Quake Aid

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by eve1962, Dec 29, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Thanks Eve.

    I'm not a big fan of Oxfam though, but that's personally, I'm sure they do a good job.

    I'll be basing my donation on the organisation that gets the most money onto the ground where it's needed.
  2. Seen, done, less beers for NY.

    Not sure whether to thank you or not for that ;)

    ** added: New Year, Myssl, getting lazy with my typing :oops:
  3. Who?
  4. India has a nuclear weapons and ICBM programme, so my view is they can pay for themselves, otherwise feck 'em. Smaller countries probably require aid but the idea of channelling it through NGOs sticks in my throat. I've seen enough of them 'in the field' in the last few years to form the conclusion that the majority - not all, but the majority - of 'aid workers' are attention-seeking, big-timing goons who would be better off at home shaking tins at people on high streets: an activity that most of them have contempt for.
  5. napier

    napier LE Moderator Reviewer

    How about a Live Aid type concert to raise money? We could get Shaking Stevens, Katrina and the Waves, Wet Wet Wet, Riverdance, and so on.
  6. I can't wait.
  7. So which groups would you recommend we support and who should we keep well clear of?

  8. None of the above will be getting any of my money, based on my experience working for an NGO in the Balkans. All large and bloated organisations with huge overheads supporting large administrations.

    In particular, CARE workers (mostly antipodean dopeheads) were responsible for a good deal of black-market and people-smuggling activities, to the extent that their convoys were stopped so often they held up the delivery of aid by everyone else and put others in danger.

    ICRC - jobs for the Swiss boys. Largely ineffectual at preventing local corruption and mafia activity, preferring to work around it than call in mil assistance that was there for the purpose.

    BRCS - spend far too much money and effort on asylum seekers for my liking. Also too close to Govt.

    Many NGOs actually subcontract the field work to private companies (often formed for the purpose) - the charity's in-country staff consisting of a couple of 25 year old beard and sandals types with degrees in sociology telling local experts what to do.

    As Chickenpunk says, many aid workers are knobs - in my organisation we had about 40% ex-mil who were mostly ok - of the others, many were on the run from the law (or their wives), and many were self-seeking, big-timing tw*ts - like the ex-bouncer who started a collection of weapons to take home 'to sort out a few people', and the cnuts who were buying gold jewellery from hungry people for peanuts and smuggling it back to UK.

    American NGOs seem to always have a US agenda - so if they need buckets they buy $10 American buckets not $1 Thai buckets, for example.

    A couple of decent NGOs (in my experience) include:

    http://www.merlin.org.uk/ - has quite a few ex-mil med pers - spends 95p of every £1 given directly on aid.

    http://www.msf.org/home-uk.cfm - UK version of Medecins Sans Frontieres - effective and apolitical
  9. That's the the $64000 question. In reality, I saw effective aid being channeled in Iraq by the American Red Cross, USAID, DFID and other governmental aid organisations. ARC were the only NGO who appeared able to work effectively in country (I'm sure there were others, but I didn't see them). On the other hand, International Medical Corps, War Child and several other such groups were a. beholden to their high value donors in the US and Europe over what they could spend money on and b. hampered by the toe-curling antics of their 'in-country' expat staff which made them embarassing to the Coalition and other aid providers.

    In reality, we need to make a decision about what we want to spend our taxes on. We can give aid to third world countries, but we should really consider not selling them arms, and thus not spending our taxes on propping up our inefficient arms industry and thus not having to, in effect, give them the guns when something goes wrong and we have to provide them with cash they would have had, had we not persuaded their corrupt governments not to buy weapons from us in the first place.

    It's worth noticing that most of the aid money being provided now is being used by the recipient governments to buy stuff from dealers in their own countries.