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 > Helping others to help ourselves > Comments

Helping others to help ourselves : Comments

By Tim O'Connor, published 30/12/2005

Tim O'Connor argues Australia often only provides aid when it is considered to be in our own interest.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
What?
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 30 December 2005 4:25:24 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
Tim, I can't figure out from your article what it is you want Australia to do. It almost sounds like you would rather we send planes full of money to areas requiring aid and just shovel the money out as the plane flies over.

This might resolve an immediate problem by providing money for personal necessities and food but does absolutely nothing for the longer term issue of how can we help the refugees become self sufficient.

By providing infrastructure, as you point out, there are many jobs created not only in the building of the projects but also in the follow on usage of the infrastructure. Schools, markets, roads, government building are all longer term improvements to the communities.

Other areas you call out where Aus provides aid such as policing and prison management, while I am not familiar with the specific circumstances, can provide an upgrading of the local skills and improved community relationships.

As you may or may not be aware, fundamental to normal functioning and economic growth of any society is the need for a consistent judicial enforcement of laws concerning property ownership and contract law. Without these 2 items business development will never happen and consequently new jobs with new industry will never occur. In many areas needing aid these laws are either non-existent, weak/ineffectual or inconsistently enforced.

The Howard governments approach is the correct one as based on an age old adage that you can provide a man a fish and he will survive another day. You can teach him to fish and he will survive for a life time.
Posted by Bruce, Friday, 30 December 2005 4:47:22 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
Tim,
It is a complex issue, so Leigh provides the usual complex answer. I take Bruce's point to an extent, however we could probably provide services like alternative energy to power a number of everyday functions e.g. water extraction from wells. It would be preferable to me, were the government able to provide it's own expertise rather than helping the Packer family stay wealthy with suspected inflated contracts, however so many government services have been privatised, corporatised, and the like I would suggest the government no longer has the people to send. My local Federal member has told me that his government employs approx 200,000 public servants, where Queensland employ 350,000 approx, of course the Federal Government does not employ doctor's, nurses, police, firemen, teachers etc. there seems to be a disparity in aid to the USA V Pakistan as you correctly point out, perhaps the formula needs a revision, to provide aid on the basis it will help the donor country's economy seems less than charitable to me, if Christian charity prevailed the aid would be provided unconditionally, simply because it was needed to relieve hardship.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 30 December 2005 10:43:34 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
Under-developed everywhere, is a key issue growing rapid, throughout many regions of the world.

This article is spot on however, it also high lights the lack of "community" based awareness on issues of "real" sustainable development in Australia, in the way our foreign department sells itself overseas.

The article reflects well how "unbalanced trade" (distributions) promoting the "top-down" approach become the common "economic rational" over-riding core issues surrounding market "access" which is too easily mis-understood through "aid-talks" bribes of "mutual obligation" (see also dependancy through welfare). Self-Help means the "empowerment" of a ground level "enterprising" approach.

Micro-enterprise new skills and market development is required everywhere ie: compare issues in rural Australia (like Cape York), with the small Pacific Islands nations, African and Asians rural villages. The problems are the same but differ by population, region and degree.

Try issues like; Water,Transport & Communition, Market Access & Cost... Technology? Who (exactly) is employed in this areas and where do they really come from... are they locals? How much are these people paid compared to the income of those local?

Whose Development are we "talking about". Who benefits from what?

I ask Australians to consider places like Cape York (go to the Community Council Pages listed on http://www.miacat.com/) - pick any of them and then research their issues through Google. Most dwellings round Cooktown (outside say 1 km) township for example, aint even got proper water or sewage. There is a high tourist intake but small spatial population. The political struggle (as in under-development) is disgraceful!

My point is; How can Australia ever understand the problems surrounding "under-development" while it fails to understand issues impacting those isolated in Australia itself.

I was once extremely proud of Australia's "innovative" contributions overseas, today... I feel our knowledge defies our logic when it comes to addressing the growing "human basic need" through the present approach of so called AID in all areas of political-economic social and cultural policies!
Posted by miacat, Saturday, 31 December 2005 2:33:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said miacat, They say Cooktown is about to boom - but for whom?
The kids there have nothing after year 12 or less. The sooner locals wake up to be pawns for major political parties the sooner. Development needs infrustructure and planning in remote areas - many just take for granted that people who live in remote areas are ok with substandard everything. So much revenue from Tourism is pumped back into the cities its not funny. Clicked on to your website, good stuff!
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 31 December 2005 3:23:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philanthropy, of any sort, demands a high degree of "subjective reasoning" which is not well facilitated by government, administered by "objective" bureaucrats and regulated by "objective" statute.

Governments are accountable for their actions and are bound by some rules of conduct.

Australian Non-government aid is, generally, unrestricted and “unregulated”.

The Federal Governments Aid Budget does not represent the “entirety” of “Australian Aid”.

Criticising how governments facilitate the delivery of aid will always be around.

It is one of those things, where every demand is a priority and every one has a different opinion on which demand deserves priority.

We are approaching a dilemma – should some of the current federal budget surplus be

1 ploughed into extra aid programs?
or
2 returned to tax payers as reduced taxes?

I opt for 2 – then those who want to make the "philanthopic decision”, can decide which non-government aid program they are going to align with and pass on the hip-pocket benefit of reduced taxes to.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 31 December 2005 6:28:19 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
Money, money money , It is a bit of plastic or metal, it is a tool of trade which denotes the honor and trust of mankind- it is not the life blood that sustains you, you sustain you just by your existence and the ethics and morals (some) humans follow, that Rainier is what I mean.
Economics is simple, and NO Governments and their apparatchiks are not the solution-they perpetuate the problem.
It is one thing to lend a helping hand when a fellow man is down on his luck-or in the mist of a disaster- it is another to inculcate any Ideology that he is entitled to it-You only have two arms, and when one is bitten off you learn by your mistake or you loose the other arm. Don’t cry, you were warned.
If it was not for Money and reward for effort, others would take your property by force, or (Legislate) and Tax it (Take it) from you.
Governments were only that Governments- they are not and can not be the Worldly Gods or be the genie in the bottle to grant you your wish at every whim, as some ego’s may well take leave of normality and reality ; think(Existentialism) Karl Marx.
It is that simple, and Post modern economic garble is only to create an illusion it is complicated. 1=1= 2 not 6 as consensus might dictate by Post modern structuralism, for when reality catches up, it’s to late.
Have more faith in you self and help when needed, not surrender you existence to others that lack motivation or ethics and go to any means to deprave you of it.
It is not the Governments Money: It is Mine and Yours and it was stolen by deception . that is the depravity of the situation.
Posted by All-, Saturday, 31 December 2005 7:48:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australian aid to the Philippines has totalled AUD$300 million in the last five years. While we send aid to them, San Miguel, a Philippines based company has paid out $336.5 million to acquire an Australian company, Berri Ltd. San Miguel also acquired National Foods for $1.9 billion. Are we subsidising the rich in the Philippines so that they can buy our companies?

One of the ALP's favourite Indonesian families, the Soehartos, through prudential management of its own household budget and all members of that family having casual second jobs, has squirreled away a reported US$15 billion. All the while we have been sending Indonesia aid. On top of that anyone at Randwick for the 2006 Autumn Carnival need only thrumb through the race book to find some decent horse flesh is owned outright or in partnership by some prominent members of Indonesian society.

Some of these countries could remove themselves from institutionalised aid by adjusting their taxation rates applying to the filthy rich.
Posted by Sage, Saturday, 31 December 2005 9:13:26 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
Shonga,

Do you have the hots for me? I seem to get a mention in most of your posts lately, no matter what the subject. Have you ever noticed that I never comment on your ravings? This is because I don't mind other people having opinions opposed to mine, as is their right. Perhaps you could try expressing your own opinion and stop thinking that your constant criticims of other people will make a difference to what they think. I, for one, am not the slightest bit interested in your grunting. Perhaps you have no ideas of your own, and the only way you can get started is to attack someone else? In your go at me on another thread, you had to use the comments of two newcomers to launch your spray.

You have caught up with, and passed, Ranier as the no-ideas man and critic of others who merely expresses his indignation of anyone who doesn't hold his views.
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 31 December 2005 9:35:12 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
Hi Leigh,

First I can assure you that Shonga does not have the hots for you and nor do I. Have you ever considered that this observation of yours may in fact be a deeply suppressed desire / frustration? And thus projection of your own? I’m sure there are thousands of other internet sites you could visit and probably do.

What I and Shonga have in common is an inability to suffer fools who for reasons (only known to god) consider themselves to be armed with the intellectual wiliness to engage with complex social and political issues required - are simply boringly repetitive and impotent. Sheep get fly blown, online opinion has you. We’re just doing our job.

Cheers Matey.
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 31 December 2005 2:50:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Talk about a complicated issue. Putting other peoples hard earned money into the hands of crooked, corrupt governments is not going to help those who need help most.
While one feels deeply sympathetic to most third world nation's poor, helping presidents and prime mininsters of those nations to get richer is not helping the needy.
Even the UN appears to have dabbled where it should not have been.
Why do we send huge amounts to Indonesia? If they cleared out the corruption ,they would not need aid.
Helping people to stay and survive in their own countries would be better than have them live in refugee camps , this is where the UN should direct their efforts.
A small tax paying country like Australia cannot be made responsible for millions of other countries.
Posted by mickijo, Saturday, 31 December 2005 3:05:38 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
You appear to have illusions of grandeur on top of all your other psychological problems, Ranier. Who appointed you arbiter of right and wrong and judge of who is a “fool”? If you are getting paid for the “job”, you aren’t worth the money.

No, I don’t hang around other internet sites. Most of them are loaded with ratbags like you. Most of the people on this site, irrespective of their thoughts, politely express their own opinions and let others do the same without haranguing them. You and your little mate Shonga are the only blights on OLO. You simply cannot accept that what you think (if the word ‘think’ is not too much of an oxymoron in both your cases) is right and everything else is wrong, even though it is doubtful that either of you completed primary school.

Tell you what. You and the other idiot just keep on abusing me – if that’s what it takes to make you feel half way to being men – and I’ll just ignore you and continue expressing the opinions you so much hate.

In a way, your constant sniping assures me that I am right, and that I am nothing like you two – still in the swamp waiting to evolve.
Posted by Leigh, Sunday, 1 January 2006 9:58:56 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
Happy New Year Leigh, Love your posts! xxxoooo
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 1 January 2006 6:08:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
miacat

Good post mate! Thank you.

Kay
Happy New Year
Posted by kalweb, Sunday, 1 January 2006 9:58:45 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
It should not be the point of what Australian tax payers generously share with the rest of the world.

Australians need to start looking at what their childrens futures will be lacking.

Currently we are heading on the user pay mentality with our health systems.

We currently have what we call free medical treatment with our medicare system and leview charged to the tax payer but we are hearing more from our sick patients and the lack of money to provide them will the best medicines available.

Many of our sick are selling their homes to be able to access the appropriate medicines or be in the later stages of disease to qualify for them.

So many of our social structures and institutes have been downgrounded to a skeleton or advisory council to the government.

Our infrastructure and this includes our need to invest in the future retainment of water supplies which will be our greatest need.

Australians would want to know that the money that they were providing was spent where it is intentioned to go.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Monday, 2 January 2006 12:06:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainer,
It appears Leigh does not read our posts in their entirety, only the parts which rebutt his/her foolishness, I think you could be correct, maybe she/he has the hots for us. However we still will not tolerate fools easily, whether they fancy us or not will we....
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 2 January 2006 12:28:19 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
Miacat, did you know, no obviously you did not, know that Jimboomba, 50 kilomrters from the Brisbane GPO, is the pump capital of Queensland.
Yes thats right, Beaudesert shire has 35% of its population without town water, or sewerage. It cost me, & all my neighbors, about $8000 each, to provide water, & effluent systems for our families. I have 7 pumps to do it, & I don't live near Cooktown.
I get so sick of city people assuming that every one, other than realy isolated communities have all the services that you take for granted.
Get out of your ivory tower some time & find out a bit about services, other than in the city, before you start bleating twaddle.
My community of 2000, would love to have the facilities supplied to the average aboriginal community of less than 1000.
But, you see, we chose to live here, with the lack of facilities, so we don't bleat about it.
Then we get the public transport waffle. It can work for our army of public servants, in their ivory towers in the CBD, but for real workers it WILL NOT WORK, in our cities, which have grown up with the car. Our living & working locations are too dispersed for public transport to service the travel requirements of a large percentage of the work force. Then add the requirement of transporting kids to school, or day care, & the impractically of public transport becomes an impossibility for the majority.
I am sick to death of academics, & public servants, after a study trip, thinking they can turn us into a copy of european cities which grew up with out the car.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 2 January 2006 2:37:26 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
Hasbeen
Regarding your post – it has always been my opinion that some stiff necked bureaucrat will achieve less, think less and care less about people than those people would do for themselves. Hence, small government is better than big government.

It is also true that the number of “experts” with an opinion about any problem will grow exponentially in relation to the amount of public funds available to research that problem.

Australia is not Europe and many of the problems of today were created by the 'experts' of yesterday telling us it was.

Leigh

Don’t worry about shonga and rainier. You join a select group of us. We are regularly assailed by low life lefties who try to deny the fact that individuals can think and reason for themselves. They ignore the reality that individuals blossom with ideas and have the right to express individual views. They are indoctrinated with the twisted dogma that, limited by their own capacities, everyone else should be likewise restricted, to ensure we all end up “equally” impoverished.

They forget that all human endeavour was initiated by individuals. Even great public infrastructure decisions originated from the idea of one person whose enthusiasm and drive motivated and inspired others to give support.

Oh rainier “Sheep get fly blown, online opinion has you. We’re just doing our job.”

That explains why your ideas have such limited general appeal, -

They originate from the toxic residue of an old sheep dip
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 2 January 2006 5:09:27 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
Yes Col. The unthinking left have never left their own dunghills and experienced other versions of life. It's all a matter of willingness to learn and listen. This collective and so-called progressive view of things is result of naivety and immaturity. I was brought up with left wing notions, but experience has taught me how silly the Left is, and how menacing to our way of life.

I was highly amused to be admonished to look at South American countries. Using South America as a yardstick for the West shows how far up their fundamental orifices some of these characters have their heads.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 2 January 2006 9:20:02 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
Col & Leigh,
Yes you two are like peas in a pod, if one of you is male and the other female, it would be a marriage made in hell..oh Leigh, who is throwing dung now...
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 2 January 2006 1:41:40 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
"try to deny the fact that individuals can think and reason for themselves. They ignore the reality that individuals blossom with ideas and have the right to express individual views"

Give us a break Col, I can put up with your erotic facination with Maggie's underwear but this is a bit rich ol son. Since when was parroting conservative masturbations unique and original thought?

A fundamental flaw of conservatism is that it is unable to define its ideological charter - but is only able to tell you what it does not believe in.

And from this you argue that you practice a form of rugged individualism in thought? Wow!

Yes Leigh, you do belong to select and elitist flock of parrots who feed off each others droppings here in OLO. Feel proud and defiant mate, its all you've got and all you'll ever have.
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 2 January 2006 4:42:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, at least a quarter of the postings on this thread are actually relevant to the subject.

Some are certainly not befitting this high-quality forum.

I don’t understand why Australia can’t channel all of its international aid through the UN, and let their professionals decide how it is best utilised. I also can’t understand why, if Australia can suddenly come up with a billion dollars for tsunami victims, it can’t raise its overall aid contribution to at least the UN minimum recommended level of 0.7% of GDP.

O sorry, of course… the answer just became crystal clear: Australia does indeed spend most of its aid money on things related to its own interests…. and it isn’t going to spend any more than it needs to
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 2 January 2006 11:01:45 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
Ludwig,
Correct mate, a compassionate Government with a budget surplus of $11 Billion could do many things with the extra tax money it has collected from us, some of the options are:

1. Provide the services to the taxpayers, which the taxpayers paid the tax to recieve.

2. Increase overseas aid to the recomended 0.7% of GDP, and have the UN distribute it to the most needy and desperate people.

3. Build public infastructure for future generations, such as dams with hydro electric power stations for sustainable development.

4. Invest in R&D on alternate energy sources to help reduce climate change, and also to save expense to the public for energy supply.

5. Provide a decent public Health and Education system to advance the nation.
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 4:04:55 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
Thanks for the article Tim.

Some very interesting issues raised, particularly the role of the For-Profit "aid" provider GRM, which from your description has a similar contracting arrangement with the Australian Government, to what Halliburton enjoys with the US Government!

My view is that aid should be purely for humanitarian purposes, not used as means of advancing our nation's economic interests. That said, we shouldn't send money to dodgy governments - the corruption in Indonesia and the Solomans being a good example of where as Ludwig suggests, aid should be directed through the UN.

I believe there is ample evidence to support Leigh's theory that the number of “experts” with an opinion about any problem will grow exponentially in relation to the amount of public funds available to research that problem". So if this is a given, then we should make sure that the experts are aid specialists, not trade specialists.

Seriously though, Australia's international reputation is poor enough already with our involvement in the Iraq War, our treatment of refugees, and our failure to act as a Global Citizen with respect to Kyoto (which despite its many flaws is still a reasonable first attempt to resolving this global issue). We should be trying to rebuild that reputation by rediscovering that supposedly Australian notion of a "fair go".

I'm been living in London for the last 4 months and it's interesting looking in at what's going on back home. Some ultruistic aid would do a lot for repairing our reputation.

Finally - to all the angry people - chill out, keep the debate clean, and look for similarities not differences in each others arguments. We may not all think the same way, but we are still all thinking. In a nation typified by apathy this is important to remember.

Cheers

Stuart
Posted by Stuart, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 7:34:38 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
One more thing - I know its slightly off topic, but Shonga - I'd like to suggest another item for your list -

6. Buying back and importantly "revegetating" the extremely marginal farming country which attracts drought relief every few years. It shouldn't have been opened up for farming in the first place, and we should work with the farmers to decommission and revegetate the land with CO2 absorbing trees, which will then also deliver improved water quality for our river systems.
Posted by Stuart, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 7:40:53 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
Ludwig “I don’t understand why Australia can’t channel all of its international aid through the UN,”

I can think of one good reason – Iraqs Oil for Food Program

Kofi’s son certainly benefited.

The “Professionals” at the UN and the UN itself are more corrupt than in smaller, more “direct” organisations.
“More” of your contributions to relief aid for the masses is going to end up in the pockets of whores for services to UN bureaucrats than into a water pump for a poor African village than channelled directly to an charitable agency.

So what is wrong with you researching and deciding, for yourself, on one or a number of charities whose goals you empathise with, whose fiduciary proprietorship is unblemished and pay over to them your income benefit from reduced taxation, instead of leaving it to national or international Bureaucracies to dispense?

Shonga – “a compassionate Government with a budget surplus of $11 Billion could do many things with the extra tax money it has collected from us”

“Government” is incapable of “compassion” for the reasons I posted previously.

Only individuals can exercise “compassion” any government which claims “compassion” among its credentials is merely an unmitigated liar.

Rainier – this “conservative” believes, absolutely, that people will only grow and achieve their full potential through facing and making decisions for themselves and living with the consequences of those decisions.

As Margaret Thatcher said “Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul.”

To explain, with reference to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

“Economics” is down on that lowest and basest of levels, the psychological.
Socialists are obsessed by this “low” aspect of existence (everyone getting a fair days pay, share and share alike etc. (all the “leveller” drivel).

As dearest Margaret alludes to in the quotation, Conservatives, having developed superior self-realisation, know that the way to personal fulfilment is to aspire to higher things above and beyond the scope of economics.

The real shame is socialists just don’t get it and thus, will never lead fulfilled lives.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 9:17:51 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
Thank you Tim. Great article.

Good on you Stuart for sharing your perceptions.

I like to add that sometimes we can even becomplicit in imposing ideologies on nations we give aid to.

For instance, where our aid, largely in the form of consultancy servics sourced from Australia and New Zealand,facilitates the receipint country to gain an Asian Development Bank loan which requires the receipient country to privatise a particular national asset and where this is likely to be contrary to its long term national interest. (I read somewhere that in the first days of the american occupation of Iraq all the national assets were privatised.)

cheers

chek
Posted by Chek, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 10:33:32 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
Bye the way folks, the UN is a "representative body" only (where Australia is one representative) UN policies are policies created by leaders of countries.... throughout the world. The UN has problems like any large organisation. It is not a world GOVERNMENT and would cease having any role if it became one.

Representation and "how" the "representation" works is a KEY issue here. The question I find everywhere is "who" is representing "who" through these policies, "how" and "why"?

Australia enjoys high "developmental status" (in this world) but seems to miss the boat when it comes to listening to "ground level" innovative citizens... everywhere. ie: Rural residents in Australia, Small Pacific Island Nations, Village peoples of Asia and Africa. I stay rural to make the point - however - ground level urban resources are also meant to be part - where the "inclusive" sector issues are at their depletion.

The true investment I believe is to implement the "bribe" (economic AID) around the involvement of grass-roots. Self Determination - "Let us Help Ourselves". Engage those feeling the brunt of "so called sustainable development" and be more careful of the way "regional" officals (middle-persons) engage with these communities.

LOOP THE "GRASS-ROOTS" BACK INTO DEVELOPMENT. Community Micro-Enterprise Making building a platform of new skills - and (community based) markets from the Ground UP.

Present policies present a table with no legs. They have a poor base platform and more often impose their "development" over the local community as if their was no original "state".

I say: Turn the Lens Back Onto Community... miacats 2006 "Christmas Wish" - for Australia and the world... see http://www.miacat.com/
Posted by miacat, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 10:49:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, you write; “The ‘Professionals’ at the UN and the UN itself are more corrupt than in smaller, more ‘direct’ organisations.”

Notwithstanding some ‘less than ideal’ use of funds, I don’t think we can assume that the UN is any worse than small for-profit organisations. Worse than charities, yes probably, but then we can’t run a global humanitarian program from charities alone.

The problem with small direct organisations is that they inherently have a limited focus, whereas the UN has a global focus. So in theory at least, the UN should be able to direct funding to where it is needed, whereas small organisations operate in much less holistic manner. (That’s not to take anything away from their excellent work). The UN can then direct funding to these organisations according to their significance on a global basis.

I would hope (and I guess it is somewhat idealistic and naïve) that the world body would be striving to make the absolute best use of aid monies and that their professionals would have a much better idea than any of us as to where to direct funding, unless we did exhaustive research and became experts in the field.

As for the absorption of a portion of funds by bureaucrats, yes of course it happens. But this is just part of the cost. We can’t have a huge global organisation without a fair whack of shinybums. And yes, there are going to be profit-driven “whores” fighting hard for funding from the UN. Well, it is just part of the UN’s role to see that they provide good services for the money.

You write; “ ‘Government’ is incapable of ‘compassion’ for the reasons I posted previously.” Col, can you explain this, or direct me to your previous comments. Thanks
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 11:47:49 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
Ah Col-ly. Whilst you may do it unwittingly, you point out the moral indignity of the neo-right perfectly.

The problem is heavily interconnected with the Australian AID issue. It seems as days go by, so too does our governments ability to allocate AID according to vested interest, rather than actual merit of overseas 3rd-world nations. The provision of aid should be inexplicitly tied to our want, as privileged persons living in a privileged nations, to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. Unfortunately however, it appears many Australians, and our government especially, only appear willing to do so when they see something in it for themselves beyond aiding the intended recipients. This is clearly recognised by our governments ridiculous provision of aid to the US, and also in the fact that the cast majority of Australians only choose to give when they read it on the front page of the paper or see a benefit cricket match on the television.

I may have drifted on a bit of a tangent, but if our giving on both a individual and governmental can be more consistent and attached to merit, the world would benefit. Unfortenately, however, it appears that at the moment, the rights ideological preoccupation with the 'not in my backyard, not my problem' approach, effectively stiffles any such movement. You criticise the left for wanting to create a common good, when it is the very source of its strength.

Aid is not about ringing up, donating fifty dollars and hoping your name gets up on the television at the benefit match, so you can feel better about yourself. Nor is it about making 'even better friends' with our already shadily close 'big-brother' in the US. It is about making the world a better place, something that all sides of the political spectrum should be morally obesessed with.
Posted by jkenno, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 1:17:50 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
It is important to remind ourselves that the nations who require aid are respledant with corrupt people in all levels of society. It is a moral tragedy that they get this aid so freely and easily. I don't pretend to know the nature of aid negotiations. However, it seems to me that many funds are appropriated by shrewd or powerful individuals, irregardless of the provider's state of concern (if any) or awareness.
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 10:33:06 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
Stuart,
Yes mate a caring, compassionate, practical Government would add your No 6 to their list, in recent times it appears the environment has lost it's importance to government, it was a huge issue in the 80's.

People these days seem to be pushed towards consumerism and work, so much so that they tend to forget the need to protect the environment.
They don't seem to realise that when it's gone, it's gone forever.

As a wise man once said:
" Only when the last tree has died
and the last river has been poisoned
and the last fish has been caught
will they realise that we cannot eat money"
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 10:39:39 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
Col, I don't imagine I'm the only one who thinks that if I want my soul changed I'd be better off with a priest or a book than with Mrs Thatcher. What Col-ossal (bad pun) hubris on her part. And did the patron saint of choice have the changing of souls as part of her election platform? (Rhetorical question). If not, why not? Where was the informed choice in voting for her messianic intent?
Posted by anomie, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 9:04:29 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
GOODWORK jkenno - "Aid is not about ringing up, donating fifty dollars....so you can feel better about yourself. ..... It is about making the world a better place, something that all sides of the political spectrum should be morally obesessed with."

and to SHONGA,

" The ....last tree has died-
last river has been poisoned
.....last fish has been caught"
(may we) "realise that we cannot eat money" ,

Do you agree that to care for the planet - is to care for people. Most of the environmental issues turn out to be issues of (someone/s) HUMAN INCOME.

We need to be mindful - we need to do more than make sustainable rules ie: the Wild Rivers - Native Title and State Land claims etc in Cape York ... or Dams that flood and over-ride the livelihood "needs" of villages in India, Africa etc. I can't see us getting anywhere unless we address the needs of people who more often "do not co-operate" with Agenda-21 or LA-21 (see miacat.com) unless we understand their degree of "POVERTY" or the in-"JUSTICE" - we can't hope to address it more appropriately.

I do not believe anyone wants to harm the environment out-right. I believe (pure) environmentalist (as have the extreme right), have forgotten that we URGENTLY need the engagement of PEOPLE at GROUND LEVELS, if we are to gain a fair-REALITY - from their "engagement" and support.

Yes - AID is more than the fact ..."we cannot eat money", it is about working through the issues to balance - a level playing field. Human Capital - Social Capital and a honest HUMAN FACE will go further than just addressing "the flow of money".

On corruption - it is a world issue. Structural-Violence is rife in Australia. It is an "invisable form" of violence and the most abusive form of all. The saddess is - many of us are prepared to keep it invisable - to do other-wise in an developed country, is/can be as "risky" as in any third world village.

Great Forum - truly admire our debate folks - TA!
Posted by miacat, Thursday, 5 January 2006 11:50:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig
The UN has failed to achieve much of its chartered objective. It is hamstrung by the organisation of its security council where resolutions, instead of standing on their merit, are “negotiated” through the myriad of political interests. Hence preventing Genocide in Africa is of less significance than paying political lip service to some African Despot.

People with passion and interest get on and do, whilst the UN just talks. Hence better to support the “doers” through their relatively smaller organisations, than assume any economies / benefits of scale will be delivered through the bureaucracy of the UN.

Regarding Governments incapacity for compassion, my reference to my previous postings, see my opening post to this thread about #6 on this page.

Jkenno I am pleased to see you agree with me.
Yes, government, every government, not just this government. is incapable of compassion.
Hence, I believe you would be better receiving a tax refund which you can direct to whatever AID benefit you wish. I am sure your own decision will be better than governments in meeting your personal expectations.

As for making the world a better place. That again, is something which we can achieve more as individuals than asking government to direct us.
I suggest, take responsibility for yourself, live by example and be assured, it should be the attitudes of individuals which shape government, not the other way around.

Anomie “hubris” is most often found in those who claim to observe it in others.

As for priests and Mrs Thatcher, Mrs Thatcher any day. Mrs Thatcher was a strong yet remarkably feminine woman, priests are just snake-oil salesmen who like to dress up in frocks.

Finally, regarding your derisory evaluation of “Choice”.
I ask you, What distinguishes humans from lower orders of animals ?

The ability to make and exercise choices instead of being driven by our own biology simply to perpetuate the species.

If you want to be a sheep and ignore choice for yourself, do so but do not expect to find me chewing the crass grass of socialism beside you.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 4:54:54 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
Tim, as far as the Earthquake victims in Kashmir and surrounding areas are concerned, one of the most dire needs appear to be footwear, blankets and some sort of stormproof housing.

Sending Ugh boots and blankets should not be too expensive to start with - seeing as our Government is as stingy as it gets, because there appears to be nothing coming back our way. By sending Ugh boots we would even stimulate one section of our economy. There appear to be people without any footwear whatsoever, from little children to the old and frail. Also, good quality blankets would help a lot. Thin, threadbare blankets would be nothing but an insult to these people.

As far as stormproof housing is concerned, there are enough aid workers there, to teach the local population how to build IGLOOS. Snow appears to be there in abundance, costs nothing and yet provides more warmth and protection most people could even imagine. One small fire will heat an igloo in a hurry to temperatures, which allow relatively comfortable survival. Anyone who ever sat out a blizzard in an igloo, will attest to that.

Some education, as well as goods, can make a life or death difference.
Justin
Posted by Justin, Saturday, 14 January 2006 2:23:09 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
Point taken Col – the UN is far less than ideal and has certainly fallen way short of addressing its objectives. However, we can say that about practically any big complex organisation. The only ones that come anywhere near addressing their objectives seem to be those with profit-motives whose objectives are to maximise their profit!

But problems within the UN need to be put into perspective with problems in the manner in which various organisations lobby for and utilise funding, and the way governments, businesses and private citizens direct funding/donations. There are problems everywhere which, relatively speaking, are no smaller than those in the UN. Hopefully UN management would get rid of a lot of them.

A couple of big problems:

Aggressive organisations succeed, but they are correlated to high expenditure on advertising and/or high profits.

Organisations dealing with current tragedies succeed in procuring more funding than those dealing with long-term causal factors and background improvements that are out of the media spotlight. In short, the whole aid scenario is far too reactive and needs to become a million times more proactive.

This is why we need it to be managed under the auspices of a holistic international organisation.

This might actually mean that Australian aid would be largely redirected into more meaningful projects instead of being, to a significant extent, geared towards trade [see OLO article ‘Helping others to help ourselves’, Tim O’Connor 30/12/05].

Yeah, I know I’m being idealistic, which is something I should have stopped doing by now, 20 years after my greenie awakenings. But hey, it’s nice to be idealistic instead of cynical now and then. They are the only two options in this world, aren’t they? (woops, suppress that cynicism Ludwig, you’re in ‘idealism’ mode)
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 14 January 2006 9:59:21 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
Oh schizers I’m losing track of my threads (or losing the threads of my sanity). This IS Tim O’Connor’s thread!! O well, I’m not surprised. Rather surprised that this is the first time it has happened actually.

Anyway, I’ll continue as though my brain is still fully functional…

Col I don’t think governments are incapable of compassion. They can exercise calculated compassion, as can any of us. In fact, uncalculated, purely emotive compassion is a bit unfortunate. Many aid organisations play on this, with the best of intentions of course. But it means that a great deal of funding goes into highly emotive current crises and far too little goes into the unemotive and somewhat mundane preventative measures.

You write; “We are approaching a dilemma – should some of the current federal budget surplus be 1. ploughed into extra aid programs? or 2. returned to tax payers as reduced taxes? I opt for 2 – then those who want to make the "philanthropic decision”, can decide which non-government aid program they are going to align with and pass on the hip-pocket benefit of reduced taxes to.”

I opt for 1. I think that we should be more highly taxed than we are, with a resultant improvement in domestic services and international aid. We should require by law that our government put at least 0.7% of our GDP into real international aid, as per the UN recommendation.

The trouble with 2 is that very little of any tax reduction would go towards aid programs. Most people would choose not to make a philanthropic decision to donate any of it to international aid programs, and the little bit that does get sent would largely go towards emotive causes.
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 15 January 2006 12:46:11 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
Hi Ludwig

Agree with your view re UN being “lobbied” by powerful influences and would note those influences invariably sow the seeds of corruption.
However, I cannot see large corruption being any better than small corruption and “UN management” has become the origin of the corruption and so is not going to get rid of itself.

Whilst recognising your points re aggressive lobbying and “glamour” causes, what you are asking for is the “re-engineering” of peoples thought processes, an impossible goal.

Suggesting “we need to be managed” – I strongly disagree. I need and Australia too to manage our circumstances, I do not need and would strongly resist being “managed” by any international organisation, regardless of how “holistic” it might be.

There is Nothing wrong with “idealism” (without it, nothing). An appreciation of “Pragmatism” is an equally valuable quality, to be mixed with “Idealism” for best overall results.

Regarding compassion, I stand by my assertion. Your term “calculated compassion” is an oxymoron.
Again, “pragmatism” helps to balance “emotive expectations and promotions”.

Your elective in choosing Option 1.
This is the crux of our difference of view.

I would only opt for 2.

I see “government” and paid bureaucrats as being no better than me at managing the resources they collect, on my behalf and will invariably decide differently to me how those resources should be best distributed, in your and my name.

Your comment “Most people would choose not to make a philanthropic decision to donate any of it to international aid programs”.

Your suggestion ignores the “philanthropic” leanings and activities of millions of private individuals from Rotary and Lions club members and those who fill the coin collector tins to those who pursue grander endeavours of their own volition.

”Government” is manned by politicians and bureaucrats. Despite often thinking the contrary, I am reliably informed, Politicians and Bureaucrats are “people” and will thus, do no better a job of “philanthropic distribution” than the private individuals from whom they extort the taxes to be deployed into “international aid”.

I look forward to your response.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 16 January 2006 10:15:12 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
Col, you have given me so much to respond to.

You wrote; “I cannot see large corruption being any better than small corruption and ‘UN management’ has become the origin of the corruption and so is not going to get rid of itself.”

The world is watching the UN very closely, scrutinising just about everything. The UN has to be highly accountable to its member nations for its actions. Much less accountability exists for many small organisations. Any corruption within the UN would have to be pretty minimal, or else very well planned and concealed. Yes, powerful influences can sow the seeds of corruption, but they can also prevent or minimise it.

Even with a considerable level of inefficiency and perhaps some outright corruption, UN management would be better than a hodge-podge of different organisations with largely uncoordinated and reactive agendas, because it would surely make the whole aid scenario much more proactive and holistic, which are concerns of the highest order.

This is the same principle as government control of the economy versus market-force control. If too much power is vested in the business sector, all sorts of problems will result due to the overriding profit motive, immediacy of competition, tragedy of the commons and lack of long-term vision (which is exactly what is happening because governments are not fulfilling their basic regulatory role). Regulation is one of the primary responsibilities of governments. Similarly, the UN should be the world aid regulatory body, thus bringing a greater sense of balance, a better distribution of funds and more emphasis on crisis-prevention and sustainability.

Idealistic? Absolutely. But pragmatic as well.

We do have a fundamental disagreement on the need for management, don’t we.

more below
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 16 January 2006 11:56:01 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
I cannot see what you object to regarding “calculated compassion”. Again, it is a form of management, practiced by individuals, organisations, companies and governments, as to how much of their money, time and/or resources they are going to put towards compassionate concerns.

The advantage with option 1 is that the majority of aid money would be distributed according to my above model, where in option 2, advertising power in combination with immediate crises (your ‘glamour’ causes) would mean that the vast majority of funding would NOT go into background preventative measures and promotion of sustainability. It means that it would go towards treating the symptoms rather than the causes, or at least the ratio of expenditure on these would be far too skewed towards the former (as it is now). This is the really significant point here, as it is with UN management.

“Your suggestion ignores the “philanthropic” leanings and activities of millions of private individuals…”

Not at all. Many people contribute to all sorts of worthy organisations, but most don’t. The average expenditure is tiny. This is why we need our aid to be part of the tax system. People would generally be much happier if a couple of percent of their taxes went towards genuine international aid, than they would be paying the equivalent in a voluntary capacity. Even if they received tax breaks, with a strong recommendation that a significant portion of that saving go towards some worthy aid project, how many people do you think would follow the recommendation? Not many. The same principle applies with tax itself; if people had the choice as to how much tax they paid, how much do you think they’d pay, despite knowing about all the essential services that those taxes support?

Your last paragraph is very revealing. You really do harbour some very strong negative views about government. To blanketly condemn all politicians and bureaucrats and to say that they “extort” taxes off us is really unfortunate. Now I am beginning to understand why you are so strongly against management.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 16 January 2006 11:59:02 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
Col, back from a break and sorry to be so late in responding. In what way were my comments about choice derisive (not, as you put it, 'derisory', which means 'insultingly small', rather like Australian aid)? I'm thoroughly in favour of choice, as long as it's informed. Indeed, my question to you was about informed choice. Did Mrs Thatcher go to the electorate announcing her intent to change souls? No, she talked about economics. Would she have been elected if she'd said she aimed to change souls? Unlikely. Then did she give those who voted for her an informed choice? Not from the sound of it.

And I'm very much on your side on the question of priests. I just don't think a Tory politician is an appropriate spiritual advisor either. Or any other politician for that matter.
Posted by anomie, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 5:16:59 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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