Why No Help?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Waterdrop

Banned
Americans have always been portrayed as materialistic, selfish and confrontational. The following article is surprising if not apauling.

A Gulf in Giving: Oil-Rich States Starve the World Food Program

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his top lieutenants on Monday are convening the first meeting of the U.N.’s Task Force on the Global Food Crisis. Ban says it will “study the root causes of the crisis,” and propose solutions for “coordinated global action” at a summit of world leaders in June.

Ban might want to consider convincing the oil-rich nations of the Middle East to provide more than the near-invisible amount of money they currently give to the World Food Program (WFP), the U.N.’s food-giving arm, which is charged with alleviating the food crisis.

WFP internal documents show that the major oil producing nations of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) gives almost nothing to the food organization, even as skyrocketing oil prices and swollen oil revenues contribute to the very crisis that the U.N. claims could soon add 100 million more people to the world’s starving masses.

The overwhelming bulk of the burden in feeding the world’s starving poor remains with the United States and a small group of other predominately Western nations, a situation that the WFP has done little so far to change, even as it has asked for another $775 million in donations to ease the crisis.

Donor listings on WFP’s website show that this year, as in every year since 1999, the U.S. is far and away the biggest aid provider to WFP. Since 2001, U.S. donations to the food agency have averaged more than $1.16 billion annually — or more than five times as much as the next biggest donor, the European Commission.

Click here to see WFP's donor lists from 2001 to 2007.

This year, the U.S. had contributed $362.7 million to WFP just through May 4, according to the website. That figure does not include another $250 million above the planned yearly contribution that was promised by President George W. Bush in the wake of WFP’s April warning that a “silent tsunami” of rising food costs would add dramatically to the world population living in hunger. Nor does it include another $770 million in food aid that President Bush has asked Congress to provide as soon as possible.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, with oil revenues last year of $164 billion, does not even appear on the website donor list for 2008.

Click here to see the 2008 donor list.

And while Canada, Australia, Western Europe and Japan have hastened to pony up an additional $260 million in aid since WFP’s latest appeal, the world organization told FOX News, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the international oil cartel, tossed in a grand total of $1.5 million in addition to the $50,000 it had previously donated.

The OPEC total amounts to roughly one minute and 10 seconds worth of the organization’s estimated $674 billion in annual oil revenues in 2007 — revenues that will be vastly exceeded in 2008 with the continuing spiral in world oil prices.

The only other major oil exporter who made the WFP list of 2008 donors was the United Arab Emirates, which kicked in $50,000. UAE oil revenues in 2007 were $63 billion.

By contrast, the poverty-stricken African republic of Burkina Faso is listed as donating more than $600,000, and Bangladesh, perennial home of many of the world’s hungriest people, is listed as donating nearly $5.8 million.
 

Bawar

Struggling2Surrender
Hi!

If what you posted are true figures then it is indeed very tragic and a big embarrassement to the muslim world.

But I have a few points to mention.

1- I dont think these opec (muslim) countries are taking any interests from the poverty stricken countries of the world

2- These billions of dollars from oil-rich countries are all shifted back to the western banks where it is used by those bankers for enslaving the people of poor countries by way of interest

3- I dont think these opec countries are supporting any dictatorships in the third world nor does it supply weapons to them.

4- As much as I have respect for American muslim brothers/sisters and other good people of America, we all know that the US goverment is indeed very generous, but the biggest recepient of its aid is Isarael to kill innocent Palestinians and bull-doze their homes

5- It is true that US is the biggest donor of the UN funds, but it has always been used for the US and its allies' political agendas

I could say more, but this should be enough for now.

Peace
 

Waterdrop

Banned
hello and thanks for responding.

1- I dont think these opec (muslim) countries are taking any interests from the poverty stricken countries of the world

Not all OPEC countries are Muslim.

2- These billions of dollars from oil-rich countries are all shifted back to the western banks where it is used by those bankers for enslaving the people of poor countries by way of interest

how is it shifted back? Enslaving the poor countries? This is a stretch...a HUGE stretch.

3- I dont think these opec countries are supporting any dictatorships in the third world nor does it supply weapons to them.

What does this have to do with providing food to the poor?

4- As much as I have respect for American muslim brothers/sisters and other good people of America, we all know that the US goverment is indeed very generous, but the biggest recepient of its aid is Isarael to kill innocent Palestinians and bull-doze their homes

What does this have to do with providing food to the poor? America doesn't condone bulldozing homes down, the aid that we give Isreal isn't so the bulldozers can evict people.

5- It is true that US is the biggest donor of the UN funds, but it has always been used for the US and its allies' political agendas

How is providing food aid to the storm victims in Burma a political agenda?
example:
RANGOON, Burma — The United States delivered its first relief supplies to Burma, renamed Myanmar by the ruling military junta, on Monday, as the U.N. urged the reclusive nation to open its doors to foreign experts who can help up to 2 million cyclone victims facing disease and starvation.

I could say more, but this should be enough for now.

What in fact have you said? You never even mentioned the help or lack thereof from rich OPEC nations (and yes, they ARE rich). Don't believe for a second that this money leaves these countries and comes back to us. If other rich countries helped a little then the burden of how to help these people can be easier. Don't belive for a second that this is a power play by the USA, face it, we are a giving society.
Peace
 

abubaseer

tanzil.info
Staff member
As Salaam Alaykum,

Ironically, many Gulf states despite having Islamic knowledge are involved in Injustice which doesn't exist even in Kuffar Countries like:

- No equal pay in employment, People from Western countries get x times more than those from Asia with same skills, experience.
- Exploitation of poor labourers from Asian countries.
- Exploitation of maids.
- Not being Just with the people from Asian countries in criminal cases/disputes, specially when it involves their Citizens.

And some of these countries actually have correct aqeedah and knowledge of Sunnah.

Allahu Aa'lam.
 

Waterdrop

Banned
It is not my intention to point out what Muslims give or don't give, rather the rich countries that many live in. Like I said, not all OPEC countries are Muslim. A good example. The top donors of the Tsunami in Indonesia (a Muslim Country) relief Aid were:

Australia: $810 Million
Germany: $674 M
Japan: $500 M
USA: $350 M
Norway: $183 M
France: $103 M
Britian: $95 M
Sweden: $75 M
Denmark: $75 M
Spain: $68 M

it's mind boggeling as to what countries did not give. This isn't really a competition but it's disturbing nonetheless.

Peace
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
:salam2:quite paradoxal though when we know that kuwait only donated more than 500 millions for Katherina!it makes you really wonder about the intents hidden behind all these donations,but it is not manly the Muslim countries who are starving the world trust me the title is quite a marvelous new slogan if you allow!,all the analysis and documentaries i have come across so far say that the earth s got enough resources for all humanity if distributed in a just and equal fashion,it is not by donations that we are going to appease the world from whatever sickness it is suffering from ,unless temporarily may be.Be it world hunger ,wars,governmental and institutional corruptions,drug abuse and other crimes....we will never succeed if we do not learn the wisdom of controlling our greed starting by our own selves and most importantly through educating both the rich and the poor!only by going back to a deep routed spirituality we can marginalize the hype of materialism that is sucking the worlds blood incessantly!not by delaying through donations the hurt is there and it will always come back knocking on our doors it is only through self control that will make world opinion satisfied with us,if that ever was the aim with all these genuine slogans.it is a matter of consciousness...

I think the vid speaks for itself,and says much about the injustice you seem so revolted and disheartened by,when seen from the flip side of that missing coin.
[yt]EGp0WWfEadg[/yt]
peace be with you
jameel
 

Ghareebah

Bint Abdulkadir
salam alaykum

america america america...oh how GENEROUS you are AMERICA....you do realise all this money that is given to poor countries are burdened with never ending debts....its funny you mention the facts come from the UN which actually is controlled by AMERICA...its headcourters are there as well....why should we care what america gives the damage it did in many countries past and present far outweights their so called GENEROSITY.
and GOD will not anyway accept their "GENEROSITY" .
 

A Kashmiri

Junior Member
Dear Brother Water,

Well you are missing a big point in highlilting US is a major donor , in Food Aid programe and giving statistics and figures to support your argument.

The truth is US Food aid has been more harmful than the poor world countries and the poor population of the world than beneficial, it has helped US businessmen , politicians more than it has helped the poor who are in need of aid.

You know Each year millions of tons of food are shipped from the United States as food aid to respond to crises resulting from droughts, conflicts, and severe poverty. While this aid has saved lives, it is also clear that the U.S. program—under which most food aid is purchased and bagged by U.S. agribusinesses and shipped by U.S. shipping firms—and which was designed over 50 years ago when the U.S. had abundant food surpluses to dispose of—is enormously inefficient and often detrimental to poor countries and their farmers.


The U.S. food aid program, unfortunately, has really been about helping the U.S. agribusiness corporations find foreign markets for their surpluses. The U.S. food aid program requires that all food aid be procured in the U.S. and then shipped to the recipient country. Deliveries of in-kind food aid can undercut local farmers’ crop sales, especially when they arrive late, after a new harvest. In this way, the food aid actually exacerbates the problem that it purports to reduce. A recent study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that rising business and shipping costs have meant that the volume of food aid delivered over the last five years has fallen by more than 50 percent.

Food aid should be procured locally (in the recipient country) or regionally (near the receiving country). Local or regional procurement would have the added benefits of encouraging local farmers to build up production levels and support regional economic development as well.

More important, food aid should not only be procured locally, but also should be purchased from small family farmers—that way it reduces poverty. Rather than simply dumping food aid on crisis situations, the United States should work with local farmers in developing countries so they can provide for their own populations. More, not less, aid for rural development is necessary. Subsistence farmers—who make up 75 percent of the world’s poor—should be at the center of development policies. Policies that help affected countries develop their own agricultural sectors actually feed more people and decrease developing countries’ dependence on aid programs in the long run.


Also, purchasing available food in the country experiencing a crisis, or in a nearby country, could enable food aid providers to deliver more food more quickly. And it would mean that recipient governments would not be compelled to accept genetically modified (GM) or culturally inappropriate foods.

Food aid should come without conditions; it should not be used as a political tool. We saw the whole fanfare at the G-8 meeting with promises of increasing aid to Africa. But in fact, aid comes attached to conditions, such as open your markets, or get rid of state support systems. Or when Zambia, among several other African nations, asked for food aid free of genetically modified foods, it was accused of starving its hungry population while Senator Frist threatened to take away AIDS medicines from African nations who said “no” to GM food aid.

It is also essential that food aid be culturally sensitive. The aid should consist of food that the people actually eat, and not just what a donor country wants to dump. When Indonesia faced a hunger crisis in the late 1990s, the U.S. saw an opportunity to unload its surplus wheat under the guise of food aid. It gave loans to Indonesia upon the condition that Indonesia buy wheat from the U.S. And Indonesians don’t even eat wheat.

No one should be under any illusions about the "humanitarian" aims of the U.S., which is only interested in dispensing aid if it furthers the reach of U.S. power. The words of revolutionary journalist John Reed, describing U.S. offers of food aid to impoverished countries following the First World War, still ring true today:

Uncle Sam is not one ever to give anybody something for nothing. He comes along with a sack stuffed with straw in one hand and a whip in the other. Whoever takes Uncle Sam's promises at their face value will find himself obliged to pay for them with blood and sweat.


I too am of the view that the rich muslim countries should do more to help the poor who need food, but not the way the US Food aid program runs which is just an economical and political tool for US. It is our religious duty as muslims to help those in need and that too of food which is necessary for survival.

Masallama
 

tabaria

Junior Member
:salam2:

The Opec countries do give. Saudi gives out billions to other muslim countries. And offers many of them "soft loans". When Hurricane Katrina hit Kuwait gave money TO AMERICA the richest nation on earth. U.A.E. is also active in giving out money. Just because they don't give money to these organizations doesn't mean they don't give.

Don't believe everything you read. Most stuff in western media is just propaganda.

:wasalam:
 

Bawar

Struggling2Surrender
It is not my intention to point out what Muslims give or don't give, rather the rich countries that many live in.

Fair point.

I would like to repeat once more.
If the USA was genuinely honest about the world poverty, it would not occupy the resources of others.

The third world countries are enslaved by the interest of the west and they will never get out of it.

If anyone dares in any part of the world to threaten US interests in that country, then US military would be mobilised for many different reasons to punish them.

Afghanistan is a good example. Untill the year 2000, the US-Taliban relations were OK and Taliban leaders even secretly visited the US, but when Taliban refused to sign a deal for the Petroleum-Gas pipeline to be passed through Afghanistan, they saw the full force of US punishment.

My point is, the big countries are all monsters. One eats the little ones in one way and the other uses different ways.

As the video in the last post shows, why is it that the people of Africa are all skin and bones while the Americans are a nation of fat people?

The answer is bovious. Because even the wealth of Africa is transported to the US. They may grow pineapple, bananas, citrus fruit, coffee, chocolate etc in Africa, but it is the Americans and other rich countries who consume them.

How this is done is not any excuse.

Burma (Mayanmar), Tibet etc are countries neighbouring China. The west is targetting these countries to increase its influence there so that they can deal with China better in the future.

Afghan refugees in Pakistan received alot of US aid during Russian invasion of Afghanistan, but when Russians were defeated and withdrew Afghanistan, the same refugees got nothing even though they could still not return home.

All that glitters is not gold
 

Waterdrop

Banned
america america america...oh how GENEROUS you are AMERICA....you do realise all this money that is given to poor countries are burdened with never ending debts....

False, the food given to these countrys aren't loans to be repaid. America provides more food for the world than any other country. Perhaps if others spent the same energy in giving then trying to demonize America, we would have these problems under control..but the world is still full of hate.

its funny you mention the facts come from the UN which actually is controlled by AMERICA...its headcourters are there as well....why should we care what america gives the damage it did in many countries past and present far outweights their so called GENEROSITY.
and GOD will not anyway accept their "GENEROSITY"


Does this "controll" dismiss the fact that America has given this aid? Explain the amount that Australia has given to the Tsunami victims. Your obvious "red herring" fallacy has nothing to do with the topic at hand. God will also not accept OPEC countries' unwillingness to help.
 

Mohsin

abdu'Allah
Hello Waterdrop,

What you posted if that is true then we have to accept it and inshaAllah we will try to do something about it.

But if you think that we muslims look at US in some weird hateful way then you should listen to Noam Chomsky, he will tell you clearly how the foreign policy of US is crooked and how it had supported oppressors in the past when it was in its favour and how many times it paid no attention to the opressors when it was not in its favour.
 

Waterdrop

Banned
Hello Waterdrop,

What you posted if that is true then we have to accept it and inshaAllah we will try to do something about it.

But if you think that we muslims look at US in some weird hateful way then you should listen to Noam Chomsky, he will tell you clearly how the foreign policy of US is crooked and how it had supported oppressors in the past when it was in its favour and how many times it paid no attention to the opressors when it was not in its favour.

I never mentioned Muslims. The average Muslim as well as the average westerner can't afford to give for everything, i'm talking about Goverments.

Noam Chomsky is not a person many follow or see eye to eyr with. He's an Anarchist and many people find his beliefs so far out of the norm it's pathetic. Though he has the right to say anything he wants. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky)
 

Mohsin

abdu'Allah
Exactly that can be said about the report you posted as well. Have you listened to him ? Or just satisfied with the fact that people dont see eye to eye with him.
 

amjaddamen

brother
Fair point.

I would like to repeat once more.
If the USA was genuinely honest about the world poverty, it would not occupy the resources of others.

The third world countries are enslaved by the interest of the west and they will never get out of it.

If anyone dares in any part of the world to threaten US interests in that country, then US military would be mobilised for many different reasons to punish them.

Afghanistan is a good example. Untill the year 2000, the US-Taliban relations were OK and Taliban leaders even secretly visited the US, but when Taliban refused to sign a deal for the Petroleum-Gas pipeline to be passed through Afghanistan, they saw the full force of US punishment.

My point is, the big countries are all monsters. One eats the little ones in one way and the other uses different ways.

As the video in the last post shows, why is it that the people of Africa are all skin and bones while the Americans are a nation of fat people?

The answer is bovious. Because even the wealth of Africa is transported to the US. They may grow pineapple, bananas, citrus fruit, coffee, chocolate etc in Africa, but it is the Americans and other rich countries who consume them.

How this is done is not any excuse.

Burma (Mayanmar), Tibet etc are countries neighbouring China. The west is targetting these countries to increase its influence there so that they can deal with China better in the future.

Afghan refugees in Pakistan received alot of US aid during Russian invasion of Afghanistan, but when Russians were defeated and withdrew Afghanistan, the same refugees got nothing even though they could still not return home.

All that glitters is not gold

seconded

moreover:
it is better to learn man how to fish than to give him afish.

the u s aids to poor countries takes the method of giving asests , not money most times , in this way she get rid of things she do not want, for example , it gave my country $300 million as old weapons shifted from germany and not used in u s army any more .( this is the coast of peace with isreal ) . for eygept america give them food week by week to garuntee it's loyality.

if rich countries would donte half thier animal pets expensives money , poor countries would be very ok.
 

Bawar

Struggling2Surrender
Undoubtedly the US spends more money on the bombs and messiles it drops on the weaker nations than the food they give to the poor.

It invaded more countries in the world than any nation in the history.

It toppled more democratic governments in the world than anyone can dream of.

It used radioactive-enriched weapons in my country Afghanistan.
It dropped atomic bombs on Japan.
...
...
....
The aid is just for the show-off, to mask its devilish face with something attractive.

Its oppressions are too big to be hidden and it is too late for it to brainwash the world.

A million and a half Iraqis are dead, thanks to US bombs.
Their country is bombed to stoneage.

Thanks to its b-52 bombers.

What you mentioned is too little to change people's minds.
 

Waterdrop

Banned
Exactly that can be said about the report you posted as well. Have you listened to him ? Or just satisfied with the fact that people dont see eye to eye with him.

No, it's not exactly like the report I posted. Those numbers are quantifiable. his beliefs are just that "beliefs" They're right to him, not others. I myself am a Libertarian and share a couple views with him, but he's wacky to some, loved by others. I don't see eye to eye with Anarchists.
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
seconded

moreover:
it is better to learn man how to fish than to give him afish.

the u s aids to poor countries takes the method of giving asests , not money most times , in this way she get rid of things she do not want, for example , it gave my country $300 million as old weapons shifted from germany and not used in u s army any more .( this is the coast of peace with isreal ) . for eygept america give them food week by week to garuntee it's loyality.

if rich countries would donte half thier animal pets expensives money , poor countries would be very ok.
:salam2:i think you are right about that one sadly a lot of political and strategical intrests are involved,in these so called aids.wa llahu aalaam.

Jordanian newspaper Al-Arab Al-Youm reported today, through sources that an American message leaked by Egypt to Syria shows that the United States is ready to launch a broad military operation against Syria if it insists on its position on the Lebanese crisis and this is the real reason behind the deployment of “USS Cole” in front of the Syrian - Lebanese waters

The source said that the official announced reason of Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Egypt is to push the Palestinian - Israeli peace process forward but the real reason is to explain the American military actions and the presence of the American ships to the Egyptian leadership.

Update

This is reported today “US waived congressional restriction on Egypt aid” … which says it all.
CAIRO (Reuters) - The Bush administration has released $100 million in military aid to Egypt after telling the U.S. Congress the money was necessary for national security reasons.
ADVERTISEMENT

At a joint news conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit in Cairo, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters she had waived the congressional restrictions that had withheld the amount.

"I have exercised on behalf of the United States the waiver in terms of Egyptian assistance ... The Bush administration sought to have that flexibility. We believe that this relationship with Egypt is an important one and that the waiver was the right thing to do," Rice said.

Congress had withheld the sum until the administration certified Egypt had done enough to protect the independence of the judiciary, curb police abuses and put a stop to arms smuggling from Egypt to Gaza.

But it also gave the administration an option to waive the restrictions "in the national security interest of the United States."

Hamas took control of Gaza in June, prompting Israel to tighten its military and economic cordon around the coastal territory. But Israel said in December that Egypt was doing a "terrible" job of stopping arms smuggling to Gaza through the Sinai peninsula.

In turn Egypt accused Israel of encouraging pro-Israeli groups in the United States to lobby members of the U.S. Congress to the detriment of Egyptian interests, specifically by persuading Congress to withhold the aid.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak accused Israel of fabricating evidence to implicate Egypt and Aboul Gheit threatened diplomatic reprisals against the Jewish state.

Rice added: "I have said to the foreign minister even today the importance the United States attaches to democracy and reform in Egypt and the importance that we attach to progress on those fronts. But yes, I have exercised the waiver."

The U.S. administration has gradually softened criticism of Egypt's rights record in the years since 2005, and analysts say an easing of U.S. public pressure on Egypt has given the state a freer hand over the past year to act against critics in the run-up to an eventual transition of power from Mubarak who, at 79, has been in power for 26 years.

Rice arrived in the region on Tuesday to try to persuade Israelis and Palestinians to quickly resume U.S.-sponsored peace talks suspended over a recent Israeli offensive.

(Writing by Aziz El-Kaissouni, edited by Richard Meares)
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/03/...-an-american-military-campaign-against-syria/

wassallam
jameel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top