National Contributes to Africa’s Misery

29 comments on “National Contributes to Africa’s Misery ”

• Comments are now closed

1. queenstfarmer 1

   12 July 2011 at 2:39 pm

   With the unprecedented Christchurch earthquake disaster, I say well done to the Govt for showing fiscal restraint.
   • Rusty Shackleford 1.1

     12 July 2011 at 3:08 pm

     Aid doesn’t really help in the long run. If we want to help them, we should be trading with them.
     • Maynard J 1.1.1

       12 July 2011 at 11:14 pm

       Aid isn’t meant to help in the long run, apart from keeping people alive. Trading doesn’t really help in the long run at all. If we really want to help them we should dismantle the capitalist system that requires poverty somewhere to create wealth elsewhere. Western companies need tax havens and sheltered incomes to allow the Atlases their private jets and supercars. Decades of trade with Africa haven’t made a discernable difference. Aid is a short-term fix, trading under the current system is a long-term blight.
       • Gosman 1.1.1.1

         13 July 2011 at 8:09 am

         And of course the Soiet Union was a execellent example of how poverty was erradicated and people was able to achieve their maximum ability.
         • mik e 1.1.1.1.1

           13 July 2011 at 6:00 pm

           yeah right what about Argentina when it put completely pure capitalism in place 1997 their economy collapsed.or we could go back to Russia before the totalitarian dictatorship theirs a balance between socialism and capitalism and countries who are pragmatic and democratic are where you will find less poverty and happier people. Knee jerk responses that are unresearched can only be called biggoted
     • Colonial Viper 1.1.2

       12 July 2011 at 11:18 pm

       Aid doesn’t really help in the long run. If we want to help them, we should be trading with them.

       Rusty is right.

       What we need is to find a place with no governmental control. Say like Somalia, but with diamonds.

       Then we can supply an ambitious local militia with weapons and money to grab and stay in power with the only condition being that we have free access to the diamonds (or gold, or oil, or little children, or whatever).

       You can get AK 47’s for less than US$50 on the open market. A couple of hundred of those and 50,000 rounds of 7.62 (cheap as chips) and you have the makings of a beautiful starting trade deal. As trade increases and business relationships build up, other light arms can be included as well as old Toyota pickups and other misc equipment.

       We’re happy, they’re happy. All good, exactly like free trade should be.
   • mik e 1.2

     13 July 2011 at 5:32 pm

     82% of kiwis wouldn,t mind paying a little bit more tax to help our fellow kiwis in CHCH but no borrowing Bill English borrows heap more when the worlds finances are looking very shaky indeed.
2. Peter Bains 2

   12 July 2011 at 4:59 pm

   So what guys, feed your own first. I bet the leader of this tin pot country is a multi milliomaire, let him pay for aid.
   • Tangled up in blue 2.1

     13 July 2011 at 5:13 pm

     feed your own first

     It’s the same people saying “feed your own first” that aren’t in fact, ‘feeding their own first’.

     I smell empty rhetoric.
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       13 July 2011 at 5:44 pm

       LOLZ

       🙁
3. Anthony.blomfield 3

   12 July 2011 at 5:57 pm

   Ok I have a responsibility to be angry now.

   Sorry NZ, lets lift our Game big Time. We can support Millions more hungry people. NOW.

   ••The least we can do is open the doors to 100,000 – 500,000 refugees.

   We live a life of luxury here and we can share it.
   We have ample food and land and water we can share lets make an entire city of poor people who can come and live of the land if they wish it would not cost the country much. A town say somewhere up North or near Hamilton where a million immigrants could establish a town and support themselves with a bit of help from us. I think it would be great for the country and actually help our economy also.
   • higherstandard 3.1

     12 July 2011 at 6:14 pm

     Let’s not.
     • jackal 3.1.1

       12 July 2011 at 6:46 pm

       New Zealand has a refugee obligation. Incorporating people into already established communities is preferable. What we need to do is increase our expenditure on foreign aid to at least the OECD average.

       What we don’t need is ministers of the crown saying they will not decrease foreign aid expenditure and then doing just that. What we don’t need is National replacing advisory committees with their supporters when they have no knowledge on what they’re advising.

       What we don’t need is John Key saying we will not look after refugees, even when they are not planning to come to New Zealand at all. Such politicking is somewhat similar to Act’s failed racial polarization. If we see Don and John in bed together, I’m joining the mass exodus.
       • higherstandard 3.1.1.1

         12 July 2011 at 7:15 pm

         While Brash and Key in bed is the stuff of homoerotic nightmares, if that’s the price we have to pay for you to fuck right off out of the country it may be a price worth paying.
         • jackal 3.1.1.1.1

           12 July 2011 at 8:42 pm

           Australia wants to have a larger population, I guess New Zealand doesn’t.
       • queenstfarmer 3.1.1.2

         12 July 2011 at 8:04 pm

         What we need to do is increase our expenditure on foreign aid to at least the OECD average.
         No, we don’t.

         We can choose to, if we wish. But perhaps when we are recovering from NZ’s worst ever natural disaster, off the back of the worst recession for decades, is not the ideal time for largesse.
         • jackal 3.1.1.2.1

           12 July 2011 at 8:59 pm

           Even if we double our contribution to the OECD member country average of 0.42% we are still well out of reach of the internationally agreed target for govt spending of 0.7% of gross national income by 2015. It’s not even 1%. If our economy and infrastructure was managed properly, we would have no trouble meeting obligations.
           • Gosman 3.1.1.2.1.1

             13 July 2011 at 8:21 am

             Foreign Aid is a joke. You just need to look at those countries that have constantly received the highest per capita aid for development purpose like Tanzania to see this. Sure short term aid to help with the effects of drought are beneficial in the short term but beyond this Aid causes more harm than good in many cases.
             • Colonial Viper …

               13 July 2011 at 5:46 pm

               Yeah you need foreign aid like what China has received from the USA.
               • Fannie …

                 10 August 2011 at 7:13 am

                 What an awesome way to eaxplin this-now I know everything!
         • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.2.2

           12 July 2011 at 11:21 pm

           is not the ideal time for largesse.

           yes, because helping starving dying people is optional largesse, while buying a fleet of new 7 series limousines well optioned is appropriate 😈
4. Terry 4

   12 July 2011 at 8:55 pm

   We see words about our “moral duty”. In this respect the country is wanton, just as it is with compassion (concerning foreign aid, exactly as it is with compassion over boat people).
5. Adders 5

   13 July 2011 at 11:09 am

   “Why is the National Government, that is meant to represent us, totally failing to do so in such a critical sector?”

   Answer, from the Horowhenua Mail 30 June 2011, on Bill English, addressing the Electra-Nature Coast business breakfast forum in Levin last month:

   ‘Food shortage is good news for the country [NZ], he said. “We’re good at [producing] it.” ’

   i.e. “The situation [malnutrition and starvation] . . . accentuated by high food prices” is good for business.
   • mik e 5.1

     13 July 2011 at 5:40 pm

     Until we have a serious DROUGHT borrowing bill.south America and Africa are having serious weather catastrophies right now whats to say we aren,t going to have our own one.Especially as the sun is flaring at the moment combined with global warming!
6. terence 6

   13 July 2011 at 12:48 pm

   Hi Jackle,

   I don’t have time to double check the facts of the matter (so please feel free to correct me if my recollection is incorrect) but the state of our aid budget is not quite as you describe it.

   In this current financial year the aid budget actually increased from last financial year. Indeed the increase was more marked than expected (IIRC) because a bunch of multiyear allocations are set to come to their end this FYr and therefore need to be spent. The decrease in 2012/13 reflects that the multi-year allocations will have been spent by then meaning that the unusually high spend of the 2011/12 FYr will be out of the system. The aid spend in 2012/13 will still be higher than it was last FYr though, so it’s not really a cut per se.

   Aid spending is now being projected to increase more slowly under National than it did under the last Labour government. So in that sense National have been worse for aid.

   Above and beyond the value of the spend the main trouble with McCully is that he doesn’t know that much about aid while at the same time imagining that he does. He’s a very hard task master on his civil servants being derisive of their knowledge in the area and changing his mind a lot or being unclear in what he wants. This is likely why we’ve got a bulge in out multi-year aid allocations this FYr: because aid programme staffers have struggled to spend fully in previous FYr’s as they’ve dealt with unclear and untimely guidance from Minister M.

   He’s also been pretty awful to NZ NGOs.

   With regards to aid funding specifically devoted to Africa. It wouldn’t surprise me if it hasn’t gone down somewhat in absolute terms. A bi-product of the Minister’s desire to spend most of our aid in the Pacific.

   cheers

   Terence
   • jackal 6.1

     13 July 2011 at 7:39 pm

     According to the OECD, National started to cut foreign aid as soon as they got into power.

     I agree that McCully is incompetent.
     • terence 6.1.1

       13 July 2011 at 10:08 pm

       Same thing though: the cuts weren’t budget cuts. The money available to aid went up slightly in the budget. What it didn’t do was make it out the door of the aid programme in increased amounts. Why? My guess is that this would have something to do with the fact that McCully didn’t sign off the aid allocations (which provide reasonably high level guidance of how much aid should go where) until 6 months into the financial year. It’s hard to run an aid programme when your Minister proves unable to provide basic direction like this.
7. terence 7

   13 July 2011 at 1:02 pm

   Two objections have been made to New Zealand providing aid in this thread.

   1. It doesn’t work
   and
   2. Global poverty isn’t our problem as it’s all the bi-product of corrupt local leaders

   With regards to the aid doesn’t work argument, it is true that aid has not been able to transform globe’s poorest countries. It’s impacts haven’t been huge. But global aid flows have never been huge either. Just a few dollars per person per year. And tiny compared to other to global capital flows. The best empirical studies suggest that:

   * Aid probably has had a small (but positive) impact on economic growth in the typical aid recipient country (but that this impact varies from country to country).
   * Aid has likely had a notable positive impact (albeit not a massive one) on welfare more generally defined in developing countries (i.e health and education etc.)
   * Quality of aid matters. Particular aid programmes have had major successes, while others have faired very poorly.
   * Humanitarian aid (as opposed to development aid) which is what we’re talking about in the case of a famine in Africa does save lives. It never works perfectly (unsurprisingly disasters areas are hard places to work) but it does help.

   With regards to the “it’s not our problem” objection:

   First, whenever they’re surveyed the vast majority of New Zealanders believe it is our problem and support having an aid programme.

   Second, it is in part our problem because at least some of the issues experienced in the developing world today stem from the legacy of colonialism, and the institutions colonialism bequeathed to the countries it occupied.

   Also, corruption in poor countries is often facilitated by bribes paid by international firms. Something that we ought to shoulder at least some responsibility for.

   Terence
8. jackal 8

   13 July 2011 at 8:15 pm

   More evidence of McCully’s incompetence:

   Aid groups say criticism brings cuts to funding

   Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully has been accused of acting vindictively towards overseas aid agencies which criticised his changes to the direction of the aid programme earlier this year.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS