The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australian aid: in the national interest > Comments

Australian aid: in the national interest : Comments

By Tim O'Connor and Kate Wheen, published 17/2/2006

The 'national interest' through which Australian aid is delivered ensures Aussie aid kowtows to the interests of business and politics.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Well it just demonstrates how far this government has been captured by economic rationalists. Aid must "pay its way", must be cost justified, becomes a tool for rewarding government supporters with cosy contracts, becomes corporate welfare.

Whilst individual 'dole bludgers' are given great scrutiny, the elite corporate bludgers are excused for all sorts of serious misdemeanours, and if found out, pensioned off with a massive payout (e.g. the outgoing AWB CEO).

Aid could be a great tool for reducing terrorism, reducing poverty, reducing disease. This government sees it as just another way of paying its elite mates.
Posted by AMSADL, Friday, 17 February 2006 10:58:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The criticism related to the Australian Government putting the interests of Australian business, in this case wheat farmers, before the development needs of the people of Iraq.”

Oh, the shame of it! Australians doing something for Australia! What are Australia and its wheat farmers supposed to do? Just act like charities and hand out alms to countries too corrupt and dysfunctional to look after themselves?

“The ethics of using the aid program for such narrow domestic interests appears difficult to reconcile”, claims our intrepid reporter. How naïve can you get? That’s what “aid” is all about – the donor country has to benefit too - but Mr. O’Connor thinks countries are like individuals putting change in a charity box on the way into the football. This is a repeat of his last effort.

It’s not surprising that the “Advisory Board” of the political organization that Mr. O’Connor represents includes that doyen of world leftism, Noam Chomsky, the west-hating journalist, John Pilger and the Magistrate Pat O’Shane.

Have a look at the web site. They also want the Australian Government to interfere in the politics of Burma.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 17 February 2006 11:17:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beholding to rational economics interests as a criticism... thats very funny.

Hmm lets see... the farmers ability to sow a bountiful crop is beholden to rainfall. Rather than the needs of hungry mouths. Ahhh, how inconsiderate is this thing known as basic simple truth. Then again we can always redefine mathematics and make 1+1 = 2.5. That always seems to help, until the numbers start falling off the page and people start crying the well is somewhere between dry and poisened.

Its all good... as long as someone else pays of course. Hey there's a free ride here, just jump on dood.

Hate to state the obvious but, er business IS a PART of what makes a nation. My heart and lungs should not be held to my legs.
Posted by trade215, Friday, 17 February 2006 2:50:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Well it just demonstrates how far this government has been captured by economic rationalists.”

Yes AMSADL. We all know what the purpose of our international aid program should be. It has been hijacked.

“Aid could be a great tool for reducing terrorism, reducing poverty, reducing disease. This government sees it as just another way of paying its elite mates.”

Well said.

ALL of our aid monies and that of all other countries should go to ‘consolidated revenue’ in the UN. From there it can be divvied up proportional to needs, on a global basis. The UN should be in charge of the whole caboodle. Let’s get rid of this vested-interest pseudo-aid scenario.

OK, I’ll bring the population issue into it. Aid that is geared towards the promotion of trade serves to facilitate population growth both in Australia and for our trade partners. But one of the primary purposes of aid should be to work towards stabilising populations, in the interests of sustainability and the maintenance of a half-decent quality of life.

.
“ ‘The ethics of using the aid program for such narrow domestic interests appears difficult to reconcile’ , claims our intrepid reporter. How naïve can you get? That’s what ‘aid’ is all about – the donor country has to benefit too “

But Leigh, the purpose of this aid is to facilitate trade with Australia. Most advantages for the ordinary people of the receiver countries are incidental. And there are much more needy people on which this aid money should be focussed.

The donor country doesn’t have to benefit directly. Aid is about giving, not giving and receiving. Trade is about giving and receiving. Let’s not get them mixed up. Aid should be about us celebrating our high quality of life by giving to those in desperate need without expecting anything in return at all. In the longer term this aid will be to our benefit, if it is the right sort of aid, by way of alleviating poverty and greatly reducing massive population growth.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 17 February 2006 10:59:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
National interest and aid. I seem to remember that the UN was set up with the idea of a central body as the site for the compromises necessary in Foreign relations but also with the idea of development for all people. Now mind you economic rationalism and former foreign policy claims that seeking the best for the individual nation or industry will achieve the most fruitful outcome in terms of total wealth and well being and its distribution provided one accepts that those who work to achieve this end deserve most, the remainder, since killing is supposed anathema should be accorded enough diversions and money as to prevent rebellion by them. The development of all people, at the risk of free loaders, a real worry to liberals, encouraging cooperation and thus achieving the best for all but at a level in which the elite does not receive as much money .
Sure the UN has not achieved this though has probably done better then its detractors admit and the main fault has been the individual desires of nations, America and Britain particularly, who can use their power to achieve their ends.
Australia has now joined this group though prepared the use the auspices of the UN when suited and deride them when not
Posted by untutored mind, Saturday, 18 February 2006 3:20:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thus the latest scam the Iraq war was presumably joined as one of the few supporting members was in the national interest. That is be onside with America, agreeing to flout the UN international law the Geneva convention, the Iraq deaths and destruction being payment for protection of Australian interests.
Such action within a nation and with the national laws would if death or property destruction resulted constitute a crime.
Presumably the use of Dubai in the waterfront dispute the figures fudged in the black hole of 1996, the lies of the children overboard and the flouting of the refugee agreements, the Pacific solution, locking refugees up for long periods, the doubtful validity of the better economic manager of a few years back,
the new terror laws and that of sedition and now the wheat board scandal and the lies that go with it. Of course the Gov was merely getting the best price for wheat and maintaining the market opening for-well for the Australian wheat farmer. Try this within Australia and jail would result.
So yes the evidence for long term benefit of cooperation may not be as obvious as that from the more immediate wealth of individualistic approaches but long term results in loss of trust, scramble for resources and conflict. The loss of belief and trust may even extend to the members of the home country.
Posted by untutored mind, Saturday, 18 February 2006 3:27:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy