Ther is much to critique in Bowtell's article, but I will confine myself to two points.

First, as minor criticism, he lists Swine Flu with HIV-Aids as devestating diseases. The first, HIV-AIDS, is devestating but the second, swine flu, has so far proved inconsequential. The numbers of illnesses and deaths reported to date will make no differnce to annual mortality statistics, arguably even in Mexico.

As for rich countries not giving enough aid. One of the major trends in this area of late is a re-evaluation of aid flows to developing countries. Officials are reluctantly now conceeding that much of the aid given in the past has been ineffective and may even have been counter-productive. The author should have acknowledged this problem and explored the question of what has gone wrong with aid in the past, rather than just simply urge developing countries to do more. He is making the problem worse, not better.

Yes its probably true that all of the silent micro-invaders will take us down.

There are lots of them doing their silent invasions all over the planet.

The book Pandemonium by Andrew Nikiforuk gives copious examples.

There is always another peanut who wants to spend my money on someone else.

Of course the someone else must be of their choice, oh, & we must pay them to spend our money.

Thanks mate.

Considering that the parlous state of most developing countries is due largely to mismanagement and corruption, and often aid to an area results in less funding by the local gov, I would support the continued aid programs conditional on reform.

This is to avoid the poor in the developed countries funding the rich in the developing countries.

Aid and the notion that it makes crooks rich!
I wonder if along with the money the expertise of an "administrator" of the money was also included in the aid?
I could list a lot of countries that now receive aid going without rather than lose that control.
A company in receivership must accept the loss of personal control, why not a country receiving aid?
The world bank is often accused of creating need, and problems.Still they line up at a point where they become desperate.
In IBM they had a "controller" he had final yes and nay to any expenditure. Seems to have worked.
If individuals and countries were sure the aid fulfilled its purpose they would no doubt feel aid was worthwhile.
My 2 cents fluff

Every time governments announce new defence spending, there is always someone who wails about how 'little' of Australian TAXPAYERS' money the government hands out to Third World countries.

What one has to do with the other is a mystery. A small defence budget would not mean any more more for Third World countries: big-breeders who need to start looking after themselves.

Other posters have mentioned the corruption and uselessness of handing our money over to these no-hopers.

The world is a dangerous place. We need to be able to protect ouselves from people who hate us and our way of life, not 'flu epidemics and climate change, as the author naively suggests.