Hi Stan,
The technical term for this is "tied aid", something that Canada has done for a long time. Honestly, I think it's a bad policy on the whole for a number of reasons.
So? Ever tried to eat a greenback
- It encourages a "dependency" mentality in the host country. Think of this in COIN terms, even if there are no overt kinetic ops going on, and you can see that it will produce a whole lot of resentment.
- It doesn't encourage the local economy. Since the late 1970's, there has been a fairly major move in development agencies that is based on the idea of teaching a person to fish rather than giving them a fish (you know the old adage...). After all, I'd rather that these countries be able to feed themselves....
- It makes economic sense for "us". Hey, if we are going to feed 50k people, would you rather spend $5,000,000 or $1,000,000? Personally, I'd rather have my charity money (and tax dollars) going directly to people who need it in the most efficient way (it's why I look at admin charges and won't support any charity tha doesn't have open books).
? Stan, think of this in military terms for a minute. If you were out at the sharp end, would you rather know that there is a company following on ready to support you or that there is a battalion 300 miles away that could reach you in a week?
I'd be interested to find out how much they actually are donating. Still and all, the fact that there is a bumper crop there tells me that agricultural development programs are working. Why not buy it there?
Marc
Bookmarks