View Full Version : 1/3 of Tsunami $ went to UN "overhead"!!!
Devastatin Dave
12-27-2005, 17:50
Thank God I didn't waste any of my money to the UN (except my wasted tax dollars that go to this worthless entity) but instead gave my charity money to the Red Cross..
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051223-010515-8477r
The UN should be ashamed.:rtwno:
Vladimir
12-27-2005, 18:00
And this surprises you why?
Oh surprise surprise, after the so miraculously expired medicines this is just what we need. :rtwno:
But red cross is just as bad, in Holland the 'chief' makes 3 times the amount of money our president makes a year, and most of the money goes to the stock market or is put into reserves for 'further use when the time is right'. Charity is for women that are good at getting married and that other thing, I gave 50 euro's to indonesia for rebuilding and 50 to Pakistan so they can buy a better stick to beat their wives, worst organised criminal organisations ever. I feel sorry for the good people that actually think they are helping; no more for me.
Ianofsmeg16
12-27-2005, 18:10
Frankly I am appalled, but i cant swear on this forum so...
They are sick, twisted, illegitimate sons of female dogs ~:pissed: :rtwno:
Ser Clegane
12-27-2005, 18:35
and most of the money goes to the stock market or is put into reserves for 'further use when the time is right'.
I don't know how the legal situation is in the Netherlands - but here in Germany, if you donate money to an organisation like the Red Cross with the explicit purpose mentioned (e.g., Tsunami) they are only allowed to spend it for that specific purpose.
In case of desasters like the Tsunami, due to the publicity, the Red Cross usually gets more money than they can reasonably spend for immediate help, so they actually have to put the money into reserves to use it at a later point of time in the affected region (e.g., for long-term projects).
If you do not want them to "park" their money you would have to donate it without stating a specific purpose, so that they can use it for other projects that need immediate money but perhaps did not receive the same attention in the public.
Personally, I think donating to NGOs is still the best way to provide help for those in need.
I don't know how the legal situation is in the Netherlands - but here in Germany, if you donate money to an organisation like the Red Cross with the explicit purpose mentioned (e.g., Tsunami) they are only allowed to spend it for that specific purpose.
Probably the same here, but nobody is looking after it, there is some investigation that we will never hear from again but that's it. There have been quite some scandals with charity organisations, the most appalling the atrocious amounts of money that those at the head of it make in a year, we even had one that donated all of 80.000 euro of the money gathered to his family in law in Shri Lanka, I am getting sick of it. If I give money, and I give a lot, almost 50 euro a month, I want it to be used in the way it was intended, not for high society parties for the boardmembers or any other stuff. If they want to do that, tell me in advance so I can remind them of their 3 houses.
for now, screw them.
Vladimir
12-27-2005, 18:57
I wonder what percentage of Red Cross donations goes to "overhead". It's certainly less than 1/3rd. I've heard that the Catholic Church is pretty good at getting money where it needs to go, but I'm still "Protesting" the Church. Besides, they might use the money to stack barrels of gunpowder under the White House.
Ah, the NGO and the overhead…:annoyedg:
I worked 10 years in Charities (or NGO), and believe me, it isn’t a nice world. It is power, politic and money. The Red Cross is a combination of inefficiency, corruption and greed, by the way. Not as much as the UN, but not so far.
I remember one of alleged person in charge paying herself more than the local partner received for all the programme, staff, services and humanitarian help… And she was paid on three programmes, but was hardly on the field, which was better for me because she only able to created chaos and was able to create more work in repairing her mistakes and incompetence.
Or some Delegate of the Red Cross demanding a house with swimming pool in Belgrade and in December. And all these superb new 4x4 Toyota parked in front of the Hotel (don’t remember the name, grr) in a country with all roads you need…:angryg:
The possibilities of control are inexistent. Or ignored, like in the UK where the US consultants spend all the money for a project in the study of the project.
You have to understand that all the superb offices in the main countries and the pool of secretaries have to be paid. And the flight tickets to go to seminars in nice and sunny places to discuss problems of under-development and crisis resolution around the swimming pool and nice waiters and waitresses…:gring:
NGO are run by people who want money but managed by volunteers. So, what does that means? When I went in Bosnia, the project was founded by the European Commission Humanitarian Office (by the way, most of NGO/Charities are financed by States or Extra-national funds, not by the 50 Euro donations. That doesn’t pay even the travel), my post was financed I think 5000 ECU monthly. BUT, I was a volunteer, so I got a Daily allowances and kind of compensation of 200 Euro per month. Benefit for the NGO, a lot. With that the NGO paid them, what even titles they give themselves, the administration costs etc, including nice dinners and travels…:happyg:
Now, guys, you have to understand that NGO are more and more professionals. And what is your ideas of the needs in the disasters (natural or wars) is far to be right. To provide medicaments in a country without warehouses and no possibility of cold chain (no electricity) isn’t good. But who want to give money to build a road, a warehouse, a lorry? Who want to give money to pay me (or like me) for a normal salary, considering that I am (was) a good professional, risking my life and delivering the service I was paid for? No, people want to give money for food which will be abandoned near the tarmac because to storage, medicaments which won’t be used because no electricity, and by the way, the rain season is coming and we haven’t the needed camels, donkeys or 4x4 which could do the job. And after, you have the journalists who show the waste without even trying to find why.
We, on the filed, have to deal with donations absolutely impossible to distributed (dirty clothes, pork in Muslim countries, military boots size 47 for children etc) and we have to answer where the money went… Well, first in waste, I am afraid. You money or what ever you gave has to reach the beneficiaries (I hate this UN/NGO/Charity vocabulary). And, yes, you have to pay people. And sometimes to bride officials, police, soldiers (and not only the local ones, and the UN ones are more expensive).
But, you save lives, you rebuilt futures, you help yours kinds. It one of the most beautiful activities I never did, dangerous, often frustration happened, and victims are often ungrateful. No rewards, no medals, and for the guys on the field, no money, no pension. But pure happiness when you are loved by 4000 people (and more) when you convoy arrived in a besieged town, when a mother come to thank you for the vaccine you provide to her kids, for the medicaments for her babies, when the chief of the village organises the food for you, when you eat a tomato or you drink water you know will make you sick…
I loved it and enjoyed each moment, almost:loveg:
Ah, the NGO and the overhead…:annoyedg:
I worked 10 years in Charities (or NGO), and believe me, it isn’t a nice world. It is power, politic and money. The Red Cross is a combination of inefficiency, corruption and greed, by the way. Not as much as the UN, but not so far.
I remember one of alleged person in charge paying herself more than the local partner received for all the programme, staff, services and humanitarian help… And she was paid on three programmes, but was hardly on the field, which was better for me because she only able to created chaos and was able to create more work in repairing her mistakes and incompetence.
Or some Delegate of the Red Cross demanding a house with swimming pool in Belgrade and in December. And all these superb new 4x4 Toyota parked in front of the Hotel (don’t remember the name, grr) in a country with all roads you need…:angryg:
The possibilities of control are inexistent. Or ignored, like in the UK where the US consultants spend all the money for a project in the study of the project.
You have to understand that all the superb offices in the main countries and the pool of secretaries have to be paid. And the flight tickets to go to seminars in nice and sunny places to discuss problems of under-development and crisis resolution around the swimming pool and nice waiters and waitresses…:gring:
NGO are run by people who want money but managed by volunteers. So, what does that means? When I went in Bosnia, the project was founded by the European Commission Humanitarian Office (by the way, most of NGO/Charities are financed by States or Extra-national funds, not by the 50 Euro donations. That doesn’t pay even the travel), my post was financed I think 5000 ECU monthly. BUT, I was a volunteer, so I got a Daily allowances and kind of compensation of 200 Euro per month. Benefit for the NGO, a lot. With that the NGO paid them, what even titles they give themselves, the administration costs etc, including nice dinners and travels…:happyg:
Now, guys, you have to understand that NGO are more and more professionals. And what is your ideas of the needs in the disasters (natural or wars) is far to be right. To provide medicaments in a country without warehouses and no possibility of cold chain (no electricity) isn’t good. But who want to give money to build a road, a warehouse, a lorry? Who want to give money to pay me (or like me) for a normal salary, considering that I am (was) a good professional, risking my life and delivering the service I was paid for? No, people want to give money for food which will be abandoned near the tarmac because to storage, medicaments which won’t be used because no electricity, and by the way, the rain season is coming and we haven’t the needed camels, donkeys or 4x4 which could do the job. And after, you have the journalists who show the waste without even trying to find why.
We, on the filed, have to deal with donations absolutely impossible to distributed (dirty clothes, pork in Muslim countries, military boots size 47 for children etc) and we have to answer where the money went… Well, first in waste, I am afraid. You money or what ever you gave has to reach the beneficiaries (I hate this UN/NGO/Charity vocabulary). And, yes, you have to pay people. And sometimes to bride officials, police, soldiers (and not only the local ones, and the UN ones are more expensive).
But, you save lives, you rebuilt futures, you help yours kinds. It one of the most beautiful activities I never did, dangerous, often frustration happened, and victims are often ungrateful. No rewards, no medals, and for the guys on the field, no money, no pension. But pure happiness when you are loved by 4000 people (and more) when you convoy arrived in a besieged town, when a mother come to thank you for the vaccine you provide to her kids, for the medicaments for her babies, when the chief of the village organises the food for you, when you eat a tomato or you drink water you know will make you sick…
I loved it and enjoyed each moment, almost:loveg:
doc_bean
12-27-2005, 22:31
I only donate to doctors without borders these days, but I'm thinking about ending that too, the amount of paperwork they send me just pisses me off, they probably waste more printing that than I ever gave them.
Crazed Rabbit
12-27-2005, 22:38
Well, mercedes aren't cheap you know.
Crazed Rabbit
Major Robert Dump
12-28-2005, 08:15
40% of Feed The Childrens expenses is for advertising.
Duke of Gloucester
12-28-2005, 10:51
The newspaper said details of that appeal it obtained from U.N. agencies such as the World Health Organization and the World Food Program showed 18 percent to 32 percent of the expenditure related to staff, administration and other costs.
Read it carefully though: 18% to 32% on staff, administration and other costs. Were the staff aid workers? What were the other costs? Why are these included alongside administration costs? Is it to boost the percentage and make more of a story?
Tribesman
12-28-2005, 11:20
Read it carefully though: 18% to 32% on staff, administration and other costs. Were the staff aid workers? What were the other costs? Why are these included alongside administration costs? Is it to boost the percentage and make more of a story?
Ah the crux of the issue , why not try a real story .
Perhaps something like ....American people should refuse to pay tax after they learn that more than a 1/3 of the money they have "donated" to their governments Afghanistan project had been spent on corruption/bribery, narcotics production , ineffiecient wastefulness , or just plain outright stolen . The US should be ashamed :rtwno: ~D
The US should be ashamed :rtwno:Further proof that any thread can be converted to US bashing. :bow:
Ja'chyra
12-28-2005, 11:53
Further proof that any thread can be converted to US bashing. :bow:
Further proof that any story can be interpreted any way you like.
Tribesman
12-28-2005, 12:03
Further proof that any thread can be converted to US bashing.
Why bash a supposed waste of 500 million when you can bash a clear waste of several billion ?
Keep things in perspective my dear .~;)
Devastatin Dave
12-28-2005, 14:55
Further proof that any thread can be converted to US bashing.
Why bash a supposed waste of 500 million when you can bash a clear waste of several billion ?
Keep things in perspective my dear .~;)
How about keeping the subject of the thread instead of your usual thread hijack. If you want to change the subject, create a different thread for your habitual anti American masterbation sessions.
OK then. If we assume that 30% of a charity's income goes on costs then 70% goes on aid projects. How much would go to aid projects if nobody donated money? Would that make the needy better off or not?
Thank God I didn't waste any of my money to the UN (except my wasted tax dollars that go to this worthless entity) but instead gave my charity money to the Red Cross..
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051223-010515-8477r
The UN should be ashamed.:rtwno:
I've just calculated from the Red Cross/Cresent accounts from 2003 that 83% of their income for that year was spent on staff, administration and other costs.*
Isn't playing with words and figures fun?
* The figure shown above may not be accurate. Like most media hacks I am not responsible for my inability to use a calculator, read small print or tell the truth without twisting it.
OK then. If we assume that 30% of a charity's income goes on costs then 70% goes on aid projects. How much would go to aid projects if nobody donated money? Would that make the needy better off or not?
I wouldn't have a problem with that at all - but most United Nations agencies are alreadly supported by the funding of nations - in the form of the yearly contributions to the United Nations.
Funds as the Tsunami Relief should have been primarily adminstrated from the alreadly established overhead of the United Nations - with a percentage less then 10% being used for the unique overhead and adminstration costs of the specific relief effort. Especially since many of the administrators of the fund are alreadly employeed by the United Nations.
The article clearly however does not specify that the amount of overhead is really 1/3, it draws conclusions from available data from the other aid agencies that operate under the United Nations umberalla. But its telling that the adminstrators are not forthcoming with the promised audits and openess in which they promised to the world community.
The newspaper also found several U.N. agencies continue to refuse to disclose details of their relief expenditure in spite of earlier pledges of transparency by senior officials.
Anyway you want to slice it - there is a too large of a percentage of the money being not used correctly in this relief effort.
Ah the crux of the issue , why not try a real story .
Perhaps something like ....American people should refuse to pay tax after they learn that more than a 1/3 of the money they have "donated" to their governments Afghanistan project had been spent on corruption/bribery, narcotics production , ineffiecient wastefulness , or just plain outright stolen . The US should be ashamed
Who's tilting at windmills now?
Tribesman
12-28-2005, 20:39
How about keeping the subject of the thread instead
Subject of the thread ?????
OK then .... a silly topic with fake facts backed up by a dodgy piece of journalism that does not even support the claims made by the initial poster , who very wisely names an alternate agency as a worthy recipient of donations , despite the fact that the organisation he suggests is reknowned for waste and mismanagement of funds .
Hows that ?
Who's tilting at windmills now?
And what would you like to dispute about that statement Red ?
Or is it that you are just uncomfortable with it and would like to pretend that it isn't true .
Devastatin Dave
12-28-2005, 21:16
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1018442#post1018442
There you go Tribesman, your own piss and moan thread so i can piss and moan about the UN in my thread. You're welcome...:gring:
Can you stop complaining? If you think that for one fighter in any army you need 5 to 7 men to support him (including secretaries, general in pension, and other overhead (big and expensive cars, planes and helicopteres)... Well. NGO are not so expensive...
And all the globalisation about how THEY spent your money is just not true. Most of NGO are honest, are working. Just, I met some, are exploiting the system. Just few more controls and everything will be OK. :gring:
Who's tilting at windmills now?
And what would you like to dispute about that statement Red ?
For starters the subject is about charity going to the United Nations sponsored charity organizations and then possibily wasted by the same adminstrators who initially claimed they would be open about how the money is used and spent. I believe the article clearly stated that.
So the comment you made is not inline with the same subject now is it? Taxpayer money wasted through fraud waste and abuse by the government of the taxpayer is a different subject then donated money wasted through fraud waste and abuse, money which was donated with the promise that it would be used for the relief of the victims of the diaster.
Start a thread about the inablity of the Bush Adminstration or Congress to account for money spent in Afganstan - and I will happily discuss the pro and cons of such a subject. But in this one - your attempt is seen for what it is - a bullying tactic.
Or is it that you are just uncomfortable with it and would like to pretend that it isn't true .
I am never uncomfortable discussing a subject - however it seems you can't discuss a subject without trying to bully those with different opinions.
For starters the subject is about charity going to the United Nations sponsored charity organizations and then possibily wasted by the same adminstrators who initially claimed they would be open about how the money is used and spent. I believe the article clearly stated that.
So the comment you made is not inline with the same subject now is it? Taxpayer money wasted through fraud waste and abuse by the government of the taxpayer is a different subject then donated money wasted through fraud waste and abuse, money which was donated with the promise that it would be used for the relief of the victims of the diaster.
Start a thread about the inablity of the Bush Adminstration or Congress to account for money spent in Afganstan - and I will happily discuss the pro and cons of such a subject. But in this one - your attempt is seen for what it is - a bullying tactic.
I am never uncomfortable discussing a subject - however it seems you can't discuss a subject without trying to bully those with different opinions.
There is no actual evidence in that article that there was any fraud, abuse or corruption. Mismanagement maybe, but again no clear eveidence of that either. Nor is there any actual comparison to other aid agencies. In fact it is barely a journalistic exercise at all. Although my comments about the Red Cross were mostly in jest it is still worth checking their accounts. Actual relief aid in 2003 was about one fifth of their income. The rest was, as the article oh so vaguely put it, spent on staff, administration and other costs. Have a look at those "other costs" and tell me which ones are not essential. By all means streamline things, and keep proper accounts (the lack of transparancy by some UN agencies is annoying) but the sad fact is that it costs alot to put people and provisions in the field.
There is no actual evidence in that article that there was any fraud, abuse or corruption. Mismanagement maybe, but again no clear eveidence of that either.
Fraud waste and abuse are all of the same catergory. Now yes indeed there is no true evidence of such - but again it seems there is a tell in the article. You know the statement where the United Nations staff in charge of the charities refuse to honor the transprancey that they claimed when the money was being donated.
Nor is there any actual comparison to other aid agencies. In fact it is barely a journalistic exercise at all. Although my comments about the Red Cross were mostly in jest it is still worth checking their accounts. Actual relief aid in 2003 was about one fifth of their income.
Then I suggest you stop giving to the Red Cross - however your figure is a little skewed :winkg:
The rest was, as the article oh so vaguely put it, spent on staff, administration and other costs. Have a look at those "other costs" and tell me which ones are not essential. By all means streamline things, and keep proper accounts (the lack of transparancy by some UN agencies is annoying) but the sad fact is that it costs alot to put people and provisions in the field.
Try looking at the NGO's like the Salvation Army
More than 20% of U.S. charities spend over 40% of the money they receive on administrative costs. In other words, only 60 cents of every dollar you donate to these charities is used for the intended charitable purpose. The rest goes to overhead, which in many cases includes unconscionable executive salaries. By contrast, 83 cents of every dollar you throw into one of the Salvation Army’s red Christmas kettles goes directly to helping people in need.
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=663
Now the link is questionable here - but it provides the data that I have seen elsewhere for the Salvation Army
Tribesman
12-29-2005, 04:01
For starters the subject is about charity going to the United Nations sponsored charity organizations and then possibily wasted by the same adminstrators who initially claimed they would be open about how the money is used and spent. I believe the article clearly stated that.
Yes the lack of transparity is a serious issue , but for a comparison since the original poster sings the praises of another worthwhile destination for charitable donations it is interesting to note some transparancy occuring at the Red Cross concerning its Katrina donations .
Not Red Cross transparency mind you , but a federal investigation to fraud within the organisation .
So far 49 of its wonderful dedicated workers have been indicted for fraud concerning those donations , thats fraud , not mismanagement or bad administration , just plain old downright theft .
Perhaps your government can launch a federal investigation into the UN donations , when it has finished its one into the Red Cross donations . ~;)
For starters the subject is about charity going to the United Nations sponsored charity organizations and then possibily wasted by the same adminstrators who initially claimed they would be open about how the money is used and spent. I believe the article clearly stated that.
Yes the lack of transparity is a serious issue , but for a comparison since the original poster sings the praises of another worthwhile destination for charitable donations it is interesting to note some transparancy occuring at the Red Cross concerning its Katrina donations .
The Red Cross has its problems based upon its size and organization. To many adminstrative issues involved with the Red Cross, both in the United States and the International Red Cross.
Not Red Cross transparency mind you , but a federal investigation to fraud within the organisation .
So far 49 of its wonderful dedicated workers have been indicted for fraud concerning those donations , thats fraud , not mismanagement or bad administration , just plain old downright theft .
And such actions damages the image of the Red Cross. The United Nations Charities and thier inablity to provide transparency to their activities leads one to spectulate on such activities happening in those agencies also - just like it happened in the Red Cross. Lack of accountablity and responsiblity leads to such actions happening within any organization.
Shall we discuss the criminal activity and fraud of United Nations aid charities in Africa. You know the ones where aid workers exchanged food for sex with children, all within the scope of providing charitiy under the United Nations umbrella.
Perhaps your government can launch a federal investigation into the UN donations , when it has finished its one into the Red Cross donations . ~;)
No need for the United States government to launch an investigation into the United Nations charities - unless crimes are being committed by the individuals in charge that violate the Laws of the United States within our terrority. All it takes is for the United States to withhold its annual contribution to the United Nations until such time as the transparency is accomplished by the charities and the United Nations. And I would add an additional constraint that the United States will not provide its contribution until an international accounting firm completes an audit of all the charities records. Wrong doing by individuals will be transparent with such an audit..
Tribesman
12-29-2005, 05:01
Shall we discuss the criminal activity and fraud of United Nations aid charities in Africa. You know the ones where aid workers exchanged food for sex with children, all within the scope of providing charitiy under the United Nations umbrella.
Yeah why not . I am open to discussion on these issues , on internatioal bodies , non governmental organisations , government agencies , religeous groups , military forces , its quite widespread isn't it .
Or is it only the UN that you would like to discuss .
And I would add an additional constraint that the United States will not provide its contribution until an international accounting firm completes an audit of all the charities records. Wrong doing by individuals will be transparent with such an audit..
Ah , so is it individuals that are at fault or the organisations , or is it the organisations failure over individuals that are the problem ?
Shall we discuss the criminal activity and fraud of United Nations aid charities in Africa. You know the ones where aid workers exchanged food for sex with children, all within the scope of providing charitiy under the United Nations umbrella.
Yeah why not . I am open to discussion on these issues , on internatioal bodies , non governmental organisations , government agencies , religeous groups , military forces , its quite widespread isn't it .
Or is it only the UN that you would like to discuss .
Good thing this thread is aboout what might have happened to 1/3 of the Tsunami Relief dollars taht went to the United Nations then isn't?
:tongueg:
And I would add an additional constraint that the United States will not provide its contribution until an international accounting firm completes an audit of all the charities records. Wrong doing by individuals will be transparent with such an audit..
Ah , so is it individuals that are at fault or the organisations , or is it the organisations failure over individuals that are the problem ?
[/quote]
Individuals for their decisions to committ any wrong doings, the organization is to blame for setting the conditions if it does not have oversite and/or a transpracey to the public in its operations.
So in essence Tribesman both the individual and the organization can be held accountable.
.
Tribesman
12-29-2005, 11:50
Good thing this thread is aboout what might have happened to 1/3 of the Tsunami Relief dollars taht went to the United Nations then isn't?
Oh in that case people won't be mentioning the Red Cross or the Salvation Army then ~:doh: ~D ~D ~D
BTW , nice audit just been released your side of the water .
Whodathunkit , how could such a disciplined , well organised , stricly regimented organisation manage to have such serious discpreancies in 48% of its business ~;)
Adrian II
12-29-2005, 12:06
If you think that for one fighter in any army you need 5 to 7 men to support him (including secretaries, general in pension, and other overhead (big and expensive cars, planes and helicopteres)...Exactly. Our pots and kettles would do well to look at the tremendous waste of aid and reconstruction money in Iraq - billions of Iraqi oil revenue and American tax dollars have simply disappeared down black holes. Congress is still investigating the scandal. It is unrealistic to expect the UN to work more efficiently.
So the UN has staff, transport costs, hotel bills, etcetera. All major international outfits have them. People who demand that something like 95% of aid money should be disbursed directly to recipients live in Lalaland. Good intentions alone do not make good policies -- if anyone can suggest a solution to Reinhold Niebuhr's dilemma, be my guest.
Exactly. Our pots and kettles would do well to look at the tremendous waste of aid and reconstruction money in Iraq - billions of Iraqi oil revenue and American tax dollars have simply disappeared down black holes. Congress is still investigating the scandal. It is unrealistic to expect the UN to work more efficiently.
So the UN has staff, transport costs, hotel bills, etcetera. All major international outfits have them. People who demand that something like 95% of aid money should be disbursed directly to recipients live in Lalaland. Good intentions alone do not make good policies -- if anyone can suggest a solution to Reinhold Niebuhr's dilemma, be my guest.
The issue is lack of transprancey with the United Nations charities. If one does not open one's books as a non-profit charitiy then one is leaving itself open for abuse from within.
By the way I don't expect that 95% of the aid money be directly given to the aid receiptants. I do expect transprancey in the organization so that donators to the organization can see how the money is being spent.
Something less then 20% administration and overhead is acceptable if the organization allows provides full disclosure on its activities.
Some here would be do well to remember that the discussion is about charity organizations under the umberlla of the United Nations Aid organizations and not governmental agencies. Especially one that promised a transpranecy on the accounting and expenditure of the money that was donated to it.
Defending a charity that has not honored its promise, by pointing out the error's of a government in its accounting does not make for a sound rebuttal to the premise put forward. Its an attempt to steer the conservation away from that premise. Its nothing but a argumentive fallacy, have someone else chase your Red Herring in this arguement in a topic that is relative to that premise.
Good thing this thread is aboout what might have happened to 1/3 of the Tsunami Relief dollars taht went to the United Nations then isn't?
Oh in that case people won't be mentioning the Red Cross or the Salvation Army then ~:doh: ~D ~D ~D
BTW , nice audit just been released your side of the water .
Whodathunkit , how could such a disciplined , well organised , stricly regimented organisation manage to have such serious discpreancies in 48% of its business ~;)
Oh I could point out the problems of the Salavation Army with ease also.
A google search gives mulitple hits on fraud, waste, and corruption of individuals within that organization as well.
The information that one can get by googling shows why transpranecy of the organization is important, too bad the United Nations Charity and Aid organizations won't provide the promised transpranecy.
Transpranecy provides a check on the abuse, and it allows the individual who wishs to donate to the charity to make an informed decision about which organization to send his donation to.
Spetulhu
12-29-2005, 15:38
A google search gives mulitple hits on fraud, waste, and corruption of individuals within that organization as well.
How odd. Why would dishonest people want to join a charitable organisation that handles lots of money? Wait, that's the answer, not just the question! Money draws freeloaders looking for a quick buck anywhere, anytime.
Transparency would help. :rtwyes:
master of the puppets
12-29-2005, 16:26
i hate the world more and more every day:wall:
Adrian II
12-29-2005, 16:37
The issue is lack of transprancey with the United Nations charities.No, the issue is their supposed huge overhead. Read the title.
As Brenus said, the world of charity corresponds to Niebuhr's adage: 'It is power, politics and money.' People seldom realise the practicalities of charitable work. They think good intentions should speak for themselves. Which they don't.
Besides, no lack of UN transparency has been demonstrated. We have a Reuters message that says a Times article says that certain unnamed UN charities didn't answer their questions. The Times article itself is ambiguous as to the exact nature of the 'overhead' costs they calculated. All in all this is much too flimsy for my taste.
Just a note: if I say that 22% of the income of the Red Cross in 2003 was spent on relief supplies and 78% on staff, administration and other costs I am (possible misreading of the tables aside) being fairly accurate. Certainly as accurate as the article which started this thread. Although not about the UN agencies this information was gathered in response to Dave's stated preference for the Red Cross.
The larger the organization and projects the higher the support costs and as with any organization the staff costs are the single biggest outlay. Anyway if the margin is between 18% (resonable) and 30% (slightly high) then what is the issue? Which figure is it? If some agencies had not released their accounts have the hacks made a guess, educated or not? On what basis? I shall read through the original FT article. Why Dave linked to that poor excuse of an article rather than the original I do not know.
For what its worth (precious little) this is about government donations to the UN, not public ones I believe. It was your money once, but then you paid your taxes.
While I'm not saying that improvements could not be made at the UN (of course they can, and should be in all areas) such a distribution of donated monies is clearly not so unusual.
No, the issue is their supposed huge overhead. Read the title.
I read the article - there is no transpranecyy - hince the allegation of huge overhead exists and the United Nations Aid Organizations refuse to provide the promised transprancey.
As Brenus said, the world of charity corresponds to Niebuhr's adage: 'It is power, politics and money.' People seldom realise the practicalities of charitable work. They think good intentions should speak for themselves. Which they don't.
Good intentions do speak for themselves - some aid and charities to indeed have low overhead costs and do good work.
Besides, no lack of UN transparency has been demonstrated. We have a Reuters message that says a Times article says that certain unnamed UN charities didn't answer their questions. The Times article itself is ambiguous as to the exact nature of the 'overhead' costs they calculated. All in all this is much too flimsy for my taste.
Then address the issue - not chase red herrings.
For what its worth (precious little) this is about government donations to the UN, not public ones I believe. It was your money once, but then you paid your taxes.
All taxpayer monies are public money - The United Nations aid organizations promised transpranecy - and now it seems they are withholding such transpanecy.
While I'm not saying that improvements could not be made at the UN (of course they can, and should be in all areas) such a distribution of donated monies is clearly not so unusual.
When the overhead is already established from other contributions - it is indeed unusual
Adrian II
12-29-2005, 19:22
The larger the organization and projects the higher the support costs and as with any organization the staff costs are the single biggest outlay.Indeed, but there are entirely different factors at work as well. The larger the organisation and the larger the amounts of money involved, the more its policies will be subject to political calculations, intervention by special interest groups, government interference and issues regarding international financial markets etcetera.
Let me give a simple, abstract example of this. Imagine that you are the Blue Cross and you want to help tsunami victims in Meranda. Since Meranda is a dictatorship and a corrupt one at that, the government of Meranda will be afraid that your help may upset the political balance. Meranda demands backsheesh, political guarantees, the use of local (i.e. politically loyal) staff and respect for its local culture (i.e. corruption, abuse of power, religious obscurance, etcetera).
So what do you do if you are in a hurry to get the money to the tsunami victims in Meranda? You find ways to work around the Meranda government as much as you can, but you will have to give in to some of their demands and remain silent about them as well, for Meranda will obstruct your aid programme as soon as it causes bad publicity for its government. You hire (expensive) international 'consultants' who can help put pressure on the Meranda regime. You hire the prescribed local staff, but you also hire other staff to do the real work. In order to strengthen your position vis-a-vis the Meranda governemnt, you enlist the help of other aid organisations and international institutions that all have their own agendas and sensitivities. Etcetera, etcetera.
That is what happens, in practice, to our good intentions. And unfortunately there are still many Merandas out there.
Then address the issue - not chase red herrings.The issue being overhead. We are discussing it all the time.
OK, I think there is a need for more explanations on how things work.
I worked around 10 years in NGO, mainly French, but also Dutch, and I had close relations wit UNWFP, UNICEF and UNHCR (being sub-contracted), the European Agency for Reconstruction and other big donors (USAID and ECHO, etc).
First, you have to present a budget, based on assessment you financed yourself. The forms are fixed; overheads are no more than 10%, up to 15% maximum.
You have to provide for most of the project auto-finances (donations, mainly). So your budget is never 100 %, in theory. Except if you succeed to involve two institutional donors.
In the project, salaries and other costs, like travels, petrol, indemnities and rent are included.
The magic come in playing on terms. If I (NGO) buy a car and then rent it to the programme, at the end, I keep the car, I relocated to another programme and I start to make money. It isn’t illegal, it is technical.
Now, the problem is how to control my expense on the field? Very difficult… In most of the countries I worked the people ask you how much you want to put on the bills. After you have the change and inflations. And still have some bills stamped by the shops somewhere in my luggages, department souvenirs. More, if you want to check what I bought or paid, you have to know Cyrillic alphabet, and to know the black market exchange rate. I think that some people who went in some difficult countries will understand what I want to say. Ok, example: when I worked in Bosnia, my main office was in Belgrade, Serbia. You had the official exchange rate, the black market (in the street) and a third one, the Giral. The last one was when you paid bills through special agencies. You gave them cash (in hard currencies, US $, DEM, French or Swiss Francs, etc) and they paid your bills in local money, Dinars. They made the benefit by the process. It took 5 days to be paid and with inflation (100% per day, even more) it was very good for them. Now, if I wanted to report to an international accountant based, let say in New-York, I will just give the financial report about so much Dollars with the offi9cial rate, and done. And he or she wouldn’t be able to do something, because there is nothing possible to do. Perhaps I really went to the official bank…
Now, what is transparency? When I had to bride some police-officers, I put it in my report. The Head office called me to rectify the title… It became unforeseen expenses. Are YOU ready to accept that your money will pay officials? Without doing it, you have no access to victims…
It is not a game, it is a dangerous activity. One friend was killed by Saddam Secret Police, rapes and injuries happened.
You can decide to go for the account policy: How much I pay, how much victims I help. It wasn’t my choice. Is it worth to spent thousand Euro to save one kid drowning? Why few adults who took between 20 and 30 years to grow-up, plus fees for schools and universities, and training should risk their live to save a two years old baby? In term of account, they can re-emplace the baby. They just have to have sex and to wait for two years. The baby was just a potential, their value was known. Perhaps the baby will be a criminal, or be killed in a car accident…But we are more than that, aren’t we?
The only transparency should be in how the funds are allocated… But, as I said, if you work for the wrong victims (let say the Serbians refugees expelled by the multi-ethnic towns of Sarajevo and Tuzla), you got no chance to get money. If you go against the media, or worst, if no media report the events, forget it.
That is the real world of Charities: Politic, power and money. But still a great job…
. Ok, example: when I worked in Bosnia, my main office was in Belgrade, Serbia. You had the official exchange rate, the black market (in the street) and a third one, the Giral. The last one was when you paid bills through special agencies. You gave them cash (in hard currencies, US $, DEM, French or Swiss Francs, etc) and they paid your bills in local money, Dinars. They made the benefit by the process. It took 5 days to be paid and with inflation (100% per day, even more) it was very good for them. Now, if I wanted to report to an international accountant based, let say in New-York, I will just give the financial report about so much Dollars with the offi9cial rate, and done. And he or she wouldn’t be able to do something, because there is nothing possible to do. Perhaps I really went to the official bank…
Now, what is transparency? When I had to bride some police-officers, I put it in my report. The Head office called me to rectify the title… It became unforeseen expenses. Are YOU ready to accept that your money will pay officials? Without doing it, you have no access to victims…
It is not a game, it is a dangerous activity. One friend was killed by Saddam Secret Police, rapes and injuries happened.
Oh I understand how it works well enough - the problem stems from what you stated here. If the transpranecy does not exist - the corruption continues.
Futhermore, of course providing aid is not a game - nor should it be treated as such. Nor is it something that one should not be honest in their approach to taking care of others. When working with other people's lives you have to make responsible decisions and be accountable for your actions.
Thank God I didn't waste any of my money to the UN (except my wasted tax dollars that go to this worthless entity) but instead gave my charity money to the Red Cross..
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051223-010515-8477r
The UN should be ashamed.:rtwno:
Thank God we have America, completely free from corruption. :rtwyes:
“When working with other people's lives you have to make responsible decisions and be accountable for your actions.” Yes, and during this winter I provide food for more than 4.000 people during 5 months, few tonnes of medicaments and even note-books for few schools and special programme for pregnant women and young babies (UNICEF packets). Cost for UN, 15.000 US $ and the petrol for the trucks. That was probably one month salary for the Red Cross Delegate or the UN representative…:winkg:
The problem is with the people who played with other lives without leaving their desks, in New-York or Geneva, who observe the Balkans or Chechnya from Paris, the people who vote blockade…
The problem of transparency is also to clearly cut the Humanitarian relief from political blackmail… If the UNPROFOR protected my enemies, I will shoot against UNHCR, UNWFP etc…
And all is decided between friends (who go in bed with who). You will hardly find real dishonest people, but a lot of incompetents put in place here because their family (relatives, friends) rules their countries. If the recruitment would be base on competences, even in the UN, things would be better. You would be amazed by the questions form so-called UN (and others) specialist who hadn’t a clue of what was happening on the field… Like some believing that the Muslims were Turks, for example…
And as said Adrian, sometimes you have no choices than to play the games, at least if you want to save people. Now, the question is where are the limits? In Somalia, the warlords stole the UNHCR’s car and rent them to the same organisation…. 0.5% of the WFP help arrived to the victims. The only country where MSF (doctors Without Borders) got weapons to protect the compound…
Give me honest people, I will be honest.
“the corruption continues.” Corruption is not a bad thing in itself (I kept my driving licence in paying a Hungarian Police Officer). It is bad when officials and big organisations institutionalise it. It depends of the scale…
Tribesman
12-30-2005, 04:10
Then address the issue - not chase red herrings.
Ahem..... then ....cough cough.
Excuse me , but someone has made a topic based on a rather slackwitted piece of journalism, placing blame on an oranisation that is just as screwed up as the organistion that he tries to describe as a honest organisation .
And that accusation that he has made is reflected in a new audit into another oranisation whch may have some very serious implications that he hasn't bothered to look at .
Which strangely shows that the army is a serious feckwit when it comes to money and accountabilty , which wierdly refects the Navy and Airforce audits .
So , basically .
Don't shout too loud when you are sinking up to your nose in a stand of bog as peolpe will only laugh at your stupidity .
Oh sorry , dave isn't in the airforce anymore , he is just bog trotting for everyone elses entertainment .
Alexanderofmacedon
12-30-2005, 04:16
Yeah, I gave $200 to the Red Cross...
Then address the issue - not chase red herrings.
Ahem..... then ....cough cough.
Excuse me , but someone has made a topic based on a rather slackwitted piece of journalism, placing blame on an oranisation that is just as screwed up as the organistion that he tries to describe as a honest organisation .
Cough Cough right back at you - the red herring that you decided to chase is evident in one of your earlier posts - one which Adrian also attempted. Oh and I see its at the bottom of this one.
And that accusation that he has made is reflected in a new audit into another oranisation whch may have some very serious implications that he hasn't bothered to look at .
That would be on topic now wouldn't, if you are discussing another charity organization, if not then your attempting the same red herring again? Charities are a different organization then a governmental organization. One is funded soley from taxes collected by the government. The other is given money in the form of donations to be used for a spefic purpose by willing individuals.
Which strangely shows that the army is a serious feckwit when it comes to money and accountabilty , which wierdly refects the Navy and Airforce audits .
Are the two subjects related? If not then you are committing the same logicial fallacy as before.
Another prime examble of chasing a red herring would be for me to link this story and potential issue/problem to show the overall corruption of the United Nations as a body, or more specific the Oil for Food program. That would be an just as obvious of a red herring as some attempts to linking it this story to the United States government's failure to account for money in Afganstan, or any other governmental agency.
So , basically .
Don't shout too loud when you are sinking up to your nose in a stand of bog as peolpe will only laugh at your stupidity .
Sound advice.
Oh sorry , dave isn't in the airforce anymore , he is just bog trotting for everyone elses entertainment .
Maybe you should heed your own advice from above this statement.
Tribesman
12-30-2005, 05:14
There you go chasing the red herring once again. Are the two subjects related? If not then you are committing the same logicial fallacy as before
Oh dear Red , you wish to relate to the original post , silly me , should I remind yourself and myself of the original post in this thread ?
Or should we bother wasting space over a devastating statement ?
Is there a reference to tax monies? is there reference to other charities ? is there a reference to recipients of tax monies ?~:confused:
Well bugger me sideways , call me sandra and send a bunch of flowers , there are references in the initial posts , and the following posts to those things ?
Now then , where are those herrings of the red variety ? Have they evolved , grown legs and run away? ~;)
Ah I see the dilema...One is funded soley from taxes collected by the government. The other is given money in the form of donations to be used for a spefic purpose by willing individuals....
since neither scenario fits then what are you on about ? are you fishing for herrings , or possibly casting a net for a windmill ?
There you go chasing the red herring once again. Are the two subjects related? If not then you are committing the same logicial fallacy as before
Oh dear Red , you wish to relate to the original post , silly me , should I remind yourself and myself of the original post in this thread ?
Maybe you should. But then maybe you should re-read the post since I edited it while you were posting this.
Thank God I didn't waste any of my money to the UN (except my wasted tax dollars that go to this worthless entity) but instead gave my charity money to the Red Cross..
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...3-010515-8477r
The UN should be ashamed.
Or should we bother wasting space over a devastating statement ?
The context of the thread is stated in the title and in the article linked.
Is there a reference to tax monies? is there reference to other charities ? is there a reference to recipients of tax monies ?~:confused:
You might want to see what you wrote here.
Perhaps something like ....American people should refuse to pay tax after they learn that more than a 1/3 of the money they have "donated" to their governments Afghanistan project had been spent on corruption/bribery, narcotics production , ineffiecient wastefulness , or just plain outright stolen . The US should be ashamed
Well bugger me sideways , call me sandra and send a bunch of flowers , there are references in the initial posts , and the following posts to those things ?
Hyperbole does not work in this instance
Now then , where are those herrings of the red variety ? Have they evolved , grown legs and run away? ~;)
Again hyperbole and bullying tactics do not work - nor do they defend your premise nor does it show that your initial attempt was not a red herring logical fallacy.
Ah I see the dilema...One is funded soley from taxes collected by the government. The other is given money in the form of donations to be used for a spefic purpose by willing individuals....
since neither scenario fits then what are you on about ? are you fishing for herrings , or possibly casting a net for a windmill ?
The windmill was first tilted at by yourself. Hyperbole and bullying tactics once again do not support your postion nor your premise. It clearly shows however that you wish not to heed your own advice.
Edit: to once again clarify thought with additional statements.
Adrian II
12-30-2005, 10:50
In Somalia, the warlords stole the UNHCR’s car and rent them to the same organisation…Now that is what I call serious accounting, LOL. Same in FY, I heard. Aid workers had to buy '4x4 protection' from every f****** peasant leader in the neighbourhood.
Anyway you are doing good work, Brother Brenus. Respect. :bow:
Adrian II
12-30-2005, 10:56
Well bugger me sideways
The windmill was first tilted at by yourselfBoys, eh? :winkg:
One is funded soley from taxes collected by the government. The other is given money in the form of donations to be used for a spefic purpose by willing individuals.” Euh, did you read what I wrote. Only one NGO is actually independent and it is MSF, more than 50% donation. All the other are financed by what we call the Institutional Donors (i.e. Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Embassies, European Commission, EU, USAID, European Agency for Reconstruction, etc) for the basic, and UNHCR, UNICEF and UNWFP on the field, which are State organisations. :gring:
The financial independence is the goal to reach for each NGO, but it is not the reality on the field. If you want the money, you follow the wind. Well, I supposed that not of lot of you wanted the USAID money spend on a programme to help the Iraqis insurgent’s widows and children or to pay the treatment in hospital of the insurgents’ injured fighters…:happyg:
So, all money given by institutional donors is given on political choices…
Now, the big laboratories (Rhone Poulenc, for example) can give vaccines for free (if it is stipulated in the media campaign) and even finances part or all the costs, but that will deducted for their taxes, and will give a good advertising. And again, nothing will be given for poor non-popular victims… I try to get finances for the Gypsy community in Croatia (children expelled for school, racist pamphlets etc), I failed.:rtwno:
So, to come back to the original statement, no, NGO and Charities are not self founded by individual donations, but are completely under states funding… So, they should also be transparent. And if there is ONE organisation completely under Governments, it is the Red Cross…:gring:
One is funded soley from taxes collected by the government. The other is given money in the form of donations to be used for a spefic purpose by willing individuals.” Euh, did you read what I wrote. Only one NGO is actually independent and it is MSF, more than 50% donation. All the other are financed by what we call the Institutional Donors (i.e. Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Embassies, European Commission, EU, USAID, European Agency for Reconstruction, etc) for the basic, and UNHCR, UNICEF and UNWFP on the field, which are State organisations. :gring:
All are given money in the form of donations from the respective governments. Again the money is one of donation not of tax revenue. Trying to tie what is done with charity money to what is done with government tax revenue is chasing a red herring. Its obvious to me that you have not read what I wrote.
The financial independence is the goal to reach for each NGO, but it is not the reality on the field. If you want the money, you follow the wind. Well, I supposed that not of lot of you wanted the USAID money spend on a programme to help the Iraqis insurgent’s widows and children or to pay the treatment in hospital of the insurgents’ injured fighters…:happyg:
Where the money is used is based upon what the charities stated goal is. If I wanted my charity money to go to such a fund - then I would donate it. The United States Aid money from the governmental donation to a charity organization follows the same reasoning with one major exception - the money goes to where the government thinks it will gain the most goodwill from its use, or politicial currency if you wish.
So, all money given by institutional donors is given on political choices…
Now, the big laboratories (Rhone Poulenc, for example) can give vaccines for free (if it is stipulated in the media campaign) and even finances part or all the costs, but that will deducted for their taxes, and will give a good advertising. And again, nothing will be given for poor non-popular victims… I try to get finances for the Gypsy community in Croatia (children expelled for school, racist pamphlets etc), I failed.:rtwno:
Institutional donations still require the charity to account for how the money is used.Transpranecy of how the money was used was the promised made by the United Nations Charity organizations - that transpranecy is yet to be forthcoming.
So, to come back to the original statement, no, NGO and Charities are not self founded by individual donations, but are completely under states funding… So, they should also be transparent. And if there is ONE organisation completely under Governments, it is the Red Cross…:gring:
So you agree with the requirement for transpranecy in a charity organization?
He never disagreed with it in principle, though he has suggested that it is not always practical or politically sensible. You seem to be looking for an agument that is not there.
He never disagreed with it in principle, though he has suggested that it is not always practical or politically sensible. You seem to be looking for an agument that is not there.
Not at all - looking for his clarification - since what he has stated seems to contradict other statements made by him. Notice no hyperbole, no hateful words, no degrading comments, just plain simple english in an attempt to understand exactly what he is stating. If I was looking for an arguement over nothing I would have responded something like the statement below toward yourself.
However it seems you are looking for an arguement that is not present, perhaps your carrying over a grudge from a previous thread.
A grudge? What a strange thought. I merely thought you were fishing, a not unusual activity on these boards: the question read more as a challenge than as an enquiry. However, it would be a shame to let a decent and civil thread go bad. My apologies, if you need them.
A grudge? What a strange thought. I merely thought you were fishing, a not unusual activity on these boards: the question read more as a challenge than as an enquiry. However, it would be a shame to let a decent and civil thread go bad. My apologies, if you need them.
No apologies needed - like I stated if I was looking for an arguement I would of responded to Brenus in such a matter. When I am looking to argue just to argue I respond in a completely different matter - which was what I was demonstrating to you.
I often contradict myself. It is called dialectic. I try to thing in two different ways. We learn that at school.:balloon2:
I am not against transparency, whatever this world means, but by whom, about what. As I said, nothing is really illegal, but it’s happened that some made a fortune on humanitarian help. If one friend gives a contract to another friend, is it because they are friend or because the other can do the job? The Charity world (NGO and GO) is small, and you will often meet the same people, or at least, somebody who know the same person than you. That creates links. But, it doesn’t mean it is only about friendship and return of gift.:idea2:
Officially, the finances, with audit, should resolve the main problem. However, it failed because accountants have not a clue how it works… I could easily paid an invoice and have the money back, or even be paid for a job I didn’t completed (i.e. just shift one cargo to another warehouse, sell it (well, if I want), and be paid by the UN which monitor only by checking if the goods are gone, basically). But that is dishonesty, and mainly, the problems are high salaries for incompetence…
“Institutional donations still require the charity to account for how the money is used. Transparency of how the money was used was the promised made by the United Nations Charity organizations”:
Nop, sorry, désolé, doesn’t work like that. Most of the institutional donations are globally given to UN, and the UN decide where the money goes (UNHCR, UNWFP, UNCICEF, UNDP etc), and then each agency will allocated the money to partners, local or international (ICRC, NGO, Red Cross –international and national) and then the financial report is sent.:inquisitive:
I went trough an audit. What they check is if all the money was spend according the financial lines. And of course, all was fine…:sweatdrop:
For funds from States or big private donors it is even simpler. They don’t care. Most of the time, it political, advert or money to spent before next budget exercise…
Until a very big scandal, no body really check what happened.
And most of the time, help is coming, victims are saved (not all, but it is always the difference between what you could have done and what you achieve which is what made you fell tired, depressed and un-useful. Sometimes…):inquisitive:
Now, if I received funds to feed thousands people, I few solutions. The one were every thing is transparent and I will provide food to a little number of people, because in order to cover my arse I will buy the petrol in stations which provide invoices, buy the food to the shops doing the same, I will rent warehouses and trucks/lorries. Because I will have to pay all the taxes, I will loose money and time.
The second option is to go to see the mayors of the towns concerned, and to say; Look, I provide the food and the petrol, you provide the drivers and the vehicle, I don’t care if they are paint in green.
Doing that, they will resolve all the problem of taxes, brides and other lateral expenses. But, won’t go in an account… So, I have to choose inefficiency. That is what I called false savings.
More, if you want to improve this kind of survey, you will have to pay experts in accountancy AND in Humanitarian Help.
So, yes, more transparency: But first we have to define the term…:dizzy2:
Tribesman
01-01-2006, 03:59
So, yes, more transparency: But first we have to define the term…
What do you mean ?
Say for example the UN had to pay a governmental military force that it has condemned for its actions in a province to allow its convoys to get through its roadblocks in that province or to use its airstrips or ports , would that come under operatoinal or adminisrtative costs ?
Or how about if the roadblocks , ports and airstrips are under the control of a rebel/terrorist group that the UN has condemned , how would the be filed in an audit ?
Damn , that covers at least 6 states that were recipients of aid , oh bugger , that means that the UN not only financially supports terrorists , it also supports evil dictatorships , luckily Burma never had a Tsunami ,as that would only confuse the transparency even more .:juggle2:
You start to understand the problem. Do you agree that I pay the warlords? Do you accept corruption, until which level?
What salaries are you ready to pay to people who do the jobs? Are you considering that Charities is a Monk’s life or what your rate of salary?
What I have to choose, what is my own initiative? Under which line the cost of machine guns, if I need some will go? Same problem with radio, mobile phone, bullets proof jackets?
For the overheads, what will be account for? Secretaries, managers, field offices, but what about training sessions, formations?
Transparency on criteria for the allocations of the funds will just create specialists (big NGO) who will just know how to do it.
But, if NGO exist, it is because the BIG ones like UN, Red Cross and other failed. They failed during the WW II, they failed in Biafra (Nigeria), failed in Cambodia.:oops:
So, I am still waiting for the miracle solution which will ban corruption, prevarication and temptation.
Yes for transparency is yes to justice, peace and happiness. Well, cost nothing (it doesn’t eat bread, we say in French) and everybody agrees, because nobody has to do something, to resolve something. :help:
So you accept criminal corruption as a part of doing business?
“So you accept criminal corruption as a part of doing business?”
Did I say that? No, I accept a certain amount of corruption if it gives me access to victims. And we don’t speak about business. We speak about lives. Will you pay a guard from Death Camps to save victims? If not, what is your moral explanation? Will you sacrify human beings or will you pay?:sweatdrop:
“So you accept criminal corruption as a part of doing business?”
Did I say that? No, I accept a certain amount of corruption if it gives me access to victims. And we don’t speak about business. We speak about lives. Will you pay a guard from Death Camps to save victims? If not, what is your moral explanation? Will you sacrify human beings or will you pay?:sweatdrop:
Notice what you are stating here, because I sure do. Again to make it perfectly clear - do you accept criminal corruption as a part of doing business? If you wish to define it farther - I am speaking of your business of providing aid to those who need it. In the charity business your business is indeed to help others in thier lives.
Transparency would help prevent certain aspects of this corruption from being harmful to the cause of the aid organization, by a willingness to accept corruption just to do business you leave yourself open for futher corruption to happen, especially if one is so caviliar in acceptance of it.
Will I pay a guard from a Death Camp to save the victims. Personally I would not - I would kill the guard to save the victims. I view paying someone to who is already involved in destorying human beings taints whatever good that I as an individual could do for the individuals they are alreadly guarding in order to destroy. In other words I am only delaying what the eventual outcome to that individual is - unless I attempt to destroy the Death Camp and its guards.
Will I sacrify human beings for what? Everything has a value - to sacrify human beings for the greater good of the cause - lowers the moral value of that cause. Its not an easy question that you ask, but to answer you question on a peronsal level, I would not sacrify human beings for my own moral values.
Would I sacrify human beings for the greater good of mankind if I thought it was necessary? That would be the harder question to answer would it not?
However in demonstrating a willing acceptence that one must corrupt themselves and their cause in order to do their business of saving lives - leads to futher corruption. Examble would be the trading of sex for food that was done with children in Africa by UN relief workers.
So, yes, I accept corruption to save lives. I will pay the guard in check point to allow my convoys to go where people are starving. I will pay the police-officer in Pakistan who blocked my convoy for children dying from cold and starvation.
I prefer to be judge on corruption than on indifference or “didn’t bring assistance to endangered people”.
So, yes I am corrupted. Well, at least morally…
I prefer corrupted people (in an acceptable scale) than inflexible moralists who are responsible for thousands deaths on the name of virtue. Sorry.
I won’t accept to be paid by criminals, and the people who obtain sex against food are hopeless and criminals… I never accept any gift, girls or money.
About the Death Camp, the question was tricky, because it was proposed to the Jewish Council by Himmler, and they accepted it. Cost them nothing in real terms, but they saved lives.
Death camps were finally destroyed by the Allies victory, and all people like Schindler who paid criminals to save lives were right to do so.
It remains that the Allies total victory was a real solution. However, I am not in favour for the “all or nothing” solution.
If a guard ask you a cigarette to allow you to go and provide assistance, will you do it, or, on the grant that he participates to a criminal activity, you will refuse and let people dying? If you have to negotiate with a known war criminal in order to evacuate innocents people, will you do it or not. That is to put the finger in the machine… If, in order to evacuate refugees and elderly people, you need the help and the trucks of the army supporting a criminal regime, will you do it or will stay on the moral (and comfortable) position “I don’t deal with this people”?
And, I apologise if I read you wrongly, I understand you accuse me to be corrupted, I will ask you if you are a kind of Torquemada, Great Inquisitor for the ones who don’t know, more anxious to save souls than lives.
The only live I am ready to sacrifice is mine (if I have no choice), and those of my enemies.
So, yes, I accept corruption to save lives. I will pay the guard in check point to allow my convoys to go where people are starving. I will pay the police-officer in Pakistan who blocked my convoy for children dying from cold and starvation.
I prefer to be judge on corruption than on indifference or “didn’t bring assistance to endangered people”.
So, yes I am corrupted. Well, at least morally…
I prefer corrupted people (in an acceptable scale) than inflexible moralists who are responsible for thousands deaths on the name of virtue. Sorry.
I won’t accept to be paid by criminals, and the people who obtain sex against food are hopeless and criminals… I never accept any gift, girls or money.
About the Death Camp, the question was tricky, because it was proposed to the Jewish Council by Himmler, and they accepted it. Cost them nothing in real terms, but they saved lives.
Death camps were finally destroyed by the Allies victory, and all people like Schindler who paid criminals to save lives were right to do so.
It remains that the Allies total victory was a real solution. However, I am not in favour for the “all or nothing” solution.
If a guard ask you a cigarette to allow you to go and provide assistance, will you do it, or, on the grant that he participates to a criminal activity, you will refuse and let people dying? If you have to negotiate with a known war criminal in order to evacuate innocents people, will you do it or not. That is to put the finger in the machine… If, in order to evacuate refugees and elderly people, you need the help and the trucks of the army supporting a criminal regime, will you do it or will stay on the moral (and comfortable) position “I don’t deal with this people”?
And, I apologise if I read you wrongly, I understand you accuse me to be corrupted, I will ask you if you are a kind of Torquemada, Great Inquisitor for the ones who don’t know, more anxious to save souls than lives.
The only live I am ready to sacrifice is mine (if I have no choice), and those of my enemies.
Not upset with the discussion at all.
Now you are being to see why the issue of transparency on the operations of charity organizations is important to me. It allows for the corruption of national entities to be shown for what it is, and that the aid worker is doing what is necessary to get aid to the people. Which would not entail that you are corrupt, but that you must make do with corruption of the local and national government of the area in which you are providing aid.
If your unwilling to show the exact doings of what must be done to bring aid to people in need then you are supporting the corruption, or to be more exact you have entered upon the slipperly slope of corruption and criminal activities.
If you have to do certain activities - but are honest with the contributors of the aid - about how the money is being spent, ie transprant, then the corruption is not the fault of the aid organization, but the fault of the governement and the individuals who abide by such activities. The aid worker is doing his task of providing aid to the people who need it, and is being morally responsible in the care and keeping of the money intrusted to him or the organization by the contributors of the aid money.
This is why transparency is important for the aid organization.
And no I am no Great Inquisitor attempting to save anyone's soul, that is for you do for yourself. However I view corruption in a negative way, and a refusal by an aid organization to be transpranent in its dealings with the money donated to them - means that they are possibly not utilizing the moneys donated to them in the way in which it was intended for use.
It's all gone on trying to get more money from me. All of it. Every penny. I have letters begging for more money everywhere. I just throw them out now.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.