Just how generous are we? A very good question. The answer is 'most generous'. What other nation would plonk AUD$1 billion into the bank account of a nation that hates us. This act of generosity captured the quintessential character of Australians because while our government was busy giving our money away our government ignored Australians with dental problems, our government ignored Australians on hospital waiting list, our government ignored the plight of those with mental problems, our government ignored the 100,000+ homeless Australians, our government ignored carers who are saving us squillions of dollars by caring for someone at home, and, many other social issues that could stand an injection of funds.

There is nothing wrong with our morals Mr Costello. Why don't the churches melt down their gold trappings and sell off their land. That would raise millions. Start with that property in Sydney - St Mary's Cathedral. I'm sure some property developer would pay a handsome price for it. The Catholic church could then donate that money to the poor in Africa.

Our moral failure has been in supporting regimes which squander their natural assets and oppress their own peoples.

Should we give more aid to Zimbabawe ? The people deserve it but Robert Mugabe will get it and spend it on lavish birthday celebrations.

I agree with debt relief and increased aid by the West but it will be useless if we do not acknowledge the problems caused by hopelessly corrupt and inefficient 3rd world governments.

The unfortunate reality is that all too often aid merely promotes a culture of dependency, with the result that populations increase but the welfare of each individual remains static, or deteriorates. There is the expectation that more Western aid will always be available. Ethiopia is a good example. When Bob Geldof had his Live Aid performance in 1986 , he generated many millions of dollars in aid for Ethiopia's famine stricken population of 35 million poor people.
In 2006 he staged a repeat concert, for Ethiopia's population of 73 million poor people. More aid is no solution. What is Tim Costello's solution?
from Jack Sturgess

Like other posters on this thread, I worry about the effectiveness of overseas aid, especially government aid programs. Jeffrey Sachs' views are not supported by a lot of economists who fear that more aid and debt relief will not do much to reduce poverty unless we're very careful to address the many factors - from rising exchange rates and "crowing out" to corruption in recipient and donor countries – that can render aid ineffective. William Easterly’s “Elusive Quest for Growth” is a sobering account of how so many well-intentioned aid programs failed to deliver over decades.

http://www.amazon.com/Elusive-Quest-Growth-Economists-Misadventures/dp/026205065X

This does not mean we should refuse to give aid, but it does mean we should be careful, selective and realistic about where and how it should be given. A simple

Less aid = more poverty = moral failure

formula is simplistic moral grandstanding, and fails to do justice to the difficulties and complexities of this issue

Most poverty seems to be a result of corrupt Governments and wrong ideology (eg letting thousands of cows walk around while people starve to death). Much aid has been poured into places like Sudan and East Timor and yet unless someone is brave enough to tackle the underlying roots of poverty change is only temporary. If simply giving money to the poorer countries eradicated poverty then it would of been eradicated many years ago. Just look at the amount spent on Indigneous health and observe the results.

I admire all people inclusing Mr Costello who are showing compassion and raising awareness and funds for the under privileged. I hope we are all growing in our generosity towards the poor. I do however object to simplistic views that say Western nations only need to raise the amount of giving to a certain amount to eradicate poverty.

I don't think Jeffery Sachs outlook was based entirely on the immediate effectiveness of adequate international aid, its more so concerned with placing African countries on the 'first step of the economic ladder', whereas at the moment the capacity for economics to develop society is very limited within these countries and they simply miss out on the spread of economic prosperity circulating the globe.
China of late has been investing heavily in resource rich African countries, i just hope it ciphers down to the lowest rungs of society, whom are the ones who actually have the power to turn these countries around. As outlined in The End of Poverty by Jeffery Sachs, 'clinical economics' are the 3rd world's best chance, and as a student of economics, i strive to fill this moral void.

Fair, egalitarian and generous. Yes, we were the nation that lead on issues of women’s equality and a fair minium wage.

What happened?

Tim it helps to hear you say;

a) “Australians understand that while we are an island nation we cannot ignore the fact we are global citizens.” And,

b) Australians understand that we cannot win a war on terrorism unless we wage a war against poverty.

That is the real war to fight I believe.

Why?

We know that anywhere where there is socio-economic failure there is poverty, agitation and various forms of discontent.

It is the struggle of the poorest people in Australia as well as in other regions of the world that are prone most vulnerable to the struggle against all forms of anger, violence and terror.

Without building socio-economic solutions and a proper supportive infrastructure, it is obvious how neglect and alienation can become a key factor harbouring cultures of crime - hence leaving entire suburbs open as recruiting grounds for terrorists and their ideology of hate.

Too often parents in disadvantaged communities are deprived of the hope that their children will be educated or even receive adequate healthcare.

On the human issue of “poverty”, it is so difficult when it is our own governments failure to understand and act.

We all need to work harder to learn, encourage, educate and moblise good strategies against the moral failure in our nation.

Wait a minute Tim, aren't you the Federal Treasurer's brother? Don't talk to us, talk to him.

You play this emotional blackmail, yet you admit that the Australian people are some of the most generous in the world. Its just the Government Treasurer who is the problem: your brother!

And for God's sake who has a second car? I can't think of anyone who has a second car. Who has a holiday house? I only thought they had those in Hollywood. Who lives in an ivory tower Tim? We are supposed to feal guilty?

Life is good to you Tim. The rest of us are not that "lucky". Being smart doesn't help in this country either. They pay cashiers in Woolworths better than they pay scientists in Australia. Is that smart?

What kind of money does the Baptist Church pay you?

As for finding alternative fuels, it will take more intelligence than money. The initial outlay for, say, solar thermal power stations could be expensive. So could more windmills and research into Thorium or Fusion Energy. In the long term, however, like the Snow Mountain Scheme, they are a good investment.

The sun is free, clean and plentiful. It is also the fastest alternative to build: we could be solar by 2010, you can build them like lego sets. They are in California, Spain and Portugal. We have more sun here.

We are in a sunburnt country not a lucky country. It was a sarcastic statement by the author of "the Lucky Country" rather than a criptic comment.

If we become a smart country then we stop listening to old boof-head, your brother, that helped get us into this mess. You can't pick your relatives Tim, but you do have influence over them as they do over you.

Tim stop trying to pass the buck.Its not our moral failure,its your moral failure. Get your corporate head out of the clouds.You are well aware that at least 50% of our foreign aid is tied and finds its way back to Australian suppliers and contractors.
A percentage of major project aid disapears in facilitation payments and bribes.
Major aid organisations are good at coping with emergencies and disasters and not so good at the grass roots.Major aid organisations are corporate and often or mostly compete with each other.A lot of our money is spent on positioning and lobbying government and other organisations for money and for preferred treament with respect to sexy projects which it is felt will raise profiles and thereby ensure funding for other high status projects. Catch 22.
In my experience in Pakistan, Afghanistan,Sri Lanka and South Africa
projects that worked best were those that empowered local communities. I set up the first Australian aid projects in Soweto and other SAfrican townships in 1977.
But no amount of aid money can overcome the power of a represive regime. So aid money spent on the indigenous population of WPapua is a band aid unless and until the Javanese elite and the TNI either
change their methods of control or withdraw. And for that to happen the UN and Australia must apply pressure other wise aid just remains
part of the problem.
Bruce Haigh

Jacks summed it up with the Ethopia example.The more we give in aid,the more the problem worsens.Contraception would be a better solution than just more propergation.

Further more Tim, British,US,French and Australian aid organisations,amongst others,have been prepared to host and provide cover for intelligence operatives and for intelligence activities.From time to time, and for some a lot of the time, they have been partisan,they have decided in conjunction with major donors and or their home government who were the goodies and the badies and delivered aid accordingly.
The morality of aid delivery is far more complex, compromised and ugly than either you understand or are prepared to admit.
Within Australia there is a growing failure to deliver to those without significant resources in health,education and housing.In the central west of nsw where I live the drying up of social capital is palpable. This government is causing spirituality and humanity to wither on the vine. People inside themselves are sad.Jingoism will not and cannot replace compassion.
You should be ashamed of yourself; you could have provided moral and spiritual leadership at a time of great darkness in Australia, instead you have talked about our moral failure in not providing money to Corporate Aid.
The single biggest moral failure over the past 11 years has been the gross ill treatment and demonisation of asylum seekers arriving by boat.I would have thought you might have sought,as the head of World Vision,to take a position that would have held a mirror up to the government so that they could see the tragedy that they were presiding over and we could see that you were fair dinkum and not a corporate wolf in lambs clothing.
PS The government new all about and encouraged the AWB in its activities in Iraq,we debated this. How much of WV aid is lost to bribes and facilitation payments in Indonesia, 10%,20% or more? How much do you budget for?
Bruce Haigh

Bruce Haigh

The difficulty with addressing poverty is that it entails the distribution - or redistribution - of wealth. So called poorer nations simply are making a hash of organising themselves to ensure that in general terms what they do have is shared in such a way that no-one misses out. Very few nations are so asset or income poor that their populations should not aspire to live reasonably comfortable and satisfying lives. Where it all seems to go wrong is in the emergence of governments ill equipped or not interested in population welfare - and the rise to power of individuals intent on nepotism and corruption as tools for survival. Then there is the total lack of a means of conducting international business in such a way that the free market in which we all believe so passionately can deliver fairness and balance rather than opportunistic greed .... Oh well, in the case of market failure we can all rely on welfare. Except there is no international government to dispense it, and no reliable supply side. So we have to smile and appeal to generous individuals to contribute personally to (band)aid efforts of last resort, or support governments looking for cudos or cunning advantage by running "Aid" programs that nearly always oblige recipients in some way. It doesn't matter how generous Australians are ..... we could all give all we have and it wouldn't make enough difference! And where have I heard that kind of idea before? Oh yes, in the Global Warming debate ...

The failure is political.
Winner-takes-all politics means that - where it counts - only the winners have a say.
And for the winners, benevolent morality is only of decorative value. Make moral sounds, but the decisions which count are all dictated by big wealth.
And the morality of big wealth? Selfish. Vicious. Conquest. War. Kill our competitors - always for freedom and democracy, of course.
Guess whom the winner of the coming election will serve?
Benevolent morality or big wealth?
What would you bet on?

TC is just like Bono & Bob. Save the world types who live for the limelight by getting us to fork out even more. Save your breath & stop ramming your hobby horse onto everyone else with your guilt trips.

Tony save-the-world Blair addressed the African Leaders a few years back & gave his vision for saving Africa (at least he was sincere & his ideas were workable). When it was Mugabe's turn to speak, he effectively told Blair to bugger off, and let African leaders run Africa.... And all the other leaders applauded.

That's the problem. The policies that would end absolute poverty go well beyond aid (which often gets siphoned off by corrupt leaders anyhow, or channeled into weapons & war) and are about fiscal responsibility, which unfortunately runs counter to the interests of leaders. Sub-Sahara Africa as a whole is actually worse off now than it was 40 years ago, whereas other nations at similar stages of development to Africa back then, & which have received far less aid, have developed rapidly (eg Indonesia).

So TC, if you are really interested in improving Africa's lot, take a course in economic development & then put all your efforts at coming up with a system which will make this work in Africa. If it works, you'll be a hero, which after all is what you want to be seen as. Sure the journey will take longer, & you'll be noticed less along the way, but the rewards will be worth it. You do want genuine progress in Africa, don't you Tim? That's why you are in this game I assume? ......Tim, you there?

Until then, keep your shame to yourself, & in the immortal words of Mugabe...

"Global Poverty" is a political football.

Each instance and country must be analyzed individually. Some poverty is a result of pure and simple corruption and squabbling over resources like DIAMONDS..

Other Poverty is a result of proxy wars by local warlords supported by Western interests in expanding their 'sphere of influence'.

Other Poverty is a result of very little by way of natural resources.

Other Poverty is a result of ..... and so it goes on.

What IS "Poverty" ? Trying to define this in Western socio economic terms is totally meaningless! Do we call a Malay living in a run down humpy over the water "poor" ? I've seen them so described, but inside they have color TV's and fridges etc.

Is a person who has enough to eat each day, but cannot afford some luxuries, or can only afford to live in a bit of a shack made from 2nd hand scrounged materials "poor" ? Not really. Relative to our 2 car families etc yes, but not in 'fact'.

The Lords Prayer "give us this day our daily bread".... not our weekly, monthly or yearly.. "daily"... so if people have enough to eat.. good.

Ok.. what about those who don't have enough to eat and live under plastic in refugee or squatter camps on border areas ?

ANALYSE THE CAUSE ! If their poverty is based on the cruel and heartless grab for resources (such as in Sierra Leone) like Diamonds, then the solution is
a)NOT to send them food packages..
b)NOT to simply open ones own borders for a flood of refugees.

IT IS TO SEND IN THE ARMY ! and do the following:

1/ FIND the leaders then execute them along with their upper echelons.
2/ Dismantle their organizations.
3/ IMPOSE a peace and then work towards some kind of establishment of some semblance of representative government but if ethnic competition is too apparent.. install a benevolent dictatorship such as Singapore.

Biblical Basis ? Romans 13:1-5

This should bring out the bleeding hearts :)

Gee Tim, you're really getting the rough end of the pineapple in many of these posts, many unfairly in my view, but it would be good to know that you might have sifted through them in some manner and a post script would be encouraging.
Your title, 'Poverty - our moral failure' may not have been your choice but it does suggest finality. We have failed...end of story and we all need to take a long hard look at ourselves in your view.
OK but perhaps you also are capable of introspection. My suggestion is that you get your head around the comparative example you mentioned, the problem and cost of combatting global warming and how it might benefit some poverty stricken. The Stern Report suggests 1% of GDP spent now will save huge imposts on developed country GDP's if left too late. There is the potential here for very large capital transfers to undeveloped (ie poor) countries to reduce global energy demand. One UK proposal is for individual carbon credits. This may be unworkable but could have the potential to radically alter living standards.
World Vision ought to be in the forefront of this new thinking. You are in a unique position to start offering something alternative to the failed aid give-till-it-hurts reality.

In a global world the difference between internal and external is blurred. The alienation and dispear arising from povety leads to a spectum of behaviours, from vanadalism to terrorism. Perhaps an old arabic saying is topical. The sword of Allah, the empty stomachs of the poor. In all aid we should aim to preserve human dignity as we assist in effective ways. This would include training peoples to solve their own problems and avoid aid dependancy. In this the old Community Aid Abroad was very good. Inefficency in aid programs is NOT a reason to stop. It IS a reason to do it better.
I do not think we can fully tackle povety internal or external without examining the nature of money. All national currencies are now debt currencies. The money only comes into existance when a loan is made. In ways it works like the party game where people dance around around a circle of chairs. When the music stops people grap a chair, only there are never enough chairs. The present money system gives more money to those that have it and takes from those that don't. Its called interest, although whose interest is rarely defined. Local currency setup should be a part of aid programs. If you want to be revolutionary, pay off your debts.
Impostion of peace is very expensive and don't work. Pax Romania in Gaul left 1 third dead, 1 third slaves and 1 third subservient, not much of an idea.

Ahhh Tim. Would that you were your brother's keeper and could do something for poverty just in Australia. He has the power. Rather, our money to do that. How does he sleep at night?

It is never enough. Private Australia gives .69 of our GDP to alleviate poverty. The Australian government gives somewhere around .36%. Well over the 1% apparently required. But people keep asking and calling it a moral failure.

It isn't a moral failure Tim. It is an intellectual failure. On your part. As many posters here have said....aid as it has been given has been worse than ineffective. It has made things worse. Instead of asking for more money or trying to get our government to FORCIBLY take it from us to give, start by asking how we can better use the money we get.

Also, trying to link poverty and terrorism with statements like "Australians understand that we cannot win a war on terrorism unless we wage a war against poverty. Too often the slums of the world’s poorest countries can become the recruiting grounds for terrorists and their ideology of hate." is also a failure of intellect. Scaremongering to try and raise funds is certainly a moral failure too Tim. Worse than that, it is a very very dangerous thing to do.

Terrorism and recruitment directly relates to political rights situations in the countries, and if anything, inversely to poverty.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1415550.ece
http://www.nber.org/digest/may05/w10859.html

All that will happen if we act on the supposed link between poverty and terrorism by giving more money is that we will get better financed terrorists. Dangerous Tim....very dangerous.

http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2006/09/poverty-and-terrorism-aiming-for-well.html
http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2007/02/poverty-and-terrorism-causes.html

Miacat and Tim,

While the idea that terrorism is causes by poverty might seem plausible in theory, in practice the evidence shows it’s not true. The hungry and oppressed citizens of the world’s poorest countries – Zimbabwe, for example - pose no significant threat to anyone beyond their borders.

The terrorists that most threaten western countries tend to be alienated immigrants and their offspring (the London bombings), rich, western-educated young men from Islamic countries (the S11 bombers) or multi-millionaires (bin Laden).

A recent study found that three quarters of terrorists were from middle or upper class backgrounds (see Sally Neighbour’s piece “Mates 'til the death” in The Australian of 19 Feb – alas no longer on their main website, so I can’t link).

When we identify poverty as a cause of terrorism we risk creating the mistaken impression that terrorists are victims and – worse – that ultimately we are the perpetrators, by our failure to alleviate poverty.

Now that is real "moral failure".

There are a number of points in the article that simply don't add up for me.

Maybe I'm looking at the problem from the wrong angle, but can somebody please fill in a couple of gaps for me.

>>Almost 30 years ago world leaders agreed that if the world’s richest nations gave 1 per cent of the gross national income we could end extreme poverty<<

It is of course a noble thought, and one that must have sounded great when the world leaders made this assessment.

But did they actually bother to write down how this was going to occur? Who would get the money, who would point the money towards proper "solutions", who would ensure it wasn't siphoned off into some despot's Swiss bank account? Or some UN official's Swiss bank account?

I can guarantee they didn't. They simply plucked a round number out of their... out of the air, and went away patting themselves on the back for doing something clever.

No doubt, a thousand quangos sprang up in the aftermath, who are still sucking on their respective taxpayers' teat thirty years on, having twice-yearly meetings where they can chat about how concerned they are. And play golf.

Proof, if proof were needed, is Mr Costello's admission:

>>In 2005 the world gave $US106.8 billion in aid when $140 billion is needed to make extreme poverty history<<

Can we assume that these contributions, 76.28% of $140 billion, made 76.28% of extreme poverty, history?

Of course not, otherwise the article would have had a completely different headline.

So come clean, Mr Costello.

Is the figure required actually $140 billion?

Is this a constant figure, or does it rise each year with a) inflation? b) population? c) a changed definition of what constitutes extreme poverty?

If it is indeed $140 billion, could you please point me towards a document, report, plan, strategy, outline, back-of-envelope... anything, in fact, that explains why this is actually the number and how it will be used.

The first step to solving a problem is to understand its dimensions.

Welllll Pericles.. hoo-bladi-ray.. its about time you showed some of your good ol analytical skill there.. and in this we are on the same page for sure. Why the heck do you suddenly morph into some thick-headed (no offense) dill when it comes to things like understanding culture and religion etc ?
I note here.. you look at the big picture.. see the obvious flaws, and capture it all very well. Yet.. when it comes to some other matters, you just don't seem to get it..or.. you have some other reasons for taking a 'contrary to the obvious' approach.

RHIAN.. a point very well made "When we link terrorism to poverty" etc.. I'm sure 'some' instances of terrorism are poverty related but you can almost guarantee its not the poor themselves initiating it, they don't have the resources, more likely some Marxist group seeking to capitalise on underlying resentment of 'the system' to gain a revolutionary foothold.
Its possible that any group, including Islamic fundamentalists may take advantage of whatever gripe the poor have to further their own agenda's "See..its the Western Crusader Imperialists and the Jews" (Islamic Radicals) "See..its the Western Capitalist/Neo Colonialist pigs" (Marxists)

I am very cynical of Tim Costello's motives when a clearly intelligent man speaks only in headlines which are prone to collapse at the slightest serious scrutiny. Now much of a simpleton do you have to be to simply believe that 'Poverty' can be fixed by throwing some western money at it ?

The cynic in me asks "Tim, is this some ploy to heap a guilt trip on the government so that World Vision can receive more funding" ? I don't suggest Tim would take such an approach for any personal gain..not at all, I just take issue with shallow soundbites like he has used. In fact its as shallow as saying "All Muslims are terrorists" or "Christians are right wing fundies"

If people must talk about terrorism they shoulld not ignore the Tamil Tigers. The TTs raised suicide bombing to new levels not exceeded until the implosion of Bagdad. They are secular Maoist communists. Terrorism is not only a Western problem in fact head for head we get off lightly. We just have better news coverage.
Guilt is an odd word, it is of unknown orign, it has no root meaning like belief or attitude. But it winds people up, there is a lot of emotion and invective in this blog. I wonder does this go back to eternal argument, the one common amongst the Kalahari bushman or Koi San the close decendants of the first modern humans. Who is greedy and who is lazy. Can we move on please.

I agree with Pericles...Maybe I need to up my medication....

Other readers can skip the next paragraph while I have a quick word with Boaz.

Thank you for your remarks, Boaz. I'm glad you appreciate that I "look at the big picture.. see the obvious flaws, and capture it all very well". I might suggest that I apply the same talents to "other matters", it is simply that you disagree with me on those.

Back to the topic.

My concern with articles like this are that they are long on emotion, and short on any real, workable solutions.

Even the many "make poverty history" sites, blogs and forums that clog cyberspace can't propose anything constructive. Here's a sample:

"make laws that stop big business profiting at the expense of people and the environment"

"Debt cancellation is coming with harmful and undemocratic strings attached... cut the strings."

"change trade policies and the push to have some of the poorest nations on the planet sign up to grossly unfair trade deals"

This is just hogwash.

The cynic in me says that writing about it in a warm, caring and compassionate manner is an ideal substitute for actually doing anything constructive. It provides a nice warm glow of self-satisfaction, but that's about all.

It also assumes that we are responsible for both creating the problem in the first place, and for resolving it.

The only long term way to solve world poverty is solid economic growth, based on utilizing the people and their skills in the context of world trade. It will involve the disappearance of any and all trade barriers, including rich countries complaining that they can't compete with the unbelievably low labour costs in an emerging economy (is this ringing bells?) and protesting that it is exploitative "slave labour".

Helping in this manner requires generosity an order of magnitude greater than just dipping into our pockets. It requires full-hearted support behind the concept of "exporting jobs", which is a political challenge of the highest order.

And as such, will of course be avoided like the plague.

Pericles,how about considering contraception as a tool in limiting poverty.The more we give,the more the problem worsens.

The concept of poverty is always an interesting talking point. There is a tendency, I believe, to apply our own standards of living to situations throughout the world. That the vast majority of our population lives above the measured "poverty" line is testament to our understanding of how to properly survive in a challenging environment.

With our western, free enterprise system, it is knowledge and the application of knowledge which determines our satisfaction levels. The only difference between beggars and millionaires is how they spend their time.
I cannot and do not subscribe to the notion of constant handouts to those who may not want or need our help. By all means, teach them how, but step back once they know. Sink or swim time. Trust me, some will swim. Others won't. Natural selection in action.

We have absolutely no moral obligation to do any more than we do. In fact we should probably do less.
Those feeling hard done by may feel inclined to lash out at us for living as we do. Hit them back harder, I say. It may convince them to turn their attention to their own leaders if they're not happy with the situation. We are not the cause of their problems, they are.

This country is probably one of about 4 throughout the world which has never suffered any significant civil unrest or strife as a country. No coups. Nothing. Based on conscious decision making to not let any of that happen. I give thanks for the resilience of our pioneers, who could have succumbed, but didn't. Champions don't give up. Champions stay the course. We will never need foreign aid. Why? Because the idea is repulsive to us. We could if we wanted, stand alone. Not many could.

Point taken Tim. However... no matter how difficult it is to tell the truth... it is all the grey areas of the truth yhat must be made visable if we are to try and understand and problem solve.

The disadvantaged urban getto's and regional areas, where poor people live, are highly vulnerable to the possible induction of this terror making mentality.

Why;

Two Reasons:

A) the aggitation and frustration that might inspire criminal action - without outside influence, other than their own mindset, because they are unhappy about their own situation and or;

B) the vulnerablity of being influenced by others (be they rich drug-lords or agents of terror groups) who may use this raw aggitation and vulnerablity to influence their own terror cause, by influencing those experiencing the vulnerablity to join and recruit, as a means to do something....terrible, to vent their unhappy raw aggitation.

What do you think Tim?

We Need A No Door Policy Tim - backed up with real people socio-economic resource structures. Equity across the board would help to deflate the terror mindset.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Tim, I am looking back at older articles from the authors' list and reading the comments. Your article was informative but the comments are a awful condemnation of Australians who don't know what they are talking about.If one of them had ever been to Ethiopia or Zimbarbwe and seen fellow human beings in such straits they'd throw up!Sure!- things like contraception could help, but there just ARE no answers.The only thing we are capable of is COMPASSION -now! Like the Dalai Lama when asked a long question on that ABC T.V.SHOW said in Reply-"I, don't know!"

We live in opulence, our diseases are largely diseases of indulgence. If we knew how much is enough we would have plently of wealth to help the world. Which would you prefer? A heart operation for someone that has smoked, lived on fast food and beer or a well for those without clean water. My choice is for the later.
Very little aid is given out of compassion with wisdom. Compassion might have you give wine to an alcoholic, wisdom would not. Mugabe is left alone because Zim has lots of platinium and the world has only 15 years left at present usage. Not so hidden agendas abound.
We should be generous in wise ways. From the bottom up like the Gamien Bank is my choice. Nothing for the likes of Haliburton there. We should help people to help themselves, a cliche I know. Big projects primarily help oligarches. They should be avoided