Of itself, foreign aid is not the solution to global poverty.

As has been seen from various attempts

to relieve poverty in certain areas of Africa, the situation has basically remained the same for the past few
decades. For example, if one looks at the efforts that were made in 1985 by the "band aid" concerts to
change poverty on the African continent, and to shame politicians into giving more aid, the results had a
limited lifespan.
The biggest problem with foreign aid is the management of it. Just pouring money and resources at a
problem does not mean that it will be eradicated for good. In many respects the aid given is more an
attempt by the donating governments to quieten the concerns being voiced by their own populace than a
real effort to end poverty itself. There has to be an overall strategy for eliminating poverty, within which
foreign aid is but a small part of the process.

Poverty is a social and infrastructure problem for all nations, including the emerging and third
world countries. Unless these underlying causes are addressed all the aid will do is to provide temporary
relief. To alleviate the scourge of poverty in third world countries one has to address certain key factors.

1) The political structure - by helping the development of a truly democratic process within the nation
there is the opportunity to achieve a greater distribution of wealth and more fairness within the society,
thus reducing the high numbers of those who are living within the poverty trap. Similarly, this process will
lead to a situation that reduces civil conflict, which is often the cause of increasing national poverty.

2) The community infrastructure Handing out food or other aid does not help people to maintain a
standard of living that will keep them out of poverty. One also has to provide them with the aid to enable
communities to build a community structure and culture that encourages employment and trade into the
area. Only by assisting such nations to build their infrastructure in this manner, will these nations be able
to reach and sustain a lifestyle that keeps them out of poverty in the longer term.

3) International Trade Third world countries have to be embraced within the international trading
community, encouraged and helped to build strong and vibrant industries that can compete on the world
stage. As has been evidenced in areas of Asia where this has happened, given the opportunity, these
countries can become self-sufficient and dramatically reduce the poverty levels within their own borders,
using their own self-generated income to do so. Eventually this will provide additional market places for
the global organisations to trade with, thus increasing prosperity for all concerned, including the poorer
nations.

Thus it can be seen that foreign aid, unless it is accompanied by a strategy of sustainability and is
joined with political and global trade will, cannot provide a solution to global poverty.

When a natural disaster occurs, be it tidal wave, earthquake or whatever, and the national
government of a country impacted is incapable of meeting the needs of its survivors, the international
community nearly always rallies round to help, or at least tries to. Some repressive regimes attempt to
refuse or constrain the methodology of that help, but even in these cases, the international community's
desire to help usually manages to get through in some form.

While a considerable amount of such help is monetary, a large component takes the form of
food, medical supplies and on the ground assistance from a wide range of caring and capable volunteers;
from doctors and nurses tending the injured through to engineers and builders resurrecting the area's
infrastructure and providing replacement homes. Surely, if such help is provided by people who are not
citizens of that country, it should be considered "foreign aid". Just because it is generally described as a
"disaster recovery program" or some such, does not disqualify this premise.

There are a large number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), whether charities or not,
that provide assistance in what we call the "developing nations". For many of these, it is the sole reason
that they exist. The people who support these NGOs through, often tax-deductible, donations may be said
to be supplying foreign aid in a monetary form, but the majority of this aid reaches those in need in the
form of food, medicine, education, infrastructure and small-scale repayable and normally repaid loans for
economic development. Such NGOs frequently participate in "disaster recovery programs" as well, but
their main aim is to provide the assistance that allows people trapped in poverty to overcome the
constraints they face. And they are frequently successful. This is a form of foreign aid that brings hope, but
also instills a sense of achievement and control in those the NGOs have the sadly limited resources to
benefit.

When it comes to foreign aid supplied to nations in need by the governments of the developed
nations, the situation is significantly different. It is clearly this situation that has resulted in the feeling and
articles that have responded negatively in this debate. Understandably so. Such foreign aid is
predominantly financial, although some of the donating nations have included military materiel as well as
money in their "aid". Let's consider that first.

The most prominent justification offered to the public of nations that supply military aid is the need
for security in the nation being aided, so that humanitarian aid can then reach the people in need. This
certainly sounds legitimate. But does the actuality we see in our News programs, at least where we might
have a small chance of receiving unbiased ones, match this proposition. From what I have seen, I would
have to say not. Although, since the end of the Cold War, it is considerably better than it was. Few nations
receiving military aid to suppress rebels within their borders appear to adhere to any concept of
democracy. Even when cease fire agreements are arranged and elections take place, the governments of
these nations only seem to be willing to accept the will of the people if that will expresses itself by
supporting them. If it doesn't or even if they don't expect it to, we tend to see totalitarian measures used
to manipulate the result or suppress the political opposition. Hardly circumstances to encourage programs
to alleviate the poverty of what is usually the vast majority of the citizens of these nations.

Financial aid given by the governments of developed nations to the governments of developing
nations has a number of problems. These fall primarily in three areas:

the greed and corruption inherent in the receiving government's ministers

the strings the "aiding" government attaches to the aid
the debt burden of the receiving nation
When the nation receiving financial aid is based on a social system that incorporates graft as an
established and normal part of its cultural background, it is hardly surprising that the powers that be in
such a nation epitomise this characteristic. When 90 percent or more of foreign aid is siphoned off into the
pockets of a small elite, why shouldn't the public of the aiding nations perceive that foreign aid as
ineffective.

When foreign aid is offered on the basis of a political return, can we really expect the dominant
forces in the receiving government to use it effectively. If they are willing to accept moneys with such
strings attached, are they not likely to be the type of people that will redirect it into their own pockets
rather than use it to help their people. For example, several Pacific Island and landlocked African nations
have received "foreign aid" from Japan dependent on their joining the International Whaling Commission
(IWC) and voting in favor of letting Japan resume commercial whaling. How much of such aid has gone to
benefit their populaces might be considered questionable; the ethical validity of aid offered under such
constraints is certainly so.

Many, possibly most, developing nations that receive foreign aid in the form of financial resources
have considerable debts owing to financial organizations including the World Bank. Even when the
governments of such nations have the ethical wherewithal to want to improve the lives of their people,
they are often forced to first make payment on the interest they owe; not the capital debt, merely the
accruing interest. This is why those attempting to reduce world poverty in recent years have been so
strongly advocating that the debt of impoverished nations be "written-off".

Even the NGOs operating in many of the developing nations are forced to provide graft to
"officials" to enable them to do their good works. Does that mean that their efforts are wasted? That the
"foreign aid" they are providing is not working towards the eradication of poverty?

Global poverty is not limited to the developing nations. There is no nation currently extant on our
planet that does not have people living below what is called the "poverty line". On the basis of our current
technological, industrial and agricultural abilities, despite a population that well exceeds the ability of our
planet to support if we returned to the hunter/gatherer societies of pre-history that are advocated by some
back-to-nature proponents, we are quite capable of providing sufficient for all.

That we don't is due to the political and economic systems we employ in our global society. The
supposedly democratic or communist, and the unapologetically totalitarian political cultures. The growth
rather than sustainability oriented capitalist economics current in most, if not all, nations; no matter what
their professed political systems. It is unlikely that we will change these sufficiently or in time to limit the
environmental problems we are bestowing on future generations; it's possible that through effectively
administered and provided foreign aid, we can at least alleviate the suffering of billions afflicted by
poverty. Generosity to others is an inherent component of our human natures, perhaps it can prevail over
the animal nature we seem to imbue to our social systems.