Foreign Aid: what it is, some of the controversies surrounding it, and where the U.S sends aid the most

By Penny Hoffmann

Foreign aid is a controversial topic for many reasons. One objection to foreign aid is that it can be delivered to the wrong people on purpose or accidentally (for example, theft). However, giving aid can produce many benefits: it can improve the relations between nations and rebuild living standards.

What is Foreign Aid?

Foreign aid refers to humanitarian, international, and usually inter-governmental figures or groups that give economic, military, financial or technical resources, such as weapons, to a nation or nations. This aid can be in many forms, such as bilateral or multilateral.

Some examples of aid programs include George Marshall’s Marshall Plan that began in 1948, the Point Four Program, and the UK’s Commonwealth Development Fund.

This is how the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development defines Official Development Assistance (ODA):

“ODA consists of flows to developing countries and multilateral institutions provided by official agencies, including state and local governments, or by their executive agencies, each transaction of which meets the following test: a) it is administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective, and b) it is concessional in character and contains a grant element of at least 25% (calculated at a rate of discount of 10%).”

In order for foreign aid to work, it must cater to the climate of the receiver of the aid. This means that the hardships of the suffering location or the receiver of the aid must be analyzed to select the correct type of aid and to deliver it at the appropriate time. The objectives of the aid must be specified and the most suitable solutions must be chosen to ensure that the aid will not be given to the wrong people or area that needs improving.

Foreign aid can be used to improve the conduct of allies, to reward a nation for its conduct, or to eventually get a repayment of some sort from the nation receiving the aid.

Types of Foreign Aid

Bilateral Aid

Bilateral aid involves two nations where one government sends aid to another government.

Multilateral Aid

Multilateral is where funding is delivered by two or more nations to international organisations such as the World Bank (also called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) or the International Monetary Fund who have the role of improving suffering nations.

Tied Aid

Tied aid is a bilateral agreement where the donor nation delivers a loan or grant to the nation receiving it, but specify the nation in which the funding is spent.

Project Aid

Project aid is given to improve a certain project, such as a school.

Military Aid

Military aid is where a nation delivers weapons and the like to nations

Voluntary Aid

Voluntary aid usually refers to charity. One example of this is Doctors Without Borders, “an international humanitarian non-governmental organization best known for its projects in war-torn regions and developing countries affected by endemic diseases.”

Who Gives The Most Aid

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, these nations gave the most Official Development Assistance (ODA) in total in 2015:

 Foreign aid: These countries are most generous

However, when considering it as a percentage of gross national income (GNI), the ranking order of the countries is different:

 Foreign aid: These countries are most generous

The top ten recipients of U.S foreign aid in 2018 are as follows:

10. Iraq – $347.9 million

9. Nigeria – $419.1 million

8. Zambia – $428.9 million

7. Uganda – $436.4 million

6. Tanzania – $535.3 million

5. Kenya – $639.4 million

4. Afghanistan – $782.8 million

3. Jordan – $1 billion

2. Egypt – $1.39 billion

1. Israel – $3.1 billion

Current Foreign Aid Controversies

There are academic disagreements regarding the efficiency of giving foreign aid. These include; the factors that influence the economic efficiency of foreign aid; whether aid should be measured empirically; whether aid should be given to non-government organisations and groups, rather than governments, who then improve the economy from the bottom up; the opposite, top-down approach by delivering aid to governments, the World Bank, and the UN who rebuild suffering nations; and whether aid givers truly know what is needed by aid receivers.

Investigative Journalist Assaulted by Security and Banned from UN for Covering Closed-Session $6-Billion Budget Meeting

By Stefan M. Kløvning

During a closed-session peacekeeping budget meeting in the United Nations early in July, investigative journalist Matthew Lee had his shirt ripped by security guards as he was demanded to leave the building after filming outside the meeting room discussing the budget and potential corruption.

Mr. Lee, the founder of Inner City Press and Fair Finance Watch, covers “the UN & UNSC, IMF, banks being bad” according to his Twitter bio. He has long been critical to the UN, reporting cases of sexual abuse by peacekeepers in Africa, their role in bringing cholera to Haiti, war crimes in Sri Lanka, Burundi, and Sudan, and corruption, and has therefore been referred to as a “thorn in the side of the UN” by the Independent.

He caught the ousting on camera, revealing the way he was treated by the authorities.

At the beginning of the video, he casually walks around the hall outside the meeting room and talks about the meeting, the diplomats, and the budget, with text added to the video describing what happened to him:

As Inner City Press was typing up this interview of UN budget committee chair Tommo Monthe of Cameroon, UN Security Lt Dobbins and another grabbed its laptop and broke it, tore its shirt and UN pass of its neck and SG #AntonioGuterres’ ASG Christian Saunders said it was fine.

After a while, the video cut off, and it turned back on when he was being assaulted by the security guards, making it difficult to assess what sort of provocation could’ve led up to the conflict. When it had paused being physical, Mr. Lee was visibly upset about being treated like this, and asked questions such as “do you see what you’re doing?” “is this your UN?” “is this ok with you? (to ASG),” and tried to reason with them on the absurdity of the situation, only in vain, as they both stepped up on their authority and just demanded that he leave, without justifying his acquittal. “I’m a journalist. I cover the budget committee. I’ve covered it for a decade,” he asserted. “Now that I write about UN corruption these guys tear my shirt off and you sit around saying it’s fine?” As he was being taken outside by the officer, he told him that the officer would’ve been fired if he was an NYPD officer as he wasn’t resisting, and rhetorically asked, “if this is what they do in New York, imagine what they do in Sudan!”

Two days after, 5. July, he was banned from the UN and asking any questions. The spokesman for UN Secretary-General António Guterres, Stephane Dujarric, disregarded all wrong done by the officers, and placed all the blame on Mr. Lee, saying he became “loud and belligerent, and resisted instructions of UN security officers,” as if he responded wholly inadequately and that the officers acted wholly adequately.

“Based on his unacceptable behaviour, and the fact that he was a repeat offender, having been similarly removed from the building on 22 June 2018, Matthew Lee has been temporarily barred from the premises pending a full review of this incident.”

Mr. Dujarric also claimed that it was “ridiculous” to suggest that the officers’ treatment of Mr. Lee’s had been influenced by his coverage of the UN.

There’s a lot to be criticized in the UN, as in most powerful institutions, and in a free, democratic society, we should be able to ask such questions and hold them accountable like Mr. Lee does. What is our money going to? Are they being misused somehow? After a decade of coverage of the UN budget, he is no longer able to ask them these questions, at least temporarily. Is that the sort of supranational entity we desire? One that only lets its authority determine its conduct? As Lord Acton said in the 19th century, “Power has a tendency to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”


Salvini keeps his promise! Italy shuts down ports and turns back refugee ship

By Nikos Tsinakis

A humanitarian NGO ship carrying more than 630 refugees is being told by Italian authorities to reverse its course and “stay put” in the mediterranean sea.

The ship being asked to turn around is MV Aquarius, operated by Doctors without Borders, a French globalist humanitarian organization also known as MSF.  As of Monday the ship holding its position 27 nautical miles from Malta and 35 nautical miles from Italy, after the new Italian populist coalition government refused it docking rights on its territory. This is a show of force from the new Italian interior minister and the head of right-wing Northern  League party Matteo Salvini, delivering his promise made earlier last week during his trip to Sicily. As well as reaffirming the fact that Italy will no longer accept refugees ferried in by nongovernmental organizations with a shady track record of collaborating with human traffickers.

“From now also Italy begins to say NO to the traffic of human beings, NO to the business of illegal immigration,” said Salvini.

Italy proceeded to ask Malta, a fellow EU member state to host and disembark the refugees in their territory. Malta quickly rejected this proposal, potentially opening a diplomatic rift between the two EU nations, a friction force that Italy can afford since the new right wing government has expressed an openly anti-European Union stance.

According to the twitter page of “Doctors without Borders,”  the ship being asked to be turned around is carrying 123 unaccompanied minors and 7 pregnant women. The humanitarian group also attacked the Italian government on Sunday for “Placing politics above people’s lives.”  

“The priority must be the importance of the well being [and] safety of the people on board,” it said.

The UN refugee agency also chimed in on this matter, advocating for politicians to help solve this matter on an urgent basis; “States and actors involved should rapidly find solutions to allow migrants and refugees on board the [Aquarius] to disembark safely and quickly,” it said in a tweet. Further stressing in another tweet that the focus should be docking and disembarking the refugees while dealing with “wider issues” later, again completely ignoring the national sovereignty of Italy as a whole.

The globalist United Nations clearly supports the rapid population replacement scheme to inflict pain and suffering on white European. Why else would they advocate for the continuation of sub-Saharan African countries to flood Europe through Sicily, at mass rates that’s statistically impossible to be hosted, settled and integrated quickly? As a note of reference, there are currently 170,000 asylum seekers already in refugee centers all around Italy.

Opinion: “Humanitarian intervention” – are we going wrong?

By Nikos Tsinakis

For those unaware of what humanitarian intervention is, in addition to how it works, this opinion piece will give you an insight into what it is, how it works, and where it is possibly going wrong on the global stage.


Humanitarian intervention is when a state essentially uses legitimate force against another state that has committed a gross offence against its own people. This use of force is usually legitimised by the United Nations Security Council, a chamber of delegates selected and appointed by the government they represent. For example, the British representative on the USMC is Karen Pierce CBE. This point of this council is to seek evidence, determine a motive, review the actions of the country at question and determine how they should act in order for the country in question to receive retribution for its mistake. The UN sees this as their moral obligation and the whole project gravitates around several liberal moral principles that formulate is nature.


Now we know the minimal basics of what the UNSC is and how it works, we can now go on to accessing whether it is a force for good or a force for evil, for itself, other nations, and world peace as a whole. What must be taken in to account is the nature and texture of states. Thomas Hobbes, a great British philosopher declared that humans live in a constant state of nature. It is this state of nature that causes them to act within their own self-interest, the Athenian general Thucydides reached the same conclusion when he wrote about his observations of the Peloponnesian war thousands of years prior to Hobbes. This state of nature can be inflated from the scale of human beings, all the way up to the size of states, by doing this we draw the conclusion that even within a liberalised institution like the UN, states will always act or seek to influence other states to take the side of their national interest.

Gaddafi giving a speech to the UN in 2009. Libya has descended into chaos and anarchy ever since his regime got overthrown.

Despite the moral obligation to intervene, there are several more interests that states have when they choose to initiate an engagement with “the bad guy”. There is usually an “interest” at the bottom of the humanitarian intervention barrel. National, regional, economic, security interests all govern the decisions of politicians. That’s before the influence of eager-eyed suited and booted lobbyists paid by some of the world’s greatest and most powerful corporations.


By now you should be starting to see a pattern emerge, the fact is that there is more than meets the eye to the decisions of nations on the UNSC when it comes to the final decision on whether a country should face a legitimised use of force. The issue with this and all of these interests is that the countries that are prepared to engage in the humanitarian intervention to reap the rewards will all look for the justification that they want to engage in this intervention… this is because it will be beneficial to the interests we’ve just discussed, in addition, it will weaken the opposing state.


Now it wasn’t long ago that airstrikes were carried out against the esteemed president Muammar Gaddafi, this was a notion that was said to be justified for the united states due to supposed appalling human rights records. Yet years later the general public found out that the ever-expanding US required regime change, primarily due to Gaddhafi’s plans to redistribute western wealth through a new currency scheme, in addition to many other positive pro Libyan/Pan-Arabic changes. Therefore liberal morality was used to pull at the heartstrings of the public in absence of absolute evidence. Ironically Gaddafi had recently torn up a UN charter and claimed the UNSC to be illegitimate due to the massive flaws within its operating system. Furthermore, Gaddafi had never been in much control of his nation due to his system of devolution of which gave local committees ultimate power, a policy from his own creation, the green book ideology. The old lion often complained that western journalists didn’t understand that he was not at the helms of the controls and took up a far more ceremonial position as the bringer of the revolution. Yet the UNSC saw fit to hold him accountable for the ill evidenced moral crime of terrible human rights records, claiming to be “bringing democracy” to a country that ultimately couldn’t be any more democratic if it tried.


All of this talk of national interests, ulterior motives and well evidence past cases should bring about issues with regards to the recent chemical weapons attacks in Syria, for the council voted for an intervention on the basis of “evidence” from a western-backed group, of which is commanded by an ex British military officer. When the OPCW reached the “scene” of the “attack” there was no sign of chemical weapons usage, yet there was a boy who claimed the video being used as evidence was staged, as he was in it. This should be showing those that think critically that the UNSC is simply a tool of exploitation, a tool that preaches morality through liberal values, yet is heavily misused to benefit the powers at be. This and its links to inaccurate reporting from mainstream outlets shows the sheer size of the agenda held by the UN and its allies, an agenda that isn’t likely to change soon. Since the media form public opinion and none of them reported accurately about Syria, it seems that the UNSC and its allies have friends in high places.


Therefore if I am to draw a conclusion on the UNSC, I would state that due to the nature of it, it is a grossly misused tool of which has had some successes, yet has stumbled and fallen into the lap of serving finance through the advent of liberal morality. It often uses the smallest scraps of evidence to enact it’s sanctions and chase its motives. I, therefore, believe that if the UNSC is to continue its work, it should be on a basis of votes from all delegates from every nation, the idea of main powers vetoing must be dismissed, and thorough and substantial evidence must be gained and presented to the public before the legitimized use of force is taken. It has never been more important to question everything.