Jump to content

USA foreign and UN aid reform


shalab
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was reading Nikki Haley interview and it is interesting:

 

Aid to Canada in 2017, 35 million

https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/CAN

 

Aid to China in 2017, 53 million

https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/CHN

 

Aid to Russia in 2017, 167.7 million

https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/RUS

 

Aid to Israel in 2017, 3.19 billion

https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/ISR

 

Jordan - 1.5 billion

https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/JOR

 

Aid to Pakistan in 2017, 836 million

https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/PAK

 

 

 

UN budget and foreign aid:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/12/nikki-haley-interview-transcript/577555/

 

Friedman: Beyond the question of moral leadership, you’ve had to decide what to focus on and what not to focus on. Do you push for the joint investigative mechanism in Syria? Do you push for UN internal reforms? Or do you do other work? I assume that in doing that, you’ve had to have some kind of working definition of what America’s role in the world should be beyond the question of moral leadership. What have you landed on? How do you think about what America’s role is, because you can’t do everything, right?

 

Haley: I wanted to make sure we had a good sector of what we focused on, and some of it was planned and some just fell in my lap that I needed to take. One, I was just honored to serve a country I love so much. I wanted to do it in a way that the American public was proud. I thought it was very important that we continue to stand by our allies, which you saw me do, whether it’s Ukraine, whether it’s Israel—all those. I thought it was very important that we go against the dictators, whether it was Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, and call them out for what they were doing. I thought UN reform mattered because the American public should get what it pays for. We took on reform efforts and were able to slice $1.3 billion off the UN budget and are still moving in that direction; reformed and brought accountability to peacekeeping; we’re now focused on the scales of assessment on what countries pay. That part was also very important. And then just the overall security in the world—making sure that we saw problems before they happened, and that we were in front of it to go ahead and put out those fires. I think those were a lot of things.

 

One of the things that landed in my lap that was really glaring was the foreign aid. It was probably over a year ago, our team put together a book for the president, and it basically was all of the foreign aid we give each and every country, and the voting coincidence with that, at the UN. I went and I gave him this book and I said, “I just want you to look at this.” He was shocked. He was furious. My point to him was, our aid should not be based on just this vote. But we don’t need to be giving money to countries that say “Death to America.” We don’t need to be giving money to countries that go behind our back and try and stop us from doing things. We don’t need to be giving money to those that don’t want to be our partners, because there’s a lot of countries that do want to be our partners, and we just need to be smart about it. I think it should be one of the things we look at, but I think there should be a strategic view on which countries we partner with, which ones we count on to work with us on certain things, and move forward accordingly. I think we just blindly allow money to keep going without thinking that this is real leverage. We have to use it. The one example I’ll give you is, look at Pakistan. Giving them over a billion dollars, and they continue to harbor terrorists that turn around and kill our soldiers—that’s never okay. We shouldn’t even give them a dollar until they correct it. Use the billion dollars. That’s not a small amount of change. Tell them, “You have to do these things before we will even start to help you with your military or start to help you on counterterrorism.” It’s those types of things that you really want to kind of look at.

I think the Iran deal was very telling. Everybody meant well. Everybody wanted Iran to stop what they were doing. But the reality was, they took most of what they could get and they turned a blind eye to the rest of it, and the blind eye was dangerous. The idea that you’re doing ballistic-missile testing is dangerous. The idea that you’re supporting terrorism is dangerous. The idea that you’re meddling in countries—whether it’s Lebanon, whether it’s Israel, whether it’s Syria, all of these things—and you’re meddling for the bad reasons in the Middle East. That’s serious. To give them literally a plane-load of money—is that smart? Should we not have used it as leverage and worked in a different way? That was the only point I was trying to make to the president, which is that all of the agencies need to come together, and for all of the reasons they give, we need to have a plan on what our relationship is with that country and how much do we want to do.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are presenting a misleading story...you have to remove all the Military/Defense spending from these numbers to get a real sense of the issue here.

 

For example, Iraq "received" $3.7B in 2017, and this is down from $9.7B in 2006. Of course it's almost all military spending.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where you are getting defense spending from, USAid from wikipedia:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development

 

You are presenting a misleading story...you have to remove all the Military/Defense spending from these numbers to get a real sense of the issue here.

 

For example, Iraq "received" $3.7B in 2017, and this is down from $9.7B in 2006. Of course it's almost all military spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aid to Canada in 2017, 35 million

https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/CAN

 

Of $35M, $32M goes to Ducks Unlimited. The break-down is right there on the page you linked.

 

Ducks Unlimited is an *American* non-profit. It does some conservation work in Canada to restore and protect wetlands that are home to migratory birds. Most of those birds migrate between Canada and the US.

 

Conservation is just one aspect of their work. Hunting is another. Take a look at their hunting resources:

 

https://www.ducks.org/hunting

 

They do conservation work for many different reasons but one of them is to develop shooting targets for American duck hunters (not that there is anything wrong with that).

 

To classify this kind of spending as "Aid to Canada" is bureaucratic B.S.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where you are getting defense spending from, USAid from wikipedia:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development

 

You are presenting a misleading story...you have to remove all the Military/Defense spending from these numbers to get a real sense of the issue here.

 

For example, Iraq "received" $3.7B in 2017, and this is down from $9.7B in 2006. Of course it's almost all military spending.

 

From the links you provided...

 

Take Pakistan (830MM):

https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/PAK

 

Scroll down to the three categories which breakdown the ~800MM (Top Activities/Partners/Sectors)

 

Top Activity:

Dept of Defense/Foreign Military Financing (250MM)

 

Top Partner:

US Govt - Dept of Defense (280MM)

 

Top Sector:

Conflict,Peace,and Security (310MM)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's funny is how Military spending gets classified as foreign aid.

 

What's even more funny is some of the names these activities are given:

"Civilian Peace Building"

"Security System Management and Reform"

"Legal and Judicial Development"

 

And who knows what other Military spending items are stuffed under the more innocuous-sounding line items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LC 

 

If you look at the Organizational Chart under USAid you will find The Bureau of Foreign Assistance.

 

https://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization/bureaus/foreign-assistance

 

Here is the definition of Foreign Assistance.

 

https://www.foreignassistance.gov

 

Foreign Assistance is quite a bit broader than foreign aid and includes responding to conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it whatever you want but when you make a point that "US spends 850MM on foreign aid to Pakistan, despite all the terrorism in Pakistan!"

 

And ignore that probably 300-400 of that aid is to directly deal with terrorism, you are misrepresentign the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LC

 

Please read what she said:

 

"The one example I’ll give you is, look at Pakistan. Giving them over a billion dollars, and they continue to harbor terrorists that turn around and kill our soldiers—that’s never okay. We shouldn’t even give them a dollar until they correct it. Use the billion dollars. That’s not a small amount of change. Tell them, “You have to do these things before we will even start to help you with your military or start to help you on counterterrorism.” It’s those types of things that you really want to kind of look at."

 

She's stating that Pakistan is harboring terrorist that kill our soldiers and that as long as that situation exists they shouldn't get a penny from us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her statement is ridiculous on many fronts. She puts the cart before the horse. But we can all draw our own interpretations. How about this:

 

Giving them over a billion dollars, and they continue to harbor terrorists that turn around and kill our soldiers

 

Let's just pull our soldiers out, and then everything is hunky-dory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what your point is. All you did was put another label on it.

 

Call Pakistan the "Divine Cesspool circling the Black Hole of Terrorism Sponsorship" for all I care.

 

It's a problem and the US government has decided to try and "fix it".

 

We can argue over the methods of "fixing it", or even whether we should be "fixing it". But the original post and this Nikki Haley person are misrepresenting the situation with those quoted comments and supplied facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LC

 

When you harbor terrorists you become by extension a terrorist.  We shouldn't be giving money to "Divine Cesspool circling the Black Hole of Terrorism Sponsorship" like Pakistan and Iran.

 

I'm certain that Nicky Haley, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, would love to know how she is misrepresenting the facts.  I'm sure others on this board would love to be educated by you as well.  Please ... educate us! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may want to read this book

 

The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014 1st Edition

by Carlotta Gall (Author)

 

 

Carlotta Gall has reported from Afghanistan and Pakistan for almost the entire duration of the American invasion and occupation, beginning shortly after 9/11. She knows just how much this war has cost the Afghan people, and how much damage can be traced to Pakistan and its duplicitous government and intelligence forces. Now that American troops are withdrawing, it is time to tell the full history of how we have been fighting the wrong enemy, in the wrong country.

 

Gall combines searing personal accounts of battles and betrayals with moving portraits of the ordinary Afghanis who endured a terrible war of more than a decade. Her firsthand accounts of Taliban warlords, Pakistani intelligence thugs, American generals, Afghani politicians, and the many innocents who were caught up in this long war are riveting.  Her evidence that Pakistan fueled the Taliban and protected Osama bin Laden is revelatory. This is a sweeping account of a war brought by well-intentioned American leaders against an enemy they barely understood, and could not truly engage.

 

I don't see what your point is. All you did was put another label on it.

 

Call Pakistan the "Divine Cesspool circling the Black Hole of Terrorism Sponsorship" for all I care.

 

It's a problem and the US government has decided to try and "fix it".

 

We can argue over the methods of "fixing it", or even whether we should be "fixing it". But the original post and this Nikki Haley person are misrepresenting the situation with those quoted comments and supplied facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm certain that Nicky Haley, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, would love to know how she is misrepresenting the facts.  I'm sure others on this board would love to be educated by you as well.  Please ... educate us!

 

She is suggesting that the US supplies Pakistan with aid, which is then turned around and used to "Fight America":

 

But we don’t need to be giving money to countries that say “Death to America.”

 

The point is that a large portion of our aid is directly to fight those who say "death to america".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll repeat myself one more time because at this point it's becoming circular:

 

We can argue over the methods of "fixing it", or even whether we should be "fixing it". But the original post and this Nikki Haley person are misrepresenting the situation with those quoted comments and supplied facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll repeat myself one more time because at this point it's becoming circular:

 

We can argue over the methods of "fixing it", or even whether we should be "fixing it". But the original post and this Nikki Haley person are misrepresenting the situation with those quoted comments and supplied facts.

 

Thank God you're stopping! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is mis-represented - that US is giving financial aid to Pakistan or that Pakistan government is playing a double game?

 

I'll repeat myself one more time because at this point it's becoming circular:

 

We can argue over the methods of "fixing it", or even whether we should be "fixing it". But the original post and this Nikki Haley person are misrepresenting the situation with those quoted comments and supplied facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying "we should not give aid because they are sponsoring terrorists" is ignoring the fact that the "aid" (i.e. military spend) is to fight this very problem.

 

Now if you are saying "well this is their problem and they should deal with it" - that is a different argument. Or if you are saying "well we should just invade and fight the problem with UN/US troops on the ground" - again a different argument. Although there are I believe currently UN troops in Pakistan. This is what I meant by the first sentence you quoted - and both of which are worth a discussion. But that is not what Haley is saying.

 

Also to Haley's point - the US has already reduced its spend in Pakistan by 300MM in September of this year.

 

But the reality is that Pakistan has a murky history of sponsoring terrorism in this region and the UN has committed to fight it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...