Foreign Aid sounds worthy to people who think we
victimized Third World foreigners, who believe the
Propaganda stories about the nasty
Poverty Industry is different; it starts as a cause, becomes a business then
a racket. The
reality is rather ugly. Sean Gabb, the director of the
Libertarian Alliance explains why. Or see
Wasting Money On Aid, And Start Letting In More Refugees. It was written and
published by the Enemy Within.
Libertarian Alliance Newspaper Article
Contact Details: Dr Sean Gabb
07956 472 199,
Wednesday the 18th September 2012
Sean Gabb, speaking on
BBC West Midlands Radio on the 18th
September 2012. He makes these points against foreign aid:
- That, as the late Peter Bauer said, it
takes money from poor people in rich countries and gives it to rich people
in poor countries;
- That it also gives large amounts of money
to friends and clients of the British ruling class - see, for example, the
revelation that £500m of the aid budget goes to well-paid consultants,
including Adam Smith International;
- That is also largely given with
strings attached, so that the recipients buy British goods - this being a
roundabout subsidy to well-connected business interests in this country;
- That it enables funds to be diverted in
recipient countries to evil or just grandiose ends - for example, every
pound spent on feeding the poor in some African countries is another pound
the local rulers can spend on bullets; or the fact that British aid to India
is about equal to the cost of the Indian space programme;
- That where the money is not spent badly,
it is often just stolen;
- That, if we want to help the really poor
in other countries, we should trade with them, or assist them to throw off
the rulers who have kept them or made them poor.
Director, The Libertarian Alliance (Carbon Positive since 1979)
firstname.lastname@example.org Tel: 07956 472 199 Skype: seangabb
Postal Address: Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1J 6HL, England
Making clear points makes sense. They are easy to understand, easy to fault,
easy to accept on their merits or not.
Foreign Aid Money Gets Stolen Says Pakistani [
22 October 2014 ]
British aid money is being used to line the
pockets of wealthy Pakistanis with links to the country's corrupt regime,
minsters have been warned.
Former cricket star Imran Khan said Pakistani
politicians were syphoning off cash from the multi-million pound budget
handed over by the Department for International Development.
Foreign aid goes from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor
countries. It always has. It always will.
Socialists like to feel good by spending our money on their obsessions,
typically Third World undesirables.
is just another of them.
Foreign Aid Overtaking Council Spending [ 16 April 2016 ]
Councils are wasteful; their employees are idle. The whole thing is a
Boondoggle; that is before you consider fraud.
Foreign Aid is different but just as corrupt. It
takes from the poor in rich countries and gives the money to the rich in poor
countries. It gets worse. The money that comes back goes to friends of the
government. NB Our aid to India pays for their space programme.
Foreign Aid Helps Terrorists Alleges The Daily Quislinggraph [ 13 June 2016
foreign aid project aimed at promoting Palestinian state
building and peace has instead encouraged terrorism and led
to an increase in violence, The Telegraph can
disclose [ say/state/allege/claim - delete to taste -
Department for International Development (DFI(DFID)’s £156.4
million grant providing financial aid to the
Palestinian Authority (PA) led to civil servants being “more
likely” to commit acts of terrorism, an
independent evaluation suggested.
An official report found that the five-year project
encouraged public sector employees to engage in "active
conflict" since their salaries were paid to their
families even if they were convicted and imprisoned
for criminal acts, including terrorism.
Palestinians need lotsa money to
repair the damage, several billions of it done by
Zionist crazies, the world's most dangerous criminal
organisation. They, the crazies that is, infiltrated our
Parliament to destroy it & us.
The Quislinggraph panders to
them, just like the rest of the Main
British Government Gives Another £5 Million To Black Pop Group
[ 19 December 2016 ]
have picked up a new £5.2million bill to fund a talk show for Ethiopia's
own Spice Girls. Yegna, a
five-strong pop group, has been awarded a contract to develop its
'branded media platform', which also includes a radio drama and music. The foreign
aid cash - which will keep the band going until at least 2018 - comes
despite officials warning it may be a waste of money...........
In 2013 a
Mail investigation from Ethiopia, which is one of the biggest recipients
of British aid, revealed a UK-funded project named Girl Hub had provided
£4million to help fund the group.
critics at the time said it was enough money to run the Yegna initiative
for 154 years [ Only 154? - Editor ].
year the Independent Commission on Aid Impact watchdog warned ministers
to halt the project unless managers could show it was working..........
following the report, the Department for International Development (Dfid),
gave the go-ahead and injected a further £5.2million in the Yegna brand
alone, it can be revealed..............
pour new money into the project has never been publicly announced by the
It is only taxpayers' money so nobody cares apart from the vultures
picking our bones clean. How much of it gets to the young women, not
that they need it in the first place. Would you believe the light
fingered greed driven chancers like #Miliband &
#Helle Thorning-Schmidt - she runs
Save the Children, a
World Parasites Paid Directly By Her Majesty's Government
[ 5 January 2017 ]
The U.K. Government’s
“foreign aid” program has handed out over £1 billion (US
$1.23 billion) in cash, paid directly into personal bank
accounts, of at least 9.1 million people in 14 countries,
including Pakistan, the Yemen, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe
since 2010, an investigation by the Daily Mail has
The cash handouts work
through state-administered welfare systems in the 14 Third
World states, where recipients are given debit cards and can
draw cash at will from auto banks in their countries—with no
control at all over what it is spent on.
The Daily Mail report went on to reveal that
Pakistan—which has three nuclear power plants, its own
nuclear weapons, a $6 billion space program which has three
satellites in orbit, and which has a Gross Domestic Product
of US$271 billion (the 41st largest in the world and second
largest in South Asia), is the main beneficiary of this
astonishing U.K. taxpayer-funded cash handout.............
The Daily Mail revealed that currently around
235,000 families are given the cash through the
Income Support Programme” (BISP), a government-run
welfare department, which is a beneficiary of the U.K.’s
Department for International Development (DFID)..........
The cash handout budget has
soared from £53 million in 2005 to an annual average of £219
million in the period 2011 to 2015, in a program which Nigel
Evans, a Conservative Party MP, described as nothing less
than “exporting the dole.”
While 90 percent of the
recipients get their cash handouts through bank cards, fully
10 percent are given the money in cash in envelopes at their
local post offices, the Daily Mail went on to
In addition, the newspaper
found evidence of wide scale corruption in the program’s
implementation, with many of the recipients only being given
their bank card after they had paid “kickbacks to
newspapers reported last year that a nationwide probe had
been launched after a “growing number of complaints about
fake accounts and alleged corruption from project staff.
Seven employees have been suspended on corruption charges
and 125,714 suspicious accounts have been suspended.”
Deeply corrupt or allegedly deeply corrupt? To ask the question is to know the
answer or be willfully blind. NB the Secretary of State for
International Development i is
Priti Patel, a loud
mouthed insolent Third World undesirable with the
in depth understanding of brown envelopes, introduction commissions, fraud etc.
with being Indian. She would doubtless allege that she is not guilty of
Fraud, in particular
Fraud by abuse of
position. In reality she is part of the
New Corruption & above the law.
PS Patel pretends to care about helping the poor. See e.g.
Priti Patel warns taxpayers' money being wasted
Patel sets out new vision to stop international aid budget being stolen.
Who gets the bungs? People who vote in English elections? Is it Bribery to pay for Vote
Rigging in Tower Hamlets & other ethnic
Stop Wasting Money
On Aid, And Start Letting In More Refugees
who is alleged by the
Wikipedia to be an Englishman or, at all events
merely "British" tells us, in effect
that Foreign Aid is a waste of money; that it will be
stolen or misapplied. Corruption and incompetence are the order of the day. This
is true enough, also part of the reason why Third
World aliens want to sponge off us.
Second World War various Subversives told
blacks they could run their own countries. The consequence was
Decolonisation, a disaster for blacks. Now those
subversives are proven liars. It is why
blacks want out.
has the insolence to tell us that we have a
to take in aspiring parasites. He does not tell us why.
Marozzi chooses to
allege that invaders in Calais would never have qualified for welfare. I choose to
allege that is my considered opinion that he is lying in his teeth. They
are on the make. Asylum seekers are allowed to make their claims in the first
'safe' country they come to. France qualifies so they are criminals but they
will get the bungs just the same.
Spectator, which published this article is a
Propaganda machine aimed at the middle class people who tend to vote
Tory. Happily the comments are distinctly hostile.
There is hope for England yet.
Stop wasting money on aid, and start letting in more refugees
There is a global crisis on a scale not seen for 20 years. And all
we do is throw money at the problem
Justin Marozzi, Douglas Murray and Fraser Nelson discuss
Pictures from Calais have returned to our television screens, showing
desperate men and women [ What women? - Editor ] trying to break into lorries bound for Britain. A
Sudanese man died jumping from a bridge onto a lorry heading for Dover.
Another perished after falling from the axles of a bus. The mayor of Calais
has blamed Britain for being an ‘El Dorado’ offering aspirational benefits
to migrants — but as she’d know, the Africans arriving in her morgues would
never have qualified for welfare. They risked death due to a sense of
desperation, and hope, that we can scarcely imagine.
The same is true in the Mediterranean, where 2,500 have died after
embarking on unseaworthy boats heading for Europe. Corpses of Syrians,
Egyptians and others now regularly wash up on Italian shores. Britain’s
decision not to support any future search and rescue operations on the
grounds that they encouraged North Africans to make the dangerous journey
was greeted with disbelief in Brussels. ‘It is as if you walk by a river and
see a child being pulled away by the current and think: “I’ll let the child
drown because then the other kids will know that they shouldn’t fall into
the river”,’ said Michael Diedring, secretary general of the European
Council for Refugees.
For once, the man from Brussels is right. Those climbing onto these boats
will have seen the news, and know the risks. Yet they still take their
families on board the inflatable boats, the airtight ship containers, the
refrigerated cargo lorries. They are part of a worldwide exodus of which,
whatever Nigel Farage and the Daily Mail tell us (‘Asylum: you’re
right to worry’ is a typical headline), those coming to Britain are only a
tiny proportion. The UNHCR, the UN’s refugee agency, says last year was the
worst for refugee crises on record, reaching levels not seen since the
Rwandan genocide 20 years ago. The population of forcibly displaced people
is now 51 million, twice the entire population of Afghanistan. Yet no one
fights for them.
We are in the grip of immigration hysteria. Much of our panic about
asylum seekers in Britain is strikingly self-regarding, not least the notion
that our island is the destination of choice for most of them. The fact is,
it isn’t. Below 1 per cent of the planet’s displaced people are in the UK.
We Brits like to think we’re a decent lot, that we do our bit and stand up
for the oppressed. We can hold our heads up high, we tell ourselves,
exemplars of fair play in a cruel world.
Yet if we look at how other countries handle immigration and refugees,
perhaps we would be rather less self-congratulatory. The truth is that we
punch well below our weight. What do Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan and
Turkey have in common — apart from being Muslim? According to the United
Nations, they are the world’s top five hosts of refugees. Pakistan alone has
1.6 million. Earlier this year, the UNHCR called on countries to take in an
additional 100,000 Syrians in 2015 and 2016. The UK’s response? The
Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme. As of August, the total number of
Syrians resettled was 50.
How do we compare with our European neighbours, who are supposedly much
less of a soft touch? Germany received 127,000 applications for asylum last
year, France 65,000, Sweden 54,000 and Britain just 30,000 (Sweden’s
population, for the record, is a sixth the size of ours). So not so much
Floodgates Britain, Mr. Farage, as Fortress Britain. And here it is worth
remembering that we are signatories to the 1951 UN convention on refugees,
under which asylum is given to those with a ‘well-founded fear of
persecution’ in their own countries. There is no shortage of these people,
but we seem to have suspiciously few of them here. Statistics aside, this
latest bout of British immigration fever reminds me of friends I have worked
with during the past decade in the sort of conflict-ravaged countries that
produce so many refugees.
When Fatima, my long-suffering Arabic teacher in Baghdad, decided it was
time to leave Iraq, it was not the UK she chose, but America, to teach
Arabic at a defence institute in California. Forced to seek asylum after
raging violence in Baghdad, my Iraqi friend Manaf, a retired diplomat,
scholar and Anglophile, found his way to Amarillo, Texas, with his wife.
Where was Britain in Iraq’s greatest hour of need? Its approach could be
best summed up in the refusal to give asylum to 91 Iraqis who had served as
interpreters for British forces. During a visit to Afghanistan in 1996,
Hazara warlords were reportedly staging ‘dead dancing’ shows, decapitating
prisoners, cauterising the severed necks with oil and watching the corpses
stumble around pour encourager les autres.
Eventually, like so many Afghans overcome by the conflict, my translator
Arif fled the country. He won a Chevening scholarship and graduated from
Stirling University with a Masters in communications. But this isn’t enough
to guarantee residency — next year, he’ll learn whether he can stay
permanently or be asked to leave. Given the government’s failure to meet its
immigration target, it’s people like Arif — from outside the EU — who are at
greatest risk of deportation.
If one good thing could come out of Britain’s latest fixation with
immigration, it would surely be a long, hard look at the Department for
International Development. Its dizzying growth contrasts awkwardly with our
stinginess towards those seeking shelter in Britain. Whenever a crisis
breaks out — think Syria or Ebola — Britain likes to donate more money than
the rest of Europe put together. It is as if David Cameron believes a
nation’s compassion can be measured by the size of its overseas aid budget.
And how big that is.
A decade ago, the government gave £4.3 billion of taxpayers’ money to
charities of its choice, via Dfid. Now, it’s £11 billion and rising
steadily. For civil servants, corrupt foreign governments and the army of
consultants who feed from this largesse — and here I declare an interest
having served as one — Dfid is the gift that keeps on giving. Compare this
with the Foreign Office, once the parent of Dfid’s modest predecessor the
Overseas Development Administration, now the poor relation with a budget of
£1.7 billion. While no one would argue the UK has caused this latest global
tide of migrants, we certainly had a hand in some of it.
The Iraqi Christians being turned away here were never singled out for
elimination under Saddam Hussein. We have become good at deposing dictators,
but bad at filling the resulting power vacuum. Our well-intentioned
interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have led to population
upheavals on a grand scale. The Afghans found in Tilbury Docks recently (one
of them dead) were reportedly Sikhs, targeted by the resurgent Taleban. If
we had left Afghanistan a stable country, would they have ended up in Essex?
Where was Britain in Iraq’s greatest hour of need?
Our approach can be best summed up in the refusal to give asylum to 91
Iraqis who had served as interpreters for British forces. Yet in previous
eras we opened our doors more readily to Sassoons, Saatchis, Hadids, Dallals,
Auchis, Yentobs, Zilkas and Shamashes. History will remember another
Iraqi-British friend, the former national security advisor Mowaffak Rubaie,
a London neurologist, as the man who hanged Saddam. There’s a serious
intellectual inconsistency here. Prime Ministers Blair and Cameron have
insisted there is a connection between failing foreign states and domestic
problems, such as terrorist threats and heroin on our streets — and used
that argument to justify interventions abroad. Yet they have remained silent
about the backlash from these decisions when waves of migrants flee these
states. If we were all Libyans in 2011, as those who advocated the removal
of Muammar Gaddafi put it, aren’t we all Libyans now?
Britain’s response is to the refugee crisis is to offer fewer than 1,000
‘resettlement places’ a year. It’s pitiful. Of course we can’t house them
all, but part of any nation’s moral duty is to shelter the genuinely
persecuted — and Britain does disgracefully little, for a country that
accepts 1,200 immigrants a day. Reallocating some of Dfid’s budget to help
shelter those who arrive would be a start. And given that this problem will
not go away, it is time to consider it properly. Somehow, a fixation with
overseas aid budgets has broken the government’s moral compass. The public
can be trusted to support overseas charities; it is the government’s duty to
help refugees who arrive here needing shelter. For the Prime Minister to
neglect that basic British duty diminishes us all.
Justin Marozzi’s latest book is Baghdad: City of Peace, City
This article first appeared in
the print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated
Errors & omissions, broken links,
cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if
you find any I am open to comment.
me at Mike Emery. All
financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep
it private, use my PGP Key. Home