• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EU Foreign Aid

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So lets' discuss a bit about EU Foreign Aid programs and the money that is being used. This is not about what each individual European country gives in aid, but what the EU budget itself what the EU as a "nation" gives in foreign aid and who receives this foreign aid and for what purpose. for nations like the UK and France, who are known to be one of the worlds' largest foreign aid donors, this is basically a double dip. they contribute to both their own national foreign aid budgets and the EU foreign aid budget. But we won't be discussing independent nations foreign aid, just the EU, so lets keep this civil and on target.

General overview of foreign aid situation:
So basically there is this international agreement that basically says that if you are a well off nation, you should give foreign aid that is roughly around 0.7% of your budget in order to help the nations that are not so well off. Not surprising, the "givers" are almost all western european nations, the USA(#1), Canada, Japan and surprisingly, the Arab Emirates. Basically, if you are a 'westernized' nation economically, you're a giver.

Who are the takers? Almost everyone else. Now of course, the obvious (almost all african countries) and some who would come as a shock: India. Saudi Arabia. Turkey. South Africa. and others.

Now on to the EU.
EU budget cut spells bad news for foreign aid | Global development | theguardian.com

The EDF currently stands at €26.93bn. (this is africa)
Development Co-operation Instrument (targeting Asia and Latin America) is [...] €58.7bn.

An independent commity from the UK has done a rundown of who the biggest receivers of EU foreign aid is and here are the top ones:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmintdev/1680/1680.pdf

also, a fact sheet from the EU:
http://internationaldevelopmenteu.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/eu-aid-fact-sheet-5sep2011-final.pdf

1.(in milions of euros) Palestine -340 / 2. Congo -270 / 3. Afghanistan -255 / 4. Turkey -223 / 5. Serbia -218 [etc]

From this top 5, 3 are countries who are known to fund other islamic countries: Palstine, Afghanistan and Turkey. For palestine and afghanistan it goes without saying, for turkey, people who are skeptical:
As EU pares budgets, Turkey and Korea step up aid spending | EurActiv
Turkey historically has used its foreign aid to support mainly Islamic countries – and nations with historic links to its Ottoman past

The problem is that while you may justify sending aid to Palestine and Afghanistan and Congo, as war-ravaged countries, turkey and Serbia don't belong there. they are relatively stable countries with a good enough standard of living and foreign aid could be better spent elsewhere, if we are to give any foreign aid. but i'll get to this in a moment. But Palestine uses its funds to fund terrorist groups, and while I have no deep sympathy for isreal, the truth is, that funding terrorist groups is a reason for continuing problems in the region and increased aggressiveness between Palestine and Israel. It is a hurdle in the way of peace talks and agreements. Afghanistan, even if it is a war-torn country, has no desire to westernize and become a proper democratic republic. Once the US and allies backs out of Afghanistan, it will fall to taliban troops and become, basically, like pakistan.

The topside of foreign aid to africa:
EU foreign aid is tied to economic and political reforms. All african countries that receive foreign aid from the EU must maintain their democracies, must improve on those democracies, fight corruption and stabilize the country. The problem is that now China is moving in to provide "credit" to african countries. Chinesse credit to african countries could be substitute to EU foreign aid but that credit comes with no strings attached. Politically corrupt african leaders may prefer to take the chinesse credit, live large, and don't care about any reforms damaging africa's situation overall.

BBC News - Africa and China: Workers face clash of cultures
BBC News - China pledges $20bn in credit for Africa at summit

The other problem is that sometimes, money gets wasted because of poor oversight conditions: BBC News - EU aid to Africa badly spent, British inquiry hears even if the EU institutions are very well regulated.

The bottom line:

Should the EU continue to give foreign aid? 72 bil euros is half a bailout for Greece. Should the EU continue to give foreign aid to well-off countries or to countries with "shady" situations? Should the EU continue to give foreign aid in general given it's harsh situation?
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So lets' discuss a bit about EU Foreign Aid programs and the money that is being used. This is not about what each individual European country gives in aid, but what the EU budget itself what the EU as a "nation" gives in foreign aid and who receives this foreign aid and for what purpose. for nations like the UK and France, who are known to be one of the worlds' largest foreign aid donors, this is basically a double dip. they contribute to both their own national foreign aid budgets and the EU foreign aid budget. But we won't be discussing independent nations foreign aid, just the EU, so lets keep this civil and on target.

General overview of foreign aid situation:
So basically there is this international agreement that basically says that if you are a well off nation, you should give foreign aid that is roughly around 0.7% of your budget in order to help the nations that are not so well off. Not surprising, the "givers" are almost all western european nations, the USA(#1), Canada, Japan and surprisingly, the Arab Emirates. Basically, if you are a 'westernized' nation economically, you're a giver.

Who are the takers? Almost everyone else. Now of course, the obvious (almost all african countries) and some who would come as a shock: India. Saudi Arabia. Turkey. South Africa. and others.

Now on to the EU.
EU budget cut spells bad news for foreign aid | Global development | theguardian.com




An independent commity from the UK has done a rundown of who the biggest receivers of EU foreign aid is and here are the top ones:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmintdev/1680/1680.pdf

also, a fact sheet from the EU:
http://internationaldevelopmenteu.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/eu-aid-fact-sheet-5sep2011-final.pdf

1.(in milions of euros) Palestine -340 / 2. Congo -270 / 3. Afghanistan -255 / 4. Turkey -223 / 5. Serbia -218 [etc]

From this top 5, 3 are countries who are known to fund other islamic countries: Palstine, Afghanistan and Turkey. For palestine and afghanistan it goes without saying, for turkey, people who are skeptical:
As EU pares budgets, Turkey and Korea step up aid spending | EurActiv


The problem is that while you may justify sending aid to Palestine and Afghanistan and Congo, as war-ravaged countries, turkey and Serbia don't belong there. they are relatively stable countries with a good enough standard of living and foreign aid could be better spent elsewhere, if we are to give any foreign aid. but i'll get to this in a moment. But Palestine uses its funds to fund terrorist groups, and while I have no deep sympathy for isreal, the truth is, that funding terrorist groups is a reason for continuing problems in the region and increased aggressiveness between Palestine and Israel. It is a hurdle in the way of peace talks and agreements. Afghanistan, even if it is a war-torn country, has no desire to westernize and become a proper democratic republic. Once the US and allies backs out of Afghanistan, it will fall to taliban troops and become, basically, like pakistan.

The topside of foreign aid to africa:
EU foreign aid is tied to economic and political reforms. All african countries that receive foreign aid from the EU must maintain their democracies, must improve on those democracies, fight corruption and stabilize the country. The problem is that now China is moving in to provide "credit" to african countries. Chinesse credit to african countries could be substitute to EU foreign aid but that credit comes with no strings attached. Politically corrupt african leaders may prefer to take the chinesse credit, live large, and don't care about any reforms damaging africa's situation overall.

BBC News - Africa and China: Workers face clash of cultures
BBC News - China pledges $20bn in credit for Africa at summit

The other problem is that sometimes, money gets wasted because of poor oversight conditions: BBC News - EU aid to Africa badly spent, British inquiry hears even if the EU institutions are very well regulated.

The bottom line:

Should the EU continue to give foreign aid? 72 bil euros is half a bailout for Greece. Should the EU continue to give foreign aid to well-off countries or to countries with "shady" situations? Should the EU continue to give foreign aid in general given it's harsh situation?

A very legitimate question.

My answer is that overseas aid isn't and shouldn't be among the core tasks of the European Union. This is just one more example of the EU trying to behave like a "country" or "nation" with full competence in every field of public policy. This - in the end - may very well be the undoing of the EU, which should instead focus on those core issues that it alone can deal with and for which it was created.

So by all means, let's abolish the EU's foreign aid programs and the attached bureaucracies.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So by all means, let's abolish the EU's foreign aid programs and the attached bureaucracies.

Let us not. Foreign to EU aid should continue for it is the beginning of EU working as a nation.
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
24,417
Reaction score
33,342
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Things like this were just more of a power grab for the EU. The more money they can suck from the member countries, the more powerful they become.

The EU is having a budget crisis, and the first thing to go should be foreign aid, especially considering we're giving this money to countries we don't even like.
Let us not. Foreign to EU aid should continue for it is the beginning of EU working as a nation.

Why should the EU function as a nation? All you're doing is giving up your national sovereignty and putting another layer of government bureacracy between the citizens and the politicians.

Why don't we just make a one world super nation that everybody falls under? That way the politicians can squabble and squabble all day and nobody gets what they want because you're trying to fulfill completely different goals for completely different cultures.
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let us not. Foreign to EU aid should continue for it is the beginning of EU working as a nation.

The EU should not and can not be a nation.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,962
Reaction score
13,560
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Interesting subject, but already there is a lot of baseless anti-EU bias... based on a lot of ignorance (not trying to insult anyone.. it is a complicated issue) Any ways lets give it a go.

The UN set a millennium goal of 0.7% of GDP. The reality is the following.

Countries That Give The Most In Foreign Aid Statistics | Statistic Brain

Only 4 countries meet the goal, with the big hitter of the US far far far far behind. The US might be the country that gives the most in "real money", but relative to its economy it is nothing... same goes for Japan btw. And if you add just Germany and France together you pretty much get what the US gives, and to that comes everyone else in Europe plus the EU.. which means Europe gives by far the most.

Now the definition issue. In the "aid" block are included things like election aid, aid to national NGOs (meaning if your government gives money to the Red Cross then it is registered as foreign aid), and so on. Aid is not feeding the hungry or building bridges, but many many many things and is often connected to a political goal.. and some countries include military aid... or at least there is a big ass grey area there. Is it assistance, bilateral aid, multilateral aid and all that political speak... it all makes it very confusing, and you have to dig semi deep to get to the truth.

For example Turkey. Most of that aid is part of the EU enlargement plan.. basically helping Turkey to get ready for EU membership. Same for Serbia. That is why they are on the list.

EU - Enlargement - Turkey - financial assistance - European Commission

And if you go down the list of aid to countries by countries, you will find that quite a bit of the aid has absolutely nothing to do with "feeding the poor" as most people think this aid is about. It is often no more than financial aid to companies of the giver country, as much of the aid is linked to buying goods from the country giving. That is not allowed by the EU, so often the EU aid that is actual development aid in poor countries is not linked... guessing that pisses off the anti-EU right wing British.

As for the EU giving aid in principle. It is what the EU members have agreed on. Deal with it. It is not something that the EU has taken on it self, as many anti-EU people tend to imply. The UK, France, Germany and so on, have all agreed to give aid via the EU. It does not make the EU a country or a nation. The UN gives tons of aid.. does that make it a nation? How about NATO? Lots of aid there too.. does that make it a nation?

I dont have time at the moment to go into more detail, but will keep an eye on this thread.
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Interesting subject, but already there is a lot of baseless anti-EU bias... based on a lot of ignorance (not trying to insult anyone.. it is a complicated issue) Any ways lets give it a go.

The UN set a millennium goal of 0.7% of GDP. The reality is the following.

Countries That Give The Most In Foreign Aid Statistics | Statistic Brain

Only 4 countries meet the goal, with the big hitter of the US far far far far behind. The US might be the country that gives the most in "real money", but relative to its economy it is nothing... same goes for Japan btw. And if you add just Germany and France together you pretty much get what the US gives, and to that comes everyone else in Europe plus the EU.. which means Europe gives by far the most.

Now the definition issue. In the "aid" block are included things like election aid, aid to national NGOs (meaning if your government gives money to the Red Cross then it is registered as foreign aid), and so on. Aid is not feeding the hungry or building bridges, but many many many things and is often connected to a political goal.. and some countries include military aid... or at least there is a big ass grey area there. Is it assistance, bilateral aid, multilateral aid and all that political speak... it all makes it very confusing, and you have to dig semi deep to get to the truth.

For example Turkey. Most of that aid is part of the EU enlargement plan.. basically helping Turkey to get ready for EU membership. Same for Serbia. That is why they are on the list.

EU - Enlargement - Turkey - financial assistance - European Commission

And if you go down the list of aid to countries by countries, you will find that quite a bit of the aid has absolutely nothing to do with "feeding the poor" as most people think this aid is about. It is often no more than financial aid to companies of the giver country, as much of the aid is linked to buying goods from the country giving. That is not allowed by the EU, so often the EU aid that is actual development aid in poor countries is not linked... guessing that pisses off the anti-EU right wing British.

As for the EU giving aid in principle. It is what the EU members have agreed on. Deal with it. It is not something that the EU has taken on it self, as many anti-EU people tend to imply. The UK, France, Germany and so on, have all agreed to give aid via the EU. It does not make the EU a country or a nation. The UN gives tons of aid.. does that make it a nation? How about NATO? Lots of aid there too.. does that make it a nation?

I dont have time at the moment to go into more detail, but will keep an eye on this thread.

I disagree with most of what you write. But I will focus on only one fundamental point.
Pleading for the EU to stick to its core tasks is not anti-EU, as you imply, but very much pro-EU. The EU has an important and vital role to play for the future of the economic and social welfare of the European nations that belong to it. It should focus on that. All these other policies (and there are many of them) detract from that and are largely counterproductive.

People like you, who try to describe anti criticism of specific EU-policies as anti-EU are in reality the greatest threat to the EU.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,962
Reaction score
13,560
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I disagree with most of what you write.

You disagree with facts?

But I will focus on only one fundamental point.
Pleading for the EU to stick to its core tasks is not anti-EU, as you imply, but very much pro-EU. The EU has an important and vital role to play for the future of the economic and social welfare of the European nations that belong to it. It should focus on that. All these other policies (and there are many of them) detract from that and are largely counterproductive.

People like you, who try to describe anti criticism of specific EU-policies as anti-EU are in reality the greatest threat to the EU.

Okay what are the core tasks? I know them and they do include aid.. so what do you think the core tasks of the EU is?
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why should the EU function as a nation? All you're doing is giving up your national sovereignty and putting another layer of government bureacracy between the citizens and the politicians.

Why don't we just make a one world super nation that everybody falls under? That way the politicians can squabble and squabble all day and nobody gets what they want because you're trying to fulfill completely different goals for completely different cultures.

I am with DeutchGuy more or less on that debate between the two of you. I remain a decentralized state with borders of Dardania and Albania combined (no border administrative or otherwise between the two), but function together with fellow states within EU. A USA model with some changes here and there.
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It shall be and will be a nation. The reason I know this for sure, and thus am a lot better than you, is because I am from Europe.

You aren't even from a real country. And as a matter of fact I am a EU-citizen living in an EU-member state.
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Okay what are the core tasks? I know them and they do include aid.. so what do you think the core tasks of the EU is?

To provide a common market with free exchange and traffic of goods and services and people. And right now, as demonstrated by the Eurozone-woes, the EU isn't doing a very good job at that.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You aren't even from a real country. And as a matter of fact I am a EU-citizen living in an EU-member state.

No you are not! You are just making that up so as to put some credibility on your statements! Otherwise you would have wrote it there from the start!

You are probably coming from a third developing country. Are you not?! You think you know better than us here that live in Europa?
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No you are not! You are just making that up so as to put some credibility on your statements! Otherwise you would have wrote it there from the start!

You are probably coming from a third developing country. Are you not?! You think you know better than us here that live in Europa?

I live in Brussels, as a matter of fact. You are the one not living in the EU, but in some fantasy-land.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I live in Brussels, as a matter of fact. You are the one not living in the EU, but in some fantasy-land.

Brussels! Man! Then what the f is your problem with me/us?!?!

You were so antagonistic with all I said from start that I freaking thought you were from somewhere else!!

Native Belg?
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,962
Reaction score
13,560
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Do you know the difference between facts and your interpretation of them?

My interpretation? Aid numbers in % of GDP aint rocket science..

The fact that almost all aid from the EU to Turkey and Serbia is related to their future possible membership of the EU.

Those are facts and need no interpretation what so ever... unless you want to twist the facts into something they are not.
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My interpretation? Aid numbers in % of GDP aint rocket science..

The fact that almost all aid from the EU to Turkey and Serbia is related to their future possible membership of the EU.

Those are facts and need no interpretation what so ever... unless you want to twist the facts into something they are not.

Most EU overseas aid has nothing to do with enlargement. And aid to Turkey isn't really linked to their future membership either since the chances of that happening are pretty dim.

Furthermore, what goes into aid or not differs wildly from country to country.

You start out from all sorts of presuppotions about this aid which are all not facts, but your view of things.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,962
Reaction score
13,560
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
To provide a common market with free exchange and traffic of goods and services and people.

Yes, and has it not done that? I am guessing you did not live in Europe before say 1980-5...?

And aid from the EU is not unconditional, and often it is linked to securing the free exchange and traffic of goods to and from said countries, plus of course that stupid thing called democracy.

Also let me make it clear... all countries have agreed to letting the EU give out aid on behalf of them..... so take it up with your individual country's government and not the EU.. they are just carrying out orders.

And right now, as demonstrated by the Eurozone-woes, the EU isn't doing a very good job at that.

Eh? The Eurozone woes are in some places the result of exactly the free movement of money, goods and people. Yes there is Greece and Italy who have been not implementing the opening up of their markets as they should, but that should be happening now... but saying that the EU has not done a good job in opening up the European markets for goods, services, money and people is beyond crazy. Can they do better? You betcha!, but that is not the fault of the EU, but the member countries who do not implement the rules and regulations that they agreed on, plus of course there are many areas the EU have very little if any influence on.. that are often the root cause of the problems in the Eurozone and other countries..

Let me give you a good example... Spain. Spain's problems were caused by a bloated building sector collapsing due to the credit crunch and very rigid labour laws. And the bloated building sector was due to money from the UK and Northern Europe streaming to Spain because of people wanting holiday homes in the sun. Both areas are areas that EU has next to no influence on other than if Spain had gone in a discriminated against other countries on their domestic market.... aka securing the free movement of goods, money and people. The EU until recently could not even aid banks getting into trouble, which caused the Eurozone problems since countries could not depend on the European Central Bank to finance a bank bailout.. something normally national banks do to failing banks... just like the British did with Royal Bank of Scotland and Northern Rock, and the other British banks that had to be bailed out..

To be blunt.. the EEC and EU has done wonders for the European common market over the last 40 years, and anyone trying to deny that .. is frankly an idiot. Can they do better? You betcah and I expect they will... but to be honest the defeat in court of the liberalization of the pharma market caused a few problems.
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, and has it not done that? I am guessing you did not live in Europe before say 1980-5...?

And aid from the EU is not unconditional, and often it is linked to securing the free exchange and traffic of goods to and from said countries, plus of course that stupid thing called democracy.

Also let me make it clear... all countries have agreed to letting the EU give out aid on behalf of them..... so take it up with your individual country's government and not the EU.. they are just carrying out orders.



./QUOTE]

I have lived in Europe since long before 1980.

It is rather you who don(t seem to have a clue about the EU and its policies.

Remember the Lisbon Agenda, which was supposed to make the EU the most competitive and innovative region in the world by 2020? Sunk like a stone and nothing has been heard of it for quite a few years.

If we are to maintain our standard of living and remain competitive there is still a lot to be done.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,962
Reaction score
13,560
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Most EU overseas aid has nothing to do with enlargement. And aid to Turkey isn't really linked to their future membership either since the chances of that happening are pretty dim.

Can you even read? Aid to Turkey is almost 100% due to its future possible membership. It says it clearly in the link lol.

Furthermore, what goes into aid or not differs wildly from country to country.

No ****... that is what I wrote.

You start out from all sorts of presuppotions about this aid which are all not facts, but your view of things.

No... they are FACTS! What dont you understand about the % of GDP bit? Or the Millennium Goal?
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Eh? The Eurozone woes are in some places the result of exactly the free movement of money, goods and people. Yes there is Greece and Italy who have been not implementing the opening up of their markets as they should, but that should be happening now... but saying that the EU has not done a good job in opening up the European markets for goods, services, money and people is beyond crazy. Can they do better? You betcha!, but that is not the fault of the EU, but the member countries who do not implement the rules and regulations that they agreed on, plus of course there are many areas the EU have very little if any influence on.. that are often the root cause of the problems in the Eurozone and other countries..

Let me give you a good example... Spain. Spain's problems were caused by a bloated building sector collapsing due to the credit crunch and very rigid labour laws. And the bloated building sector was due to money from the UK and Northern Europe streaming to Spain because of people wanting holiday homes in the sun. Both areas are areas that EU has next to no influence on other than if Spain had gone in a discriminated against other countries on their domestic market.... aka securing the free movement of goods, money and people. The EU until recently could not even aid banks getting into trouble, which caused the Eurozone problems since countries could not depend on the European Central Bank to finance a bank bailout.. something normally national banks do to failing banks... just like the British did with Royal Bank of Scotland and Northern Rock, and the other British banks that had to be bailed out..

To be blunt.. the EEC and EU has done wonders for the European common market over the last 40 years, and anyone trying to deny that .. is frankly an idiot. Can they do better? You betcah and I expect they will... but to be honest the defeat in court of the liberalization of the pharma market caused a few problems.

When you come back from the parallel universe you seem to be inhabiting, you may notice that as a result of failed policies and lack of EU-focus on economic integration the net-result of the Euro has unfortunately - been to drive parts of Europe further apart economically, instead of integrating them.
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Can you even read? Aid to Turkey is almost 100% due to its future possible membership. It says it clearly in the link lol.

I understand you are having trouble actually reading and understanding everything I write, instead of going for kneejerk reactions.

When exactly is Turkey going to become a member? In a few hundred years? It's simply not a realistic possibility and everybody knows it.
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No... they are FACTS! What dont you understand about the % of GDP bit? Or the Millennium Goal?

Yes, in your type of thinking the so-called "Millenium Goal" is a "fact" instead of a political objective or opinion (which it really is).
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,874
Reaction score
9,679
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- The topside of foreign aid to africa:
EU foreign aid is tied to economic and political reforms. All african countries that receive foreign aid from the EU must maintain their democracies, must improve on those democracies, fight corruption and stabilize the country. The problem is that now China is moving in to provide "credit" to african countries. Chinesse credit to african countries could be substitute to EU foreign aid but that credit comes with no strings attached. Politically corrupt african leaders may prefer to take the chinesse credit, live large, and don't care about any reforms damaging africa's situation overall.

BBC News - Africa and China: Workers face clash of cultures
BBC News - China pledges $20bn in credit for Africa at summit

The other problem is that sometimes, money gets wasted because of poor oversight conditions: BBC News - EU aid to Africa badly spent, British inquiry hears even if the EU institutions are very well regulated.

The bottom line:

Should the EU continue to give foreign aid? 72 bil euros is half a bailout for Greece. Should the EU continue to give foreign aid to well-off countries or to countries with "shady" situations? Should the EU continue to give foreign aid in general given it's harsh situation?

The part regarding Chinese aid and links in Africa is misleading as most of the real development and industrial work starting in Africa is tied to Chinese aid. There is a real battle ideologically and otherwise between the US, EU and China regarding development and aid to Africa because of the mineral wealth which is the reward.

So, when the claim that EU aid to Africa is money poured down the drain it helps to look at the wider picture and ask whether economically and industrially, the EU and America can afford to walk away and leave the big growing economies like China, India and Brazil free play in Africa.

Take a very simple look at Australia which has become a major mineral supplier to China, living standards and wages in Australia have boomed for the last 15 years since the start of the Chinese juggernaut. Right now, African economies are growing on average of 7% a year and that is down to China.

The real question is - can the EU continue to afford to do "Aid" and development so badly when China walked in in 2000 and turned things around?
 
Top Bottom