Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

[Guest]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

I know a couple of people who have done/are about to do humanitarian work in Darfur. From what I'm told, some money does get used inefficiently, but I don't think that's an argument for not spending it, it's an argument for looking at the procedures in place at UNHCR and wherever at the same time.

[WOM]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

Max Payne wrote:

It's coming up to 25 years since Live Aid and to say that the state of affairs in the world is back to square one would be flattering.

It's a bugger they've not cured drought yet.

[G-Man]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

It's coming up to 25 years since Live Aid and to say that the state of affairs in the world is back to square one would be flattering.

I don't know what changes you are hoping for. Better government, I presume. Well, 25 years ago, almost all of Africa was governed by dictatorships. Now, democracies (immature and imperfect, I grant you) are becoming the norm. Economic growth in Africa, pre-crash, was 5% plus. That is positive change.

[Guest]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

Antonio Gramsci wrote:

Anybody have any idea what the 54M is for? I mean, I can't imagine any of it is going to the government in Khartoum. So is it Darfur money and famine relief? Money for elections in the south?

If the latter, 54M might not go as far as you'd think. The area around Juba is pretty expensive, precisely because there are so many UN types around and people are flooding in from Uganda and other nearby countries to build roads, buildings - and of course, service the oil industry. It's a serious boomtown.

I'm back on this thread now. From what i have read,the aid is for all that you have mentioned. So it will be interesting to see where the aid does actually go etc.

I don't think i am being selfish for wanting my own Country to receive aid and help from its own Government. On reflection we are a rich Country,so there are many institutions that can deal with the many problems here.

An interesting question was raised about corruption when aid has been given to Africa,and i have read stories of
how said aid has been syphoned off etc.
Can the United Nations not get a better grip on who receives what and where it is meant to go,or does this entail too much paperwork etc and perhaps dodgy African officials.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

It's a bugger they've not cured drought yet.

It is a bugger that there are still people around who think that famine is a "natural disaster".

[WOM]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

Two thoughts on that: first, the corruption/bribes/theft that one sees with regard to any kind of foreign aid is part and parcel of the conditions that necessitate the aid to begin with. In other words, it's par for the course. You really can't get around it. If you give cash, some will be misappropriated. If you give rice, some will be stolen. You help as best you can.

Second, yes, full accountability is probably very expensive and ultimately pointless. Well-meaning parties hook up with reasonably reputable local agencies and do the best they can. To demand full accountability and guarantees would drain the resources that should have been reaching the people in the first place.

What's stumping me is your unwillingness to see that 'your' people are already getting billions of dollars in aid from their government. Is it somehow wasteful if a 'mere' 54M goes abroad to people who can't afford the very necessities of life?

[WOM]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

TonTon wrote:

It's a bugger they've not cured drought yet.

It is a bugger that there are still people around who think that famine is a "natural disaster".

Not meaning me, I hope.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

Well I'd have thought not, but it did look that way.

[WOM]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

No, you've misinterpreted it. It was 100% sarcasm. No sugar or preservatives.

[Guest]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

Yes re accountability, I heard from people I lived with about projects designed to improve it that inevitably did the opposite; not just spending money to improve project efficiency in the future, which makes sense, but pointless bureaucracy. But, the aims are still the right aims I think.

[Guest]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

Off topic for a mo. From 2004(every August to be precise)i have taken part in a 13 mile Charity walk on and around Dartmoor for St. Lukes Hospice in Plymouth. A fair amount of money gets raised,and a good laugh is had by all.

I also ask shops to put my loose change from shopping trips in to their Charity boxes. That is not selfish.

[WOM]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

[Calvert]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

devon wrote:

I also ask shops to put my loose change from shopping trips in to their Charity boxes. That is not selfish.

I needed a laugh.
It's almost like Partridge never existed when you read Devon's posts.

Cheers for that.

[Banana Banana]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

So if push comes to shove we should let people in other countries starve if we have a £ of national debt? Just to take the point to its illogical destination.

Fundamentally if you want to solve poverty, you need to improve the accountability of the governments who allocate resources and set taxes. Otherwise the temptation to divert resources into direct corruption or repression of your rivals is very strong.

Please also drop the utterly facile, revelling in ignorance, and shit, Live Aid comparisons. Live Aid was a result of a famine due to a dictator put in place due to the cold war. The big improvements in African democracy that G-man points to - as well as the small shoots of economic development - can be traced to the end of the cold war and the end of propping up their or our dictatorships.

Most aid these days is tied to good governance: accountability of goverment institutions, free and fair elections, and exchange rates not rigged to suit the urban elites.

A lot of learning has taken place: there are still places where actual money is needed to stop people dying. But most people are resourceful and want to make their own living, without handouts. Again a lot of aid is to help people do this and to put the democratic structures in place so that these people do not have the fruits of their labour stolen or confiscated.

[Guest]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

Calvert W. McCutcheon wrote:

devon wrote:

I also ask shops to put my loose change from shopping trips in to their Charity boxes. That is not selfish.

I needed a laugh.
It's almost like Partridge never existed when you read Devon's posts.

Cheers for that.

What do you do Charity then,if any?. At least i make an effort.

[Calvert]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

Now you're David Brent.

Superb stuff.

Keep it up.

[Guest]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

Calvert W. McCutcheon wrote:

Now you're David Brent.

Superb stuff.

Keep it up.

And you come across as a fucking moron.

[Banana Banana]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

Lyra wrote:

Yes re accountability, I heard from people I lived with about projects designed to improve it that inevitably did the opposite; not just spending money to improve project efficiency in the future, which makes sense, but pointless bureaucracy. But, the aims are still the right aims I think.

I'd also comment that field workers don't always get the point of their project. They can be very engrossed in the direct successes or failures of the project, sometimes missing the point that the real benefit the participation and empowerment of poor people, or indeed the evidence learnt from their experience which is used to change and formulate government or international policy. The collection of this information probably looks like hideous bureaucracy to someone who only wants to dig a well or fund a seed co-op. But they are missing the point.

[Guest]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

This was gathered from co-directors & project managers at small NGOs, and people doing projects for the UN, but absolutely, just an anecdotal snapshot, of course, not meant to be representative.

[Calvert]

Britain to give Sudan £54 million in aid.

devon wrote:

Calvert W. McCutcheon wrote:

Now you're David Brent.

Superb stuff.

Keep it up.

And you come across as a fucking moron.

Heh.
Temper, temper.