UN Report: Saudi Arabia lead humanitarian donor, US lags behind

[EjazR]

EXTRA: Saudi Arabia lead humanitarian donor, US lags behind : World

Geneva - Saudi Arabia was the largest international donor to humanitarian appeals, when measured as a percentage of the national economy, the United Nations reported Tuesday. The Saudi kingdom gave 0.19 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) to humanitarian funding.

Sweden, which gave 0.14 per cent of its national product and Norway with 0.13, followed in the list of top donor countries.

Many small European countries, with large and generally affluent populations, were also part of the lead countries by GDP. Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates were also large proportional donors.

The United States came in 19th on the list, having donated 0.02 per cent of GDP in 2008, ahead of Tonga.

The figures were released on the same day the UN announced its humanitarian appeals for 2009 are short 4.8 billion dollars six months into the year.

 

[illuminatus]

Wow, the war is having its effects I guess.

 

[S-2]

"Wow, the war is having its effects I guess."

Appeals & Funding-Relief Web

Hasn't stopped aid to you, has it? According to the above site we're first in humanitarian appeals donations as of 10 Jan 2010. I'm sure that the Saudis are doing wonderful things as a pct. of their GDP.

So are we. Please review for your further edification. There is a considerable difference between humanitarian aid allocated by members of the DAC (Development Assistance Committee) of the OECD and non-DAC contributions. Saudi Arabia ranked first among non-DAC contributions.

Please correct me if I am wrong but here's some additional information on contributions from Global Humanitarian Assistance, a non-profit tracking organization-

"However the biggest single donor of official humanitarian aid by volume is the United States, which contributed US$2.9 billion in 2007 or 34.5% of the DAC donor collective total. The EC provided US$1.6 billion (18.2% of the collective total), making it the second largest donor that year, followed by the United Kingdom, which contributed US$743 million or 8.6% of the collective total.3" (page 23)

GHA (Global Humanitarian Assistance) Report 2009

Oh! Pakistan is fourth in recipients of aid...

...biggest army though.

BTW, nothing would have stopped you from providing the above had you possessed sufficient curiousity to do so. Some simple googling and reliable information is obtained.

Thanks.

 

[illuminatus]

You're bribing Pakistan with so-called aid. Bribe that you're shoving down the throats of the Pakistani masses against their will. Besides, your bribe money will end up in the accounts of the corrupt Pakistani officials and you know it. Therefore, let's make a clear cut distinction and substitute "aid" with "bribe". You're not being generous by offering this bribe to corrupt people. Now, having cleared this confusion of yours, let me remind you that you're borrowing money from the likes of China to finance your wars. You cannot deny that due to ongoing wars which has adversely affected your economy.

 

[illuminatus]

To burst another bubble of yours read the following:

92 per cent of USAID projects go to US NGOs

Local institutions being involved

Saturday, October 31, 2009
By Umar Cheema

ISLAMABAD: Over 92 percent of the US aid money granted in previous years is being spent through the American NGOs resulting in the return of a fair portion of the financial assistance back to the donor country.

The News investigation found that of the projects run through $1.05 billion assistance, the government agencies were granted an amount of $29.68 million (2.78% of the total amount), UN bodies received $50.80 million (4.8%) and US NGOs bagged projects of $960 million (92.30%). This coincides with Ambassador Holbrook's disclosure about short-listing more than 1,000 NGOs for awarding contracts in Pakistan.

As the misuse of the US taxpayers' dollar due to lack of oversight has drawn fire from American watchdogs and concerned Pakistanis, the beltway bandits-influential US NGOs with strong connections in the USAID—-continues having a field day in Pakistan.

A detailed examination of the USAID projects, the history of NGOs and their ties in Washington indicates that majority of the contractors running projects in Pakistan have their executives and directors that previously served in the USAID or former administrations. Not in Pakistan only, they also won major contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Out of 34 projects worth $ 1.05 billion in different sectors, 29 have US NGOs either as the lead implementing partner or carrying out exclusively without local partnership. Four projects are directly run by the government or local organizations and five by the UN organizations.

A call for establishing direct partnership with local organizations instead of involving the beltway bandits has so far fallen on the deaf ear of the USAID. As the projects carrying hefty funds have been awarded to the US NGOs, yet there is no proper oversight.

The fact can be illustrated through an example of a five-year project of $83 million intended to carry out education sector reforms. It was awarded to the RTI International, considered 16th biggest receiver of the US overseas contracts.

The company claimed in 2007 having "positively impacted" 400,000 Pakistani students but the USAID's inspector general could not validate the claims because the US mission in Islamabad reportedly didn't require RTI to adhere to reporting requirement. The big question mark on RTI notwithstanding, it still is carrying out a project, now in health sector. A former high-ranking official at USAID, Aaron S. Williams, is a senior executive of the RTI. According to the US Centre for Public Integrity, a new position—-vice president of international business development-was created for William upon his joining the office.

A Washington-based Chemonics International Inc. that is running a project worth $ 90 million—-Empower Pakistan: Firms—-is owned by Scott Spangler, who was a senior USAID official during the first Bush Administration. The organization that receives 90 percent of its business from the USAID has its senior vice president of the Asia Division, Douglas Tinsler, who used to design and manage large-scale development assistance projects for the USAID, according to the Centre for Public Integrity.

Yet another Washington-based International Resource Group (IRG), doing a $23.48 million project—-Energy, Efficiency and Capacity—-has its three corporate vice presidents, David Joslyn, Dough Clark and Timoth R. Knight. All of them served with USAID on senior positions.

A Maryland-based organization, Development Alternatives Inc. has a $17 million project—-Pakistan Legislative Strengthening Project. The company has its vice president of operations, Larry Birch, who served 17-year in USAID. Again, the USAID is among its principal clients of the company besides the World Bank, UN agencies and the US Agriculture Department.

A Massachusetts-based NGO, Abt Associates Inc. that implements a $ 10.9 million project named Pakistan Safe Drinking Water and Hygiene Promotion Project (PSDW-HPP) has a former senior USAID official its vice president for international development, Janet Ballantyne, according to the Centre for Public Integrity.

Arkanas-based Winrock International is working on a $150 million project—-Community Rehabilitation Infrastructure Support Program. The company has a former member of Clinton administration, Kay K. Arnold, and a senator Robert J. Junior, among its directors of the board. US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson also hails from the same state.

Other US organizations implementing projects include American Institute of Research ($107 million), National Academy of Science ($ 7.5 million), Population Council ($60 million), Centre for Disease Control ($ 5.7 million), Academy for Education Development ($75 millions), CDM Constructions ($120 million), Advanced Engineering Associates ($6 million), USEFP ($93million), IFES, Asia Foundation and others.

The aid money directly handed to the government agencies has only four examples as far as the distribution of $1.05 billion assistance is concerned: HEC ($6.8 million), Finance Ministry ($11.8 million), and Khushhali Bank ($11 million).

In other cases, the projects are either implemented exclusively by the US NGOs or the NGOs have partnered with local organizations/government agencies. According to the former finance minister, Sartaj Aziz, more than 40 percent of the aid money goes back to the donor country through consultants.

Source: 92 per cent of USAID projects go to US NGOs

This is what really happens with your so-called aid money. Not very generous as you proclaim to be.

 

[S-2]

"You're bribing Pakistan with so-called aid."

Reject it, you fool. Strawman to divert attention from your claims that the war has enabled Saudi Arabia to pass America in donor contributions.

You were wrong because you don't possess the slightest curiousity about the facts.

As to your strawman, many in America rue the notion of partnerships with local NGOs. We have control on American-funded projects. When attempting to work with Pakistani NGOs, however, we've encountered a myriad of issues stemming from simple differences in accounting methodology to outright theft.

There's an effort afoot to use $25m to validate the funds transparency of local NGOs to facilitate their use. I think it's a further waste. The expenditure is indicative of how Pakistani corruption increases costs even without extorting one cent. Just the threat of such is sufficient to require additional safeguards.

Like with some many other issues, Pakistan is not an especially trustworthy place to provide aid. I'd prefer not doing so until the government and people are more appreciative. I'm just one citizen, though, and my government wishes to try assisting your country despite yourselves.

Thanks.

 

[BATMAN]

US Security Firm Bribes Pakistani Officials, Top Interior Ministry Officer Arrested

Blackwater Attempted to Bribe Iraqi Officials

US Ambassador In Pakistan Bribe Local Officials?

 

[S-2]

Ahmed Quareshi?

This says it all-

"...The US agenda included raising Iraq-style private US militias in the country..."

Entirely necessary. Thank God your former SSG men are so mercenary

Thanks.

 

[illuminatus]

"You're bribing Pakistan with so-called aid."

Reject it, you fool. Strawman to divert attention from your claims that the war has enabled Saudi Arabia to pass America in donor contributions.

You were wrong because you don't possess the slightest curiousity about the facts.

As to your strawman, many in America rue the notion of partnerships with local NGOs. We have control on American-funded projects. When attempting to work with Pakistani NGOs, however, we've encountered a myriad of issues stemming from simple differences in accounting methodology to outright theft.

There's an effort afoot to use $25m to validate the funds transparency of local NGOs to facilitate their use. I think it's a further waste. The expenditure is indicative of how Pakistani corruption increases costs even without extorting one cent. Just the threat of such is sufficient to require additional safeguards.

Like with some many other issues, Pakistan is not an especially trustworthy place to provide aid. I'd prefer not doing so until the government and people are more appreciative. I'm just one citizen, though, and my government wishes to try assisting your country despite yourselves.

Thanks.

Listen up you hotheaded moron. Don't you call me a fool. Haven't you learnt any manners? You boast about being a military professional and behave like a moron. Is this how you represent your country on international forums? I know that the truth is bitter and your angry reaction is enough for the people on this forum to judge.

Your words are empty and meaningless. Stop throwing one liners without any meaning or substance. You accuse and abuse others after they confront you with facts. It shows us how low you are as a person. You have no character. Also, your behaviour is a shame for the entire US army.

True, keep your bribe money to yourself moron. Pakistan spits on your bribe money and throws it back in your face. US history learns us that taking any favours from your country also means giving sovereignty in return. Enough of this bribe corruption. Keep it we don't it so stop shoving this bribe money down our throats.

I like the majority of Pakistanis despise your bribe money. We don't want any bribe money. Stop taking false credit for supplying bribe money. There is nothing moral about it. You should be ashamed of yourself. On the one hand you proclaim to be frond of transparency yet you bribe other nations.

On a different note, I've made a complaint to the mods about you getting very emotional and personal when someone confronts you with facts. We cannot have such moronic behaviour on this forum. It proves my previous point about you not being a military professional as you pretend to be.

Your thanks isn't appreciated.

 

[EjazR]

I think the entire thread is going off-topic.

The main topic is as a percentage of GDP, Saudis are the biggest contributors to the UN humanitarian fund.

Lets keep it around that...

 

[illuminatus]

I think the entire thread is going off-topic.

The main topic is as a percentage of GDP, Saudis are the biggest contributors to the UN humanitarian fund.

Lets keep it around that...

Read the previous posts and see for yourself who brought Pakistan into this discussion.

 

[S-2]

"You accuse and abuse others after they confront you with facts."

What facts, Illuminatus? Facts like Saudi Arabia is the world's largest aid donor?

Confronted with the truth behind that small tidbit you proceeded to brandish forth some irrelevant diatribe about the ills of American NGOs distributing aid in your corruption-ridden country. That was a strawman intended to divert others away from your poor grasp of the details behind humanitarian aid.

If you deserved the respect of a professional by merit of your postings, you'd fully receive such. There's no evidence to that end though. I haven't learned a thing from you. At least you've learned that Saudi Arabia isn't even close to being the world's leading humanitarian donor.

Funny you'd even think so.

I'll make it easy for you. Consider yourself on my IGNORE list. I do.

Bye-bye.

Thanks.

 

[illuminatus]

"You accuse and abuse others after they confront you with facts."

What facts, Illuminatus? Facts like Saudi Arabia is the world's largest aid donor?

Confronted with the truth behind that small tidbit you proceeded to brandish forth some irrelevant diatribe about the ills of American NGOs distributing aid in your corruption-ridden country. That was a strawman intended to divert others away from your poor grasp of the details behind humanitarian aid.

If you deserved the respect of a professional by merit of your postings, you'd fully receive such. There's no evidence to that end though. I haven't learned a thing from you. At least you've learned that Saudi Arabia isn't even close to being the world's leading humanitarian donor.

Funny you'd even think so.

I'll make it easy for you. Consider yourself on my IGNORE list. I do.

Bye-bye.

Thanks.

Feeling is mutual. I don't have to prove anything to you. You're an emotional and hotheaded person that doesn't refrain from using abuse. When people counter you with facts you get annoyed and resort to emotional blackmail. I'm done with you. On my ignore list you go. Don't react to my posts because all I can expect from you is abuse.

 

[gambit]

I think the entire thread is going off-topic.

The main topic is as a percentage of GDP, Saudis are the biggest contributors to the UN humanitarian fund.

Lets keep it around that...

That is nice...But standalone it is misleading. Say -- I make $100k/yr and give %20 to charity which is $20k, correct? My next door neighbor Joe Schmoe make $1mil/yr but give only %10 to charity, which is $100k, correct? So who give more to charity?

 

[waraich66]

That is nice...But standalone it is misleading. Say -- I make $100k/yr and give %20 to charity which is $20k, correct? My next door neighbor Joe Schmoe make $1mil/yr but give only %10 to charity, which is $100k, correct? So who give more to charity?

Confirmed you are from miltery

Campare apple with apple , we are talking about %GDP charity contribution of countries not the individual