You have very good points, Hakan. The 2% is just a number that I
dreamed up. It could be more or less depending on what each country
can afford at the time. Nobody can expect a country which is mired
in a recession, for example, to give as freely as the good times.
But if we all could give as much as humanly possible it would be
great. If the naysyers of foreign aid say that we should only take
care of own, we should appeal to their greed instead. We should tell
them that foreign aid is just an investment for third world
countries to get on their feet to become future consumers of our
products like refridgerators, stoves, nuclear power reactors, and
gas guzzling SUV's. I'm sure the oil industry would like that!
It just seems that when we try to help the third world, and get
their feet on the first rung of the ladder, a disaster like famine
or sunami, or earthquake kicks them off the ladder again.
As for the UN. You are absolutely right. There needs to be reform in
a big way. But we shouldn't despair because just like any other huge
political organization misuse and scandal do hapen. But we must not
drift away from our goal of the perfect planet. Even in Canada, we
are bombarded with government scandal and corrupt behaviour from
time to time. And as Canadians, we are supposed to hold ourselves to
high moral standards. Yeah, right.
But that should certainly not deter us from trying to help in our
own way, no matter what that help entails.
Thanks for your comments, Dale
>From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
>Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:45:33 +0200
>
>
>Dale,
>
>It is difficult and 2% is a very high value. European countries have
>a 1 % goal and several of them give around 0.8% of GDP. For most
>European countries, it is a true 0.8% with little hooks, like that
>they have to spend the money in purchases from the donor Country.
>
>US give 0.2% of GDP and have spending rules, which forces US
>purchases. Even if you consider that US GDP is 1.5 to 2 times higher
>than many European countries, the US aid is less than half of most
>European Countries per capita. In real term it is larger than any
>other individual country, but significantly lower than EU together.
>US have the advantage of its size and population, when they say that
>they are the largest contributor and Europe do not yet count as a
>nation in this respect.
>
>To be able to get a more peaceful world, it helps if the nations
>recognize, respect and obey international law. It would help a lot
>if US recognized and participated in the International Court. US
>says that they do not want to give anyone else the right to judge US
>citizens than US courts, the rules for the International court give
>however the members preferred right to persecute any crimes. It is
>only if the member do not do this, that the International court can
>come into play.
>
>We all know about the UN problems and the food for oil scandal etc.,
>in which many US corporations were the real beneficiaries. I like
>very much Galloways speech, when the US called him to testify and
>announced that he would be harshly interrogated. The reality was
>that the US representatives and US was truthfully exposed in all
>their own corruptness. I saved the speech and it is great, brought
>it up on my server for a while, if someone missed it,
>http://hakanfalk.com/msnbc_uk_galloway_blisters_us_on_iraq_050517-01b.wmv
>Big file 2.5 Mb, but really worth downloading and look/hear at. It
>is not often the US representatives look like disoriented school
>kids.
>
>Talking about corruption,
>http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2004/cpi2004.en.html#cpi2004
>
>US is today talking a lot about UN reforms, but show no signs of
>willingness to deal with its own corruption problems. It is quite
>telling, how Bush appointed the new UN ambassador, by in a
>calculated manner utilizing an emergency rule instead of going
>through the process. I cannot imagine that this rule was created for
>this purpose and it looks as a corruptive way to do it.
>
>Hakan
>
>
>At 04:10 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote:
>
>>This is a very wise and informed comment that Keith made, and I
>>totally agree. I hope someday that the UN will ingrain and apply
>>four basic rights for every human on this planet, and they are;
>>
>>1) access to food
>>
>>2) access to clean water
>>
>>3) access to shelter
>>
>>4) personal security
>>
>>
>>
>>I also beleive that all wealthy countries be required to donate
>>just 2% of their GDP to a fund to help accomplish this. Just think
>>of all the extra money we are spending on counter terrorism that
>>could be put towards this goal. It would also thwart terrorism
>>because terrorists would not be able to get a foothold or seek
>>refige in the countries that our goodwill has touched. But our help
>>must be unconditional. We must not get involved, or tell their
>>country how to run it. All we would ask is that they be peaceful
>>and abide international law. I know that this is just pie in the
>>sky and whishfull thinking, but its just a dream of mine.
>>
>>Best wishes, Dale
>>
>>
>> >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> >To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
>> >Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:47:03 +0900
>> >
>> >>>uphold and fight for some snails life, being of great
>>importance
>> >>>and right to live, yet believe it is okay to kill babies.
>> >>>
>> >>I would have to say "I disagree!" the Netiqutte rules govern my
>> >>language. There is a massive over population problem on this
>>planet
>> >>and it is not the snails. Nuff said?
>> >>Brian Rodgers
>> >
>> >Not 'nuff said. The massive overpopulation problem on this planet
>>is
>> >a myth. From a previous message, rather than having to thrash it
>>out
>> >all over again:
>> >
>> >>The overpopulation problem is more realistically a
>>marginalisation
>> >>problem. There's plenty of room and resources for everyone and
>> >>everything else too, except the greedy. Check it out -
>> >>eco-footprinting's a not-bad place to start, it's developed a
>>lot
>> >>in recent years. Look at which societies exceed their due
>>allotment
>> >>and which don't, check the groups within those societies which
>> >>exceed their due allotment and which don't.
>> >>
>> >>"Myth 3 - Too Many People. Reality: Birth rates are falling
>>rapidly
>> >>worldwide as remaining regions of the Third World begin the
>> >>demographic transition -- when birth rates drop in response to
>>an
>> >>earlier decline in death rates. Although rapid population growth
>> >>remains a serious concern in many countries, nowhere does
>> >>population density explain hunger. For every Bangladesh, a
>>densely
>> >>populated and hungry country, we find a Nigeria, Brazil or
>>Bolivia,
>> >>where abundant food resources coexist with hunger. Costa Rica,
>>with
>> >>only half of Honduras' cropped acres per person, boasts a life
>> >>expectancy -- one indicator of nutrition -- 11 years longer than
>> >>that of Honduras and close to that of developed countries. Rapid
>> >>population growth is not the root cause of hunger. Like hunger
>> >>itself, it results from underlying inequities that deprive
>>people,
>> >>especially poor women, of economic opportunity and security.
>>Rapid
>> >>population growth and hunger are endemic to societies where land
>> >>ownership, jobs, education, health care, and old age security
>>are
>> >>beyond the reach of most people. Those Third World societies
>>with
>> >>dramatically successful early and rapid reductions of population
>> >>growth rates -- China, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Cuba and the Indian
>> >>state of Kerala -- prove that the lives of the poor, especially
>> >>poor women, must improve before they can choose to have fewer
>> >>children."
>> >>http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html
>> >>12 Myths About Hunger
>> >>
>> >>There's a very large amount of evidence for that.
>> >>
>> >>"A smaller increase in production would suffice if its growth
>>were
>> >>accompanied by more equitable access to food. This could be
>> >>achieved through redistribution - of food itself, of the means
>>of
>> >>producing it or of the purchasing power needed to buy it -- to
>> >>those currently on the lower rungs of the food access ladder."
>> >>Unfortunately, the experience of the past thirty years shows no
>> >>significant decline in inequity of access among households in
>>most
>> >>countries." -- FAO
>> >>http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/OIS/PRESS_NE/PRESSENG/2001/pren0169.htm
>> >>
>> >>"Overpopulation" is a symptom, just as poverty and hunger are
>> >>symptoms, and the cause is an inequitable economic system. If
>> >>overpopulation were a reality it would indeed be an intractable
>> >>problem; if poverty and hunger existed, and increased as they
>>do,
>> >>because there just wasn't enough to go round, that too would be
>>an
>> >>intractable problem. But a dysfunctional economic system is not
>>an
>> >>intractable problem.
>> >
>>
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg32911.html
>> >Re: [biofuel] The Oil we eat (Harper's)
>> >
>> >Best wishes
>> >
>> >Keith
