- 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
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?
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?