terrorists looking for scapegoats.

  13. Jon Husband says:

    Thanks, Dave for helping Raging Bee move on – it’s welcome.And thanks for the clear and incisive post – it seems clear to me that divisiveness and bullying and meanness creates overwhelming frustration, and then violence as a “last resort” response.

  14. Raging Bee says:

    Right – Johnson makes arguments so transparently ignorant that they can only indicate anti-Jewish – excuse me, anti-Israeli – bigotry, then he tries to deny that he said what he said, but I’m the one asked to leave when I pick apart the crap. Thanks for clearly stating your bias.It’s your blog, Mr. Pollard, and I’ll leave as ordered, but I must remind you that you were the one who needlessly brought terrorism into a discussion of US foreign aid priorities, so you shouldn’t complain when the morality of terrorism ends up being discussed.

  15. Ken Hirsch says:

    Poverty doesn’t create terrorists; there is plenty history of terrorists in wealthy countries–Aum Shinrikyo, Bader Meinhoff, Red Brigades, and so on. Even in poor countries, terrorists come disproportionately from the wealthier. This includes suicide bombers, as this article states.The most convincing studies show that terrorism is a rational strategy and that terrorists respond to incentives. See here and here.I don’t understand why you are for international aid, but against international trade and lending, which are much more effective at creating prosperity. Could you explain?Also, are you for or against foreign direct investment, as opposed to lending?

  16. Dave Pollard says:

    Ken: You’re right, poverty doesn’t create terrorists, but it does provide fertile ground for it. Or more precisely, as recent crime studies have shown, the larger the inequity between the richest and poorest in any geographical area, the higher the crime rate. The poorest have neither the education nor the time nor energy to understand the causes of their squalor or the options to rise up against those that have caused it. The leaders of revolution (of all kinds) always tend to be better educated and more affluent for that reason. There is significant evidence that international trade, lending and equity investment nearly always exploits the poorer partner in the deal and leaves them worse off. Colombia, for example, has virtually given away its agricultural and mineral resources at dirt-cheap prices to US owners and Western trading partners who take all the profits back, investing nothing permanently in the country. In return, the US has provided extravagantly expensive military supplies to arm the government against the very people who object to this theft of their resources, and chemical poisons that have been aerial sprayed, as a condition for US foreign aid and military aid, on the drug crops which are the only ones the West pays a living wage for, in the process so contaminating the land that 60% is now completely barren — nothing can grown there. For this “favour”, Colombia has incurred a crushing foreign debt load that puts their creditors in a position to completely dictate political and economic policy to the Colombian government, i.e. a severe austerity program that further impoverishes Colombians to pay the usurous interest on debts that can practically never be repaid. So Colombia has been ravaged, raped, ruined, cheated and bankrupted by the “benefits” of economic imperialism — i.e. by grossly unfair trade, loans and investments. Variations of this story apply in almost every resource-rich third world country, which is why I am anti-‘free’ trade and anti-globalization. In theory it could benefit both countries in some cases (e.g. where the country produces non-essential goods well in excess of its domestic needs, and the contracts it strikes with richer importing countries are fair. But in reality this is almost never the case — the goods exported are essential to local needs, and the deals are utterly unfair. Add to that the huge agricultural and other subsidies that the West provides its domestic producers to allow them to undercut and export to the third world ‘cheaper’ than the third world can produce themselves, and you have a ‘fixed’ recipe for economic disaster for most of the third world.

  17. It’s funny. The claims of capitalists is that soon the invisible hand of the market will help the third world join the first. What’s actually happening is the first world is joining the third.

  18. Ken Hirsch says:

    Sorry for the poor edit. I started the comment here, then copied it to an editor and then copied it back, but didn’t wipe out what I had started.

Comments are closed.