Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Foreign Aid is a Money Laundering Scam for Banks and Major Corporations (Part 1 of 2 parts)
http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2012/03/foreign-aid-is-money-laundering-scam.html
by Dr. Jerry Mills, Professor, Taiwan
The term foreign
aid has been defined as “poor people in rich countries giving money to rich
people in poor countries." That’s only part of the story. The rest of the story
is that foreign aid, by and large, is a money laundering scheme. If the money
were taken directly from the taxpayers and handed to the bankers and
corporations, there would be as big a protest, or bigger, as the one in 2008.
I have been asked to
write an article about this, and to provide links. The trouble is that my most
important information came to me long before the existence of the Internet. To
make matters more difficult, at the time I learned these things, I was so
uncritically accepting of the official view of how the world works that I didn’t
see the significance of the information.
Nonetheless, if what I’m
saying was true then and is still true, the Internet must have some evidence of
it, at least as far as current events are concerned. Here’s what I’ll do: I’ll
cite some current problems in foreign aid programs in several countries and with
the World Bank.
In part two of this
two-part series, I’ll try to tie all this information into a single package. I
think you’ll find that the problems of waste and fraud are not “flaws” in the
system; that they are, in fact, the way the system is designed to work. Bear in
mind that, before you can decide whether a program is efficient, you have to
have a clear understanding of what the program is intended to do.
Between July 1, 2007 and
June 30, 2010, a whopping 63% of Australian foreign aid contracts went to
corporations, and 22% went to individuals. Only 12% went to governmental and
non-governmental development bodies. Measured by the value of the contracts, 84%
went to corporations, 3% went to individuals, and only 11% went to governmental
and non-governmental development bodies. (link)
While the fat cat
recipients of Australian foreign aid are well known, just what is done with the
money is less well known. The World Bank, which receives $450 billion a year
(presumably Australian dollars) from Australian taxpayers, has come under fire
for its perceived lack of transparency in how it handles the money and why so
much of the money is going to corporations. (link)
In the United States,
fully two thirds of “foreign aid” is actually military aid. Prior to George W.
Bush’s second term of office, the State Department was the primary dispenser of
U.S. foreign aid. Since then, the Pentagon has handled the lion’s share of
“foreign aid.”
If you think you voted
for “hope” and “change” in 2008, don’t look for hope or change in the U.S.
foreign aid budget. Like almost everything else about the Bush presidency, the
militarization of “foreign aid” has continued through Obama’s term of office. (link)
Don’t get the idea that
the Pentagon’s interest in foreign aid has anything to do with assisting needy
foreigners in Pakistan and other trouble spots. The only assistance the Pentagon
is noted for giving people in other countries lies in helping them to find out
if there really is life after death.
Let’s not forget how the
bankers profit from the foreign aid scam. In Chapter Three of The Economic
Rape of America, Frederick Mann points out that money and value are not the
same thing. Bankers create paper “money” out of thin air, loan it to governments
and other entities, which then have to pay it back with money that has value
because it’s the product of labor.
For a 30-year mortgage at
10%, the borrower pays back 336% of the money he borrows. The principle, which
was created from nothing, returns to nothing; but the remaining 226% (interest),
which has value, is transferred from the general economy to the
banker.
Now consider how much
interest the taxpayer pays on a loan that is never fully repaid. This is
addressed in Chapter Three: “The Federal Reserve Bankers.” (link) To download
the whole book, The Economic Rape of America, (free for personal use
only), click here.
Apart from the military
industrial complex scams, there are two kinds of foreign aid: loans and grants.
In the hands of corrupt governments, both tend to generate governmental
corruption. Loans tend to generate both dependency and corruption. As one
example, Zaire’s leader Mobutu See Seko is estimated to have stolen $5 billion
dollars in aid money. Almost immediately after negotiating a reduction in
interest payments, he “leased a Concorde to fly his daughter to her wedding on
the Ivory Coast.” Sam Amsterdam indicates that this level of corruption is
commonplace.
(link)
As I looked for illustrations to use in this post, I found credible accusations that the Burmese (a.k.a. Myanmar) military dictatorship is pocketing tens of millions of dollars in foreign aid for disaster victims. This aid was intended to be used for the relief of people who had lost everything in the wake of Cyclone Nargis. Never underestimate the ghoulishness of corrupt dictators. (link)
Much of the waste in
foreign aid seems deliberate, and it benefits no one other than the corporations
that supply unneeded products. In one program, a factory was built for the
construction of glass windows in a country in which most houses didn’t have
windows. The factory never became operational because it had no access to
electricity. The finding of one study was that much foreign aid, as I suggested
earlier, is designed to “stabilize” regimes that are friendly to the donor
governments. (link)
I first became aware of
foreign aid problems over thirty-seven years ago, when I took a college interim
course based on a book called The Myth of Aid. As I accepted it all at
face value, foreign aid programs throughout the world seemed random and chaotic.
Just as youth seems
wasted on the young, I wonder if idealism may also be wasted on the young.
Following the wise advice to “question authority” is self defeating when we seek
and accept answers from the same authority figures.
In the second part of
this series, I base my answers on observable facts and not on the conclusions
spoon fed to us by the authority figures we should be questioning.
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
1 comment:
I'm not a yet a professor; I'm simply an instructor, although a few more papers may change that fairly soon. The "Dr." part is accurate, though.
Post a Comment