tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post4607552142391162965..comments2024-03-18T16:01:13.871-07:00Comments on Haq's Musings: Foreign Aid Continues to Pour in Resurgent IndiaRiaz Haqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-50670311202278261812020-05-16T17:30:30.308-07:002020-05-16T17:30:30.308-07:00India is world's no-1 recipient of foreign aid...India is world's no-1 recipient of foreign aid money.<br /><br />https://www.wristband.com/content/which-countries-provide-receive-most-foreign-aid/<br /><br />Top 10 Recipients of Foreign Aid From DAC Members<br />India: $4.21 billion<br />Turkey: $4.10 billion<br />Afghanistan: $2.95 billion<br />Syria: $2.77 billion<br />Ethiopia: $1.94 billion<br />Bangladesh: $1.81 billion<br />Morocco: $1.74 billion<br />Vietnam: $1.61 billion<br />Iraq: $1.60 billion<br />Indonesia: $1.48 billionRiaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-26092831319841294742015-07-14T12:58:54.164-07:002015-07-14T12:58:54.164-07:00#India biggest recipient of #America's economi...#India biggest recipient of #America's economic aid over 66-year period: USAID; #Israel 2nd. #Pakistan 5th. http://www.dawn.com/news/1194228 <br /><br />The data, which is inflation adjusted, shows India received approximately $65.1bn in economic assistance from 1946 until 2012, followed closely by Israel, which was given $65bn.<br /><br />With $44.4bn received as economic assistance from the US, Pakistan is also among the top five countries to receive economic assistance out of a total of 200 countries and regions.<br /><br />Top 10 countries receiving US economic assistance from 1946-2012<br /><br />India: $65.1bn<br />Israel: $65bn<br />United Kingdom: $63.6bn<br />Egypt: $59.6bn<br />Pakistan: $44.4bn<br />Vietnam: $41bn<br />Iraq: $39.7bn<br />South Korea: $36.5bn<br />Germany: $33.3bn<br />France: $31bn<br />Indian economic aid is spread out over various sectors and programs, including child survival and health, development assistance, HIV/AIDS initiatives, migration and refugee assistance, food aid, and narcotics control. The bulk of this aid ($26bn) is provided to various USAID programmes.<br /><br />A majority of Israel's $65bn economic assistance was given to its Economic Support Fund and Security Support Assistance, with $56.5bn alone attributed to these programmes.<br /><br />In comparison, of the $44.4bn provided to Pakistan in economic assistance, $13.8bn is given to USAID programmes, while $13.7bn is attributed to the Economic Support Fund and Security Support Assistance.<br /><br /><br />Israel received $134bn in military assistance over 1946-2012 ─ a figure which far outnumbers military assistance provided to the the second entrant on the list, Vietnam, at $77.9bn.<br /><br />Read: Pakistan 3rd biggest recipients of US aid<br /><br />Top 10 countries receiving US military assistance from 1946-2012<br /><br />Israel: $134bn<br />Vietnam: $77.9bn<br />Egypt: $62bn<br />Afghanistan: $48.3bn<br />Turkey: $42.2bn<br />South Korea: $41.1bn<br />France: $33bn<br />Greece: $29.5bn<br />China: $26.3bn<br />Iraq: $24.7bn<br />Pakistan just misses being on the top 10 list, coming in at twelfth place with $12.9bn in military assistance from the US. India, however, is placed at 47 out of a list of 193 countries, receiving $897 million in military assistance.<br /><br />It is pertinent to mention here that Pakistan received most of the military assistance from the US during the superpower's involvement in Afghanistan during the 1980s and then after 2001.<br /><br />The US non-military aid to Pakistan for the period 1991-2001 averaged just $75 million per year, while the total military aid during the eleven-year period was a paltry $7 million.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-31057371185547116012013-03-08T09:14:03.641-08:002013-03-08T09:14:03.641-08:00Our aid dependency is still much higher than neigh...Our aid dependency is still much higher than neighboring countries. <br />This is exactly what I have been saying. <br /><br />QUOTE March 08, 2013:<br /><br />FOREIGN AID Pakistan has received enormous amounts of foreign aid over the last half century or so. Both in per capita terms in constant dollars and as a percentage of Gross National Income the net official development assistance was at a peak in the 1960s but has continued to decline as repayments on all except grant aid have naturally continued to climb. Even so net ODA during the last decade was 1.7 percent of GDP close to 10 percent of gross fixed investment. As the following table shows relative foreign aid availability in relation to national income in Pakistan compared to that in India was fourfold in the 1980s and during the last decade the difference has grown to more than eightfold. The more important point is that aid flows are no longer significant in India for sustaining its quite high rate of investment and growth whereas Pakistan's growth and investment are in serious doldrums and the country is far from reviving sustained high growth on its own.<br /><br />The more serious problem has been that large external flows (foreign aid in the 1960 and 1970s, worker remittances in the 1980s, resident foreign currency deposits in the 1990s and direct private investment in 2003-08) reduced incentives for export development on the one hand, and on the other hand enabled policymakers to avoid difficult choices between consumption and savings. Judging from the long-term trends of gross capital formation, and the foreign savings available to finance the current account balance of payments deficits it would appear that gross national savings that averaged 14-15 percent of GDP in 1980s and first half of 1990s have shown no clear upward trend. After a brief spurt over 20 percent of GDP during 2002-4, the gross national savings have dropped almost steadily since then and touched a low level of 13 percent of GDP in FY 2012.<br /> <br />READMORE: http://alturl.com/7twd2Hopewinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07885301987622998733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-53822745877175178442012-11-26T10:53:24.308-08:002012-11-26T10:53:24.308-08:00Here is an interesting excerpt from a new article ...Here is an interesting excerpt from a new article in the NYT, November 15 2012:<br /><br />".....emerging market countries, including India, have themselves become donors to more impoverished countries.<br /><br />Before a visit this week from President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, aimed at wooing investment, India approved development projects in Afghanistan to the tune of $100 million as part of India’s $2 billion aid package to the war-torn country. In 2010, the country extended a $1 billion line of credit to Bangladesh, the highest ever one-time assistance, and last year, it offered $5 billion in credit to African nations. With a broadening aid portfolio, New Delhi recently announced plans to set up its own aid agency.<br /><br />For India, once the world’s largest foreign aid recipient, with some $55 billion funneled to the country between 1951 and 1992, the change from recipient to donor comes as the country tries to redefine its role in the international community...."<br /><br />HERE is the full article--<br />http://alturl.com/n2udzHopewinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07885301987622998733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-57098869220834764542012-10-27T08:04:56.860-07:002012-10-27T08:04:56.860-07:00Here's a Mail Online story on Kofi Anan callin...Here's a <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223855/Stop-giving-millions-aid-richer-countries-like-China-India-says-ex-UN-chief-Kofi-Annan.html" rel="nofollow">Mail Online story</a> on Kofi Anan calling for aid to India and China:<br /><br /><i>Former United Nations chief Kofi Annan has backed calls for Britain and the EU to stop giving millions of pounds in aid to wealthy countries.<br /><br />He said booming nations such as China, Brazil and India should wean themselves off development funding so it could be targeted at ‘weaker’ parts of the world instead.<br /><br />His comments come after International Development Secretary Justine Greening called for the European Union to stop giving aid to relatively rich nations.<br /><br />She travelled to Luxembourg last week to say it is wrong that the EU’s aid fund, to which the UK contributes more than £1billion a year, sends money to relatively rich countries such as Barbados, Iceland, China and Brazil.<br /><br />Britain refuses to fund such countries out of its own aid budget. However, the UK is still sending around £280million a year to India – even though the country can afford its own space programme and its president, Pranab Mukherjee, said in February: ‘We do not require the aid. It is a peanut in our total development expenditure.’<br /><br />Conservative backbenchers want to see the Coalition drop its pledge to increase spending on foreign aid year-on-year, while cutting funding in every other department apart from the NHS.<br /><br />In 2014, taxpayers will be forking out £12.6billion a year on foreign aid – more than the £12.1billion it will be spending on the police.<br /><br />Mr Annan, a Ghanaian who was the UN secretary general from 1997 to 2006, said not all the countries who received aid from British taxpayers needed it.<br /><br />‘The emerging markets and the countries that are doing well should wean themselves off aid,’ he said.<br /><br />‘Countries like Brazil, China, India, Ghana, Guatemala and Honduras; some of these countries can fend for themselves.<br /><br />'In fact I have had the chance to suggest to some of them that they should not accept Britain’s aid willingly. They need to say “We are full enough”, so that there will be more money available for the really poor and weaker.’<br /><br />A sixth of the money spent by the Department for International Development goes to the EU’s aid programme. Half of this £10billion budget is spent on middle and higher income countries, even though many say they are too wealthy to merit support....</i><br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223855/Stop-giving-millions-aid-richer-countries-like-China-India-says-ex-UN-chief-Kofi-Annan.htmlRiaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-46833923456176523172012-06-20T16:48:16.714-07:002012-06-20T16:48:16.714-07:00Dr. Haq,
To continue my previous comment on the t...Dr. Haq,<br /><br />To continue my previous comment on the topic of relative levels of Aid, perphaps it would also be good to consider the following---<br /><br />http://www.tradingeconomics.com/pakistan/net-oda-received-percent-of-gross-capital-formation-wb-data.html<br /><br />http://www.tradingeconomics.com/pakistan/net-oda-received-percent-of-central-government-expense-wb-data.html<br /><br />You can check the same for all the other countries in South Asia yourself by merely changing the name of the country in the URL. The data show that:<br /><br />As of 2009, the Net ODA received as a % of gross capital formation in--<br /><br />Nepal: 20.93%<br />India: 0.5%<br />Bangladesh: 5.63%<br />Pakistan: 9.43%<br />Sri-Lanka: 6.85%<br /><br />This indicates that our country is even more dependent than Bangladesh on foreign Aid for capital formation (internal investment). This seemingly strange situation arises from the fact that our Gross Domestic Savings are much lower than in Bangladesh.<br /><br />Still further, to see how dependent GOVERNMENT (not the country per se) is on foreign aid, consider that as of 2009, the Net ODA received as a % of central government expense in--<br /><br />Nepal: 34.6%<br />India: 1.1%<br />Bangladesh: 12.1%<br />Pakistan: 10.2%<br />Sri-Lanka: 9.3%<br /><br />This indicates that our GOVERNMENT is almost just dependent as the Bangladesh Government on foreign Aid for meeting its expenses. Again, note the effect of the policy of "non-alignment" on the Indian Goverments lack of dependency on the West-- this is something we did not do because Ayub aligned himself with the Western Countries for the sake of free money.<br /><br />I will leave you to reflect on all of this.<br /><br />Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-36980227086062477152012-06-20T16:12:06.731-07:002012-06-20T16:12:06.731-07:00Dr. Haq,
I agree with you that these half-baked, ...Dr. Haq,<br /><br />I agree with you that these half-baked, poorly-educated Indian Code Coolies have a vastly exaggerated opinion of themselves and their dirt-poor country.<br /><br />But we must be more understanding of why they are like that. As the French say, "to understand is to forgive". What we are witnessing is called the "OVERCOMPENSATION" syndrome. In effect, they are so ashamed of the poverty of their parents that they tend to overcompensate by showing-off (conspicuous consumption) their newly acquired wealth (however little that might be). They are also so ashamed of the backwardness and illiteracy of their country, that they overcompensate by exaggerating their country's achievements.<br /><br />There is nothing unusual about all this, as this is just a part of human nature everywhere. It has been extensively studied by Sociologists & Psychologists all over the world. In fact, you will see the same behaviour amongst 1st and 2nd generation Mexicans/Central-Americans in the US, especially when they come from uneducated and poor family backgrounds. You could even say the same of the hyper-nationalist, loud Chinese from Mainland China who irritate the hell out of the people in Hong-Kong.<br /><br />Now that we have understood why they are like that and why they irritate everybody else, we can be more forgiving and just ignore the lound noises coming from these empty Indian vessels. Kuttay tau bhownktay hain, Hum kutton par kyon bhownkay?<br /><br />On another issue, while it is true that India is light-years away from being "resurgent", I do not think that your argument about Foreign Aid here is correct. Here are some data to consider--<br /><br />http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bangladesh/net-oda-received-per-capita-us-dollar-wb-data.html<br />http://www.tradingeconomics.com/india/net-oda-received-per-capita-us-dollar-wb-data.html<br />http://www.tradingeconomics.com/pakistan/net-oda-received-per-capita-us-dollar-wb-data.html<br />http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sri-lanka/net-oda-received-per-capita-us-dollar-wb-data.html<br />http://www.tradingeconomics.com/nepal/net-oda-received-per-capita-us-dollar-wb-data.html<br />http://www.tradingeconomics.com/afghanistan/net-oda-received-per-capita-us-dollar-wb-data.html<br /><br />Approximate AVERAGE (over 50-years) ANNUAL NET ODA received per capita in--<br />Bangladesh: 10$<br />India: 2$ <br />Pakistan: 10$ <br />Nepal: 15$<br />Sri-Lanka: 30$ <br /><br />This is why the Western Countries have more say in Sri-lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan & Nepal, while they have very little say in India.<br /><br />These are the facts. I am not comfortable with twisting the facts, even if the intention of twisting them is to prove the truth. The ends are important, but so are the means. We must not fall into the temptation of trying to establish the truth using prevarications-- that never works in the long run.<br /><br />I will leave you to ponder this issue.<br /><br />Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-29360103303590452932011-08-07T19:23:29.255-07:002011-08-07T19:23:29.255-07:00Here's an interesting News International story...Here's an interesting <a href="http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=61681&Cat=2" rel="nofollow">News International</a> story on Pakistan as an international aid donor:<br /><br /><i>Pakistan’s contributions to mitigate the suffering of the countries hit by natural calamities are not only commendable but also helped Islamabad a lot to safeguard its economic interests. Sri Lanka, China, Iran, Nepal, Maldives and Afghanistan are the countries where Pakistan did a lot on humanitarian front and also managed to keep its say in the said countries.<br /><br />As far as Afghanistan is concerned, Pakistan during the Musharraf regime announced the $300 million (over Rs 25.5 billion) grant for various projects out of which Pakistan has so far doled out $ 175 million (Rs 12 billion) since the announcement of the then President Pervez Musharraf during his visit to Kabul.<br /><br />However, in 2009-10, according to Additional Secretary at Finance Ministry Mr Rana Asad Amin, Pakistan provided Rs 2 billion to Afghanistan to complete the various projects. Likewise, Rs 2.5 billion each allocated to Afghanistan in 2010-11 and current financial year 2011-12.<br /><br />And in the future Pakistan will keep on doling out the amount to Afghanistan under the pledged $ 300 million grant. The Emergency Relief Fund Data is an eye opener for those who deem Pakistan did not play its role on the humanitarian front which is vital to keep its economic interests intact.<br /><br />According to Emergency Relief Fund data, Pakistan in 2003 donated Rs 53.9 million in the shape of kind in to to to four countries that include Rs 1.72 million to Sri Lanka for flood victims, Rs 10.9 million to Algeria for earthquake victims and Rs 2.6 million to China for fight against sars and Rs 38.7 million to Iraq for war victims.<br /><br />In 2004, Pakistan again donated Rs 171 million in kinds to four countries that include Rs 140.8 million go Iran for earthquake victims, Rs 3 million for Sri Lanka for drought victims, Rs 9.8 million to Afghanistan for food shortage and Rs 18.2 million to Bangladesh for flood victims.<br /><br />However, when catastrophic tsunami badly hit Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Maldives in 2005, Pakistan came up with a bang and helped the said countries on big way and donated Rs 668 million for the said three countries. In addition Pakistan also extended the donation of Rs 26.3 million in kind to Comoros in the head od food assistance.<br /><br />In 2006, Pakistan bequeathed Rs197.8 million to three countries including Rs 7.7 million in kind to Iran for earthquake victims, Rs 92.2 million to Indonesia also for earthquake victims and Rs 97.9 million to Lebanon for war affected people.<br /><br />In 2007, China was provided Rs 1.875 million in kind for flood affected people, Bangladesh given Rs 72.19 million for cyclone affected people. However, Pakistan in 2008 donated Rs 5 million to Myanmar for cyclone affected people, and Rs 160.503 million to China for earthquake affected people and Rs 1.153 million to Nepal for flood victims.<br /><br />And in 2009, Pakistan provided Rs 33.338 million in kind to Palestinians of Gaza. In addition, in 2008, Pakistan also provided Rs 81 million in kind to Cuba for hurricane affected people. As far as Pakistan’s authorities are concerned, they managed to ink trade deals with China and Sri Lanka with which Pakistan also possess the in-depth strategic relations.</i><br /><br />http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=61681&Cat=2Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-88701398995260096972011-07-12T23:09:39.199-07:002011-07-12T23:09:39.199-07:00India depends heavily on foreign inflows to surviv...India depends heavily on foreign inflows to survive, given its huge and perennial trade, budget and current account deficits.<br /><br />India is the <a href="http://www.gscurrentaffairs.com/india-becomes-largest-borrower-of-ida/" rel="nofollow">biggest borrower</a> from multi-lateral lending institutions.<br /><br />According to the statistics of World Bank, India has become the largest borrower from the International Development Association (IDA), a component of World Bank Group which helps the poorest countries of the world.<br /><br />Among the bank’s FY10 Top Ten IDA borrowing countries, India tops the table with $ 2,578 million, followed by Vietnam ($ 1,429 million), Tanzania ($ 943 million), Ethiopia and Nigeria with $ 890 million each, Bangladesh ($ 828 million), Kenya ($ 614 million), Uganda ($ 480 million), Democratic Republic of Congo ($ 460 million) and Ghana (433 million).<br /><br />IDA, termed as ‘Soft Loan Window’ of the World Bank, was established in 1960 with the aim to reduce poverty by lending money (known as credits) on concessional terms. IDA credits have no interest charge and the repayment period ranges between 35 to 40 years. IDA is the largest sources of assistance for the world’s 79 poorest countries, 39 of which come from Africa. Not only with IDA, India is also the third largest borrower of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), a part of World Bank group with a total loan of $ 21.9 billion which have financed 77 projects in the country.<br /><br />Among various states in India, Tamil Nadu hold the maximum assistance of $ 2.1 billion from the World Bank to support its six on-going projects.<br /><br />http://www.gscurrentaffairs.com/india-becomes-largest-borrower-of-ida/Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-34236831155385776232011-04-05T09:24:26.439-07:002011-04-05T09:24:26.439-07:00British Prime Minister David Cameron, now on a vis...British Prime Minister David Cameron, now on a visit to Pakistan, has offered about $1 billion in aid for education, according to <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc68ce4c-5f91-11e0-bd1b-00144feab49a.html#axzz1IfJzgMiX" rel="nofollow">Financial Times</a>:<br /><br /><i>Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc68ce4c-5f91-11e0-bd1b-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1IfKt9DJ6<br /><br />David Cameron offered Pakistan’s leaders up to £650m ($1,055m) of aid for schools and heaped praise on their “huge fight” against terrorism in a diplomatic gamble to end years of mutual mistrust with a gesture of goodwill.<br /><br />During a confidence-building visit to Islamabad with an entourage of his most senior security advisers, Mr Cameron jettisoned the usual list of UK demands and instead gave Pakistan the benefit of the doubt over Afghanistan and its support for militant groups.<br /><br />Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc68ce4c-5f91-11e0-bd1b-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1IfLC3dkM<br /><br />Such optimism over Islamabad’s intentions marks a big break in British diplomacy, making a stark contrast with Mr Cameron’s description of Pakistan “looking both ways” on terrorism, a remark that triggered a serious diplomatic incident last year.<br /><br />Rather than regarding Pakistan as a country that “can do more”, particularly on curbing Taliban activities, the British assumption is now that Islamabad’s security agencies have limited control over militant groups they once helped to create.<br /><br />The big test for Mr Cameron is whether his expression of trust can generate better results than the more transactional approach adopted in the past. British officials say they are already seeing tangible improvements in intelligence co-operation and a greater willingness to discuss a political peace deal in Afghanistan.<br /><br />Mr Cameron sought to demonstrate the breadth of the new partnership by offering funds for up to 4m school places by 2015. “I struggle to find a country that’s more in our interest to progress and succeed than Pakistan,” Mr Cameron said after a meeting with Yusuf Raza Gilani, Pakistan’s prime minister.<br /><br />“If Pakistan succeeds then we will have a good story ... if it fails we will have all the problems of migration and extremism, all the problems.”<br /><br />The package of up to £650m, which more than doubles previous education funding, forms part of an aid programme that is set to become Britain’s biggest.<br />----------<br />The centrepiece of Mr Cameron’s visit was a security round-table with Pakistan’s civilian leadership and General Ashfaq Kayani, its military chief. Sir John Sawers, head of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, and General Sir David Richards, chief of the defence staff, also attended, in their second visit to Islamabad in less than a month.<br /><br />Mr Gilani later brushed aside questions over Pakistan’s willingness to combat terrorism. “We’ve the ability and we have the resolve and we are fighting and we’ve paid a very heavy price for that,” he said, citing the 30,000 casualties in Pakistan’s effort to quell an internal insurgency.<br /><br />One senior Pakistani government official speaking after Mr Cameron’s meetings said closer security ties would take some more time to develop. “Clearly, the UK wants Pakistan to extend help to combat militant plots on British soil,” he said. “But the UK will also need to be much more forthcoming on helping Pakistan to go after members of its own militant groups from places like Baluchistan who have taken refuge in Britain.”</i>Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-46704770970165180682011-03-01T22:39:36.101-08:002011-03-01T22:39:36.101-08:00Pakistan could replace India as the biggest recipi...Pakistan could replace India as the biggest recipient of British bilateral aid, according to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/mar/01/uk-cuts-aid-poorest-countries" rel="nofollow">the Guardian newspaper</a>:<br /><br /><i>Britain is to stop sending direct aid to Burundi and Niger, two of the world's poorest countries, the government announced as it unveiled plans to rebalance the £8.4bn international development budget.<br /><br />The two African nations, which are ranked second and fourth respectively in a World Bank list of the world's poorest states, are among 16 countries that will no longer receive bilateral aid from Britain by 2016. Direct aid will also be halted to Lesotho which is ranked 28th on the World Bank list.<br /><br />Burundi, a landlocked country in the unstable Great Lakes region of Africa, is still suffering from the consequences of the Hutu-Tutsi massacres in the 1990s when 200,000 of its citizens died. Niger, a landlocked country in west Africa, depends on foreign aid for half of the government's budget.<br /><br />The cuts were outlined to MPs by Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, as he unveiled the conclusions of two reviews into Britain's bilateral and multilateral aid programmes. Cutting aid to the 16 countries would allow Britain to concentrate its resources on 27 countries which include Afghanistan, Pakistan and South Africa.<br />---------<br />Ethiopia will become the biggest recipient of bilateral aid over the next two years. Pakistan could become the biggest recipient of British aid within three years, with a major focus on education, British officials in Islamabad said, but only if the government reduces chronic corruption.<br /><br />Just 56% of Pakistani children between five and nine years' old attend primary school, a rate that British officials want to boost to the world average of 87%. But the school system is chronically dysfunctional due to political interference, "ghost schools" and unqualified teachers. "It's an education emergency," said one official.<br /><br />As well as reducing graft, British officials want to see Pakistan increase its tax collection, currrently at a disastrously low rate of nine per cent of GDP with many parliamentarians paying little tax. The Pakistani government has vowed to improve education spending from two per cent GDP to seven per cent.<br /><br />British officials said they recognised that British aid was a "drop in the bucket" in a country of 180 million people, but hoped that a targeted aid programme could "catalyse change" in critical areas like education.<br /><br />Direct financial transfers to the Pakistani exchequer, which amounted to £120 million over four years under the last aid programme, are likely to be scrapped, officials said.</i>Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-46571102479479268062011-02-17T08:59:07.017-08:002011-02-17T08:59:07.017-08:00Here's a Telegraph India report on how the Bri...Here's a <a href="http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110217/jsp/nation/story_13593846.jsp" rel="nofollow">Telegraph India</a> report on how the British govt is defending continuing aid to India: <br /><br /><i>London, Feb 16: The UK government today said it was making changes to its aid programme to India following popular anger that helping one of the fastest growing economies in the world is “unjustifiable”.<br /><br />“From now on in India we will focus our support on three of the poorest states,” said Chris Mitchell, the international development secretary.<br /><br />Bengal will be cut out for Britain considers Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar to be the poorest states.<br /><br />Speaking during “International Development Questions” in the House of Commons, Mitchell was forced to respond to critics such as Tory MP Philip Davies.<br /><br />“India spends 36 billion dollars a year on defence, 750 million dollars a year on a space programme, has one of the fastest growing economies in the world and is developing its own overseas aid programme,” said Davies, who represents Shipley. “Many of my constituents, given that we are having to cut public expenditure in this country, will think such aid to India is now unjustifiable.” UK aid is worth £280 million a year for four years.<br /><br />Mitchell said UK aid was “in transition” and added: “Our programme will change to reflect the importance of the role of the private sector and private enterprise.”<br /><br />He explained: “There are more poor people in India than in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. We should focus on the poorest areas, particularly on the roles of girls and women.”<br /><br />He told MPs that 60 million children had enrolled in Indian schools since 2006. “That’s a tremendous tribute to the work of the Indian government, but it would not have been possible without the intervention of British aid and support.”<br /><br />Some MPs spoke up for the need to continue with the aid, among them Labour’s Barry Gardiner whose constituency of Brent North in north London has many people of Gujarati origin. He argued the help was “vital” and told the Commons a quarter of the world’s poorest people lived in India.<br /><br />The children’s charity body Plan International also defended British aid to India.<br /><br />“The fact that eight Indian states account for more poor people than in 26 of Africa’s poorest countries combined shows there’s a need for aid in India,” its head of advocacy Adam Short said.<br /><br />“In spite of its economic successes, India is home to 421 million poor people. We work with more than a million children in the country’s least developed communities. Through our work on child welfare, education and health, we know how vitally important it is to ensure aid reaches the most marginalised children and communities.”<br /><br />Marxist economist Lord Meghnad Desai could be relied upon to take a distinctive line.<br /><br />In an interview to The Telegraph, Desai said: “The truth is India does not need the money but the experts at DFID (Department for International Development) are better at getting through to the health and educational sectors than the government of India.”<br /><br />“It is a criticism of the government of India that it cannot manage to do in its own backyards what other people can do. It should commission DFID to do the work and pay them for it.”</i>Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-26288758767369437372011-02-16T08:31:22.883-08:002011-02-16T08:31:22.883-08:00Here are some excerpts from a Daily Mail story on ...Here are some excerpts from a <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1357118/Why-cash-strapped-Britain-giving-1bn-aid-India.html#" rel="nofollow">Daily Mail</a> story on cash-strapped UK's decision to extend $1.5 billion in aid to India: <br /><br /><i>So why has the Government just changed its mind, and decided to give £1 billion in aid to India over the next three years, making in the largest single recipient of our largesse?<br /><br />At a time of cutbacks I struggle to understand the case for increasing aid even to the poorest countries. In the case of India, I find it impossible to grasp why we should think it desirable to shell out £1 billion to the fourth- largest economy in the world.<br /><br />Could it be post-colonial guilt? If so, it is misplaced. When Britain left the country in 1947, India was the 12th-largest industrial power in the world, and had the most extensive railway system in Asia. It was the semi-socialist policies applied for the next 40 years that held India back until free market reforms began to transform it.<br />----------<br />Perhaps Mr Obama knows something I don’t, but I wasn’t aware that in the Twenties and Thirties the Raj employed a huge secret police force and used widespread torture.<br /><br />-------<br />Andrew Mitchell, the International Development Secretary, denied this was a motive during an interview yesterday morning on Radio 4’s Today Programme. I hope he meant it. India will trade with us if we are able to produce goods and services which its people want to buy.<br /><br />More likely, there is an outdated sense that it is our duty to disburse funds to the supposedly less fortunate — rather like an impoverished parent continuing to subsidise children who have grown much wealthier, and are more than capable of getting by on their own. I suspect that giving so much money makes us feel more important than we really are.<br /><br />The decision is so apparently senseless that it is almost impossible to unravel. What makes it more senseless still is that the Indian government has signalled that it would not object if British aid were ended. There would be no hard feelings. India can look after itself. One of its senior diplomats is reported by The Times as saying: ‘We will help if you want to withdraw.’<br /><br />----------<br /><br />No one disputes that, despite its phenomenal growth, India still has countless millions of poor people, though many fewer than it used to have. Its population, after all, is many times greater than ours. But despite its challenges with poverty, it spends some £20 billion a year on defence, not much less than Britain, and is a nuclear power. It also splashes out about £1.5 billion a year on its space programme, a luxury which this country cannot afford.<br /><br />Arguably India should be spending less on defence, and nothing on its space programme, and be diverting more funds to the alleviation of poverty. But the country is a democracy, and its government will be held to account for the decisions it makes. It is hardly our business if India wants to spend so much money on a space programme.<br /><br />But surely it is madness for us to be channelling precious funds to a country which chooses to have prestige projects that are beyond our own means.<br />------------<br />It was the Tories, not the Lib Dems, who decided that international aid should not only be ‘ring-fenced’ but increased by a third to £11.5 billion by 2015 while domestic budgets, apart from the NHS, are being slashed. This was a controversial decision in view of the ineffectiveness of much development aid, not to mention the corruption that sometimes surrounds it.<br /><br />India, although a democracy, is by no means corruption-free. A report by the country’s auditor general, seen by the Mail last September, revealed widespread aid abuses, including wasting money on thousands of colour televisions and computers that were never used, and several instances of fraud amounting to millions of pounds.</i>Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-55977314545249746472011-01-21T09:49:40.223-08:002011-01-21T09:49:40.223-08:00It seems the British press loves asking this quest...It seems the British press loves asking this question with a fair amount of regularity lately.<br />Just today the Telegraph reported that Prince Charles’ charity is spending a few million pounds on building eco-friendly homes for 15,000 slum-dwellers in India. Meanwhile the Guardian is wondering whether India will make a bold and symbolic statement by refusing the 250 million pounds in aid it receives from the UK annually.<br />Here is a country [India] which, as Andrew Mitchell, the UK secretary for international development, puts it, “is roaring out of poverty”. It is the 11th largest economy in the world. It is spending $31.5bn on its defence budget and $1.25bn on a space programme. So why, in these cash-strapped times, is the British government giving aid to India?<br />If only India’s 400+ million people living in dire poverty could learn to subsist on a diet of ammunition and rocket fuel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-50707557901733362682011-01-21T09:42:30.813-08:002011-01-21T09:42:30.813-08:00Since 1998, India has received more British aid th...Since 1998, India has received more British aid than any other country, a total of £1.5bn in the last five years, according <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jan/10/uk-aid-india" rel="nofollow">The Gurdian</a>:<br /><br /><i>Here is a country which, as Andrew Mitchell, the UK secretary for international development, puts it, "is roaring out of poverty". It is the 11th largest economy in the world. It is spending $31.5bn on its defence budget and $1.25bn on a space programme. So why, in these cash-strapped times, is the British government giving aid to India?<br /><br /><br />This issue will be considered by the UK parliament's select committee on international development this week, and is likely to prompt some discussion on the blogosphere (Andy Sumner, from the IDS has blogged on it). It is a key question in the international development department's internal review – which is due to be published shortly – and there has even been some speculation in India that the UK deliberations could be shortcircuited by India itself deciding it no longer wants British aid.<br /><br /><br />This should be a straightforward issue – but beware, it's no such thing. One key expert admitted to me that they change their minds from backing to ending aid to India every other day. Nor is it a trivial issue. Since 1998, India has received more British aid than any other country, a total of £1.5bn in the last five years. India counts as one of 22 UK priority countries in its aid programmes. A lot of money is at stake.<br /><br /><br />For a group of Conservatives, India is a prime example for their "charity begins and ends at home" approach. When Mitchell came into office, he made great fanfare about cutting aid programmes to China and Russia; allegedly, some in his department wanted to add India to that list but No 10 prevailed. India is still regarded by the UK public as a poor country, despite its recent economic growth and global power.<br /><br /><br />And the truth is, that perception is absolutely accurate. A third of the world's poor live in India – more than all those designated as poor living in sub-Saharan Africa. Shockingly, half of all Indian children are malnourished. This poverty is concentrated in just four Indian states, which account for one-fifth of the world's poor. So if aid is about relieving poverty, UK aid to India is entirely justified.<br /><br /><br />Some hopeful observers point to a new determination on the part of India's ruling elite to tackle poverty. Sonia Gandhi recently chaired a two-day seminar with the US economist Joseph Stiglitz on how to provide universal "social policy coverage" – basic services in health and education. It was a point made by Gordon Brown in his book Beyond the Crash, when he wrote about the new statutory rights to food and to primary education.<br /><br /><br />But there is a long way to go, and the sharp inequalities in India present a stark dilemma for those in charge of aid budgets. As many developing economies grow, more and more of the world's poorest are in middle-income countries. As Sumner has pointed out in his argument on the new bottom billion, 72% of the world's poorest are in middle-income countries.<br /><br /><br />Increasingly, much of the world's poverty is a result of inequality, rather than the conventional model of countries caught in a poverty trap, and the role of aid in helping to spring the trap. That presents a real challenge to state aid agencies: how do they justify taking their taxpayers' money to send aid to countries where a hugely wealthy elite is benefiting from an economic boom and failing to meet the challenge of distributing wealth? Aren't India's poor their responsibility?...</i>Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-768691661718435672011-01-14T09:30:38.304-08:002011-01-14T09:30:38.304-08:00India has decided to stop receiving British aid st...India has decided to stop receiving British aid starting in April, 2011. <br /><br />This is a pre-emtive move by India because the Brits had told Indians they were going to announce cuts in aid anyway as part of budget cuts in London.<br /><br />This aid cut will hurt India's poor the most with less food and even fewer toilets for their growing numbers.<br /><br />Here's an <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/mea-to-finance-tell-london-we-wont-accept-aid-from-next-april/681612/" rel="nofollow">Indian Express report</a>:<br /><br /><i>The External Affairs Ministry has instructed the Finance Ministry to inform London that India will not accept further aid from next April. <br /><br />Last week, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao told the ministry that “internal discussions” within UK’s Department for International Development — which accounts for over 80% of all bilateral aid to India — were “to limit the aid further and channelise it to specific projects of their choice in certain states instead of routing it through the Central government”. <br /><br />“Rather than wait for such a situation to develop... it would be better if our decision not to avail any further DFID assistance with effect from 1st April 2011 could be conveyed to the British side in an appropriate manner at the earliest,” she wrote to Finance Secretary Ashok Chawla. <br /><br />Ahead of Cameron’s visit, India had considered rejecting DFID offer in view of the “negative publicity of Indian poverty promoted by DFID”.</i>Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-61410373581964793932010-09-15T18:30:58.471-07:002010-09-15T18:30:58.471-07:00Here's a BBC report about India considering de...Here's a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11318342" rel="nofollow">BBC report</a> about India considering declining British aid:<br /><br /><i>The Indian government is debating whether it should still accept any development aid from Britain.<br /><br />India is currently the biggest recipient of UK development aid, receiving more than £800m (about $1.25bn) over the three years to 2011.<br /><br />Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao told the BBC no final decision had been made.<br /><br />Britain's Department for International Development (DfID) says it is reviewing its spending, and close dialogue with the Indian government will continue.<br /><br />The BBC's Chris Morris in Delhi says there are those who argue that a country like India, which has an economy growing at nearly 10% a year and a massive defence budget, simply does not need British development assistance.<br /><br />On the other hand, nearly half a billion people in India are still desperately poor and efforts to reduce global poverty will make no significant progress if those figures do not improve, our correspondent says.<br />Leaked memo<br /><br />An internal memo - written by Mrs Rao and leaked to a local newspaper - appeared to suggest that India had already decided it did not want any more development aid from Britain after April next year. <br /><br />But Mrs Rao says the quotes used have been taken out of context.<br /><br />She admits that there is a debate within government about whether any development aid is still needed. But no decision has been taken, and there will be full consultation with London.<br /><br />British officials say the tone of the leaked memo does not reflect what they are hearing from the rest of the Indian government.<br /><br />When Prime Minister David Cameron met his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh in Delhi recently, it was agreed that no-one would make a decision about giving or receiving development aid without a proper consultation process.<br /><br />Britain is already reviewing its development budget, and re-examining its priorities.<br /><br />"All DfID's country programmes are currently under review to ensure our aid helps the poorest people in the poorest countries," a spokesperson in London said.<br /><br />India's Finance Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, told parliament recently that India would prefer to voluntarily surrender money if Britain made a decision to cut aid.<br /><br />So as well as financial considerations in both countries, there is an element of national pride at stake, our correspondent says - if Britain decides to cut aid to India, Delhi may say it does not want the money anyway.</i><br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11318342Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-44000394971185896962010-04-23T10:18:24.539-07:002010-04-23T10:18:24.539-07:00More people in India, the world’s second most crow...More people in India, the world’s second most crowded country, have access to a mobile telephone than to a toilet, according to a set of recommendations released today by United Nations University (UNU) on how to cut the number of people with inadequate sanitation.<br /><br />“It is a tragic irony to think that in India, a country now wealthy enough that roughly half of the people own phones, about half cannot afford the basic necessity and dignity of a toilet,” said Zafar Adeel, Director of United Nations University's Institute for Water, Environment and Health (IWEH), and chair of UN-Water, a coordinating body for water-related work at 27 UN agencies and their partners.<br /><br />India has some 545 million cell phones, enough to serve about 45 per cent of the population, but only about 366 million people or 31 per cent of the population had access to improved sanitation in 2008.<br /><br />The recommendations released today are meant to accelerate the pace towards reaching the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) on halving the proportion of people without access to safe water and basic sanitation.<br /><br />If current global trends continue, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) predict there will be a shortfall of 1 billion persons from that sanitation goal by the target date of 2015.<br /><br />“Anyone who shirks the topic as repugnant, minimizes it as undignified, or considers unworthy those in need should let others take over for the sake of 1.5 million children and countless others killed each year by contaminated water and unhealthy sanitation,” said Mr. Adeel.<br /><br />Included in the nine recommendations are the suggestions to adjust the MDG target from a 50 per cent improvement by 2015 to 100 per cent coverage by 2025; and to reassign official development assistance equal to 0.002 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) to sanitation.<br /><br />The UNU report cites a rough cost of $300 to build a toilet, including labour, materials and advice.<br /><br />“The world can expect, however, a return of between $3 and $34 for every dollar spent on sanitation, realized through reduced poverty and health costs and higher productivity – an economic and humanitarian opportunity of historic proportions,” added Mr. Adeel.<br /><br />http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34369&Cr=mdg&Cr1#<br /><br />http://finalizations.com/sewage-water-pollution-and-its-environmental-effects.htmlRiaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-58219934291402020442010-04-12T18:17:32.080-07:002010-04-12T18:17:32.080-07:00The Development Set
By Ross Coggins
Excuse me fr...The Development Set<br /><br />By Ross Coggins<br /><br />Excuse me friends, I must catch my jet,<br />I’m off to join the Development Set.<br />My bags are packed and I’ve had all my shots;<br />I have travelers checks and pills for the trots.<br /><br />The Development Set is bright and noble.<br />Our thoughts are deep and our vision global.<br />Although we move with the better classes,<br />Our thoughts are always with the masses.<br /><br />In Sheraton Hotels in scattered nations,<br />We damn multi-national corporations.<br />Injustice seems easy to protest,<br />In such seething hotbeds of social unrest.<br /><br />We discuss malnutrition over steaks<br />And plan hunger talks over coffee breaks.<br />Whether Asian flood or African drought<br />We face each issue with open mouth.<br /><br />We bring in consultants whose circumlocution<br />Raises difficulties for every solution,<br />Thus guaranteeing good eating<br />By showing the need for another meeting.<br /><br />The language of the Development Set<br />Stretches the English alphabet.<br />We use swell words like “epigenetic”<br />“Micro”, macro and logarithmatic.<br /><br />It pleasures us to be esoteric—<br />It’s so intellectually atmospheric!<br />And though establishments may be unmoved,<br />Our vocabularies are much improved.<br /><br />When the talk gets deep and you’re feeling dumb,<br />You can keep your shame to a minimum.<br />To show that you, too, are intelligent,<br />Simply ask, “Is it really development?”<br /><br />Or say, “That’s fine in practice, but don’t you see,<br />It doesn’t really work in theory.”<br />A few may find this incomprehensible,<br />But most will admire you as deep and sensible.<br /><br />Development Set homes are extremely chic,<br />Full of carvings, curios and draped with batik.<br />Eye-level photos subtly assure<br />That your host is at home with the great and the poor.<br /><br />Enough of these verses—on with the mission!<br />Our task is as broad as the human condition.<br />Just pray God the biblical promise is true,<br />The poor ye shall always have with you.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-58371521814280068752010-04-12T17:35:00.489-07:002010-04-12T17:35:00.489-07:00Talking about begging, India is a much bigger begg...Talking about begging, India is a much bigger beggar than Pakistan. Each year India receives about <a href="http://www.planetd.org/2006/09/16/india-aid-recipient-or-donor/" rel="nofollow">$5 billion</a> in economic aid, mostly from 6 major bilateral donors, as well as the World Bank, IMF and other multilateral donors. In 2000 India was a net recipient of WFP money. However, India also runs a small but long-established aid program of its own.<br /><br />http://www.planetd.org/2006/09/16/india-aid-recipient-or-donor/Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-85471158208994983062010-04-05T20:22:09.455-07:002010-04-05T20:22:09.455-07:00Attitudes toward aid in India are very different t...Attitudes toward aid in India are very different than in Pakistan. Indians accept aid, but they do not want to talk about it. <br /><br />Sometimes, the Indians suffer without help from Indian government, and yet the government declines or restricts foreign aid. Here are a couple of instances:<br /><br />In 2009, the Indian government banned the import of Plumpy'Nut nutrient bar by UNICEF to treat moderate to severe acute malnutrition among Indian children, according to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7398750.stm" rel="nofollow">BBC</a>. Defending the government action, Mr. Shreeranjan, the joint secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development, told the Reuters that "Nothing should come behind our back. Nothing should be done in the name of emergency when we have not declared an emergency."<br /><br /><br />In the aftermath of Kashmir quake in 2005, the Indian govt refused offer of tests from overseas, even though thousands were left out in the cold for weeks after the disaster, according to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/international/asia/19quake.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print" rel="nofollow">NY Times</a>. <br /><br />Here's the Times report:<br /><br /><i>India also refused international aid in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, though it later allowed United Nations and private agencies to help. Three years ago, it rebuffed development aid from a number of foreign donors, saying it was no longer necessary. In short, India has been anxious to portray itself as a giver, rather than a receiver. "What we can manage on our own, we do," said Hamid Ansari, a retired Indian diplomat. "There's a certain sense of self-confidence that we can manage it and, let me say, a desire to signal that you are capable of managing things on your own."<br /><br />Pratap Bhanu Mehta, the director of a private research group here called the Center for Policy Research, saw reflected in India's rejection of foreign aid so far a desire to be seen as an emerging global power, or one of what he called "the big boys."<br /><br />"The risk really is that in our refusal to accept aid I don't think we are keeping people to whom aid might go as central," Mr. Mehta said. "We are playing politics with aid, using aid to make a statement."<br /><br />Pakistan's approach has been exactly the opposite. Hit a whole lot harder by the Oct. 8 quake - its official death toll stood at 42,000 on Tuesday- Pakistan has appealed for worldwide help and allowed foreigners to travel to its side of Kashmir and to the traditionally well-guarded pockets of North-West Frontier Province, the two areas that suffered the greatest damage.<br /><br />Pakistan is the world's largest manufacturer of tents, but still cannot produce nearly enough. The United Nations said Tuesday that 350,000 additional tents were urgently needed and that 500,000 earthquake survivors had still not received any medical care, food or other assistance.<br /><br />There is no agreement on whether India has sufficient tents to care for its own. The Foreign Ministry spokesman said the Indian Army would be able to help make up the shortfall. The army spokesman in Kashmir, Lt. Col. S. K. Batra, cautioned that the military, itself badly hit in the earthquake, could not entirely deplete its own stock. The government's joint secretary of disaster management, Aseem Khurana, vowed that enough tents would be sent within a week. So far, roughly 13,000 of the 30,000 tents required have been distributed, he said, slightly less than half sent by the Indian Army.<br /><br />State government officials in Kashmir said they were puzzled about the dearth of tents. "It is really eye-opening for us, that in this country with such a large population base, more than a million-strong army, and so many paramilitary forces we just do not have enough tents," said Muzaffar Baig, the Kashmir state finance and planning minister. "Every day we are getting only 300 to 400 tents from the central government."</i>Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-65598832045246627852010-04-05T09:33:48.987-07:002010-04-05T09:33:48.987-07:00According to Indian news media, Japan has agreed t...According to Indian news <a href="http://netindian.in/news/2010/03/29/0005940/japan-provide-oda-rs-10500-crore-india-fy-2009" rel="nofollow">media</a>, Japan has agreed to provide an Official Development Assistance (ODA) package to India in the form of soft loans amounting to more than Rs 10,500 crore (Yen 215.611 billion) for the financial year 2009.<br /><br />An official press release said the notes in this regard were exchanged between Dr Alok Sheel, Joint Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, and Mr Hideki Domichi, Japanese Ambassador to India here this morning.<br /><br />The release said the loan would fund six major projects, including Rs 4422.84 crore (Y 90.62 billion) for Phase I of the Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC) project. The total cost of the project appraised by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is Y 498.565 billion and the Government of Japan has committed Y 92.868 billion for Phase I.<br /><br />The project is aimed at coping with the increasing demand for freight transport in India by constructing a new dedicated freight railway system, thereby promoting comprehensive regional economic development along the freight corridor, through improvement and modernization of inter-modal logistic system handling considerable freight traffic and poised for massive growth.<br /><br />The package also includes a loan of R 2932.70 crore (Y 58.851 billion) for the Chennai Metro Project, which has been appraised by JICA at Y 378.138 billion. The Government of Japan has committed Y 21.751 billion for Phase I and Y 59.851 billion for Phase II of the project.<br /><br />The project is designed to cope with the increasing traffic in Chennai metropolitan area by extending the mass rapid transportation system. It is expected to promote regional economic development and improve the urban environment through mitigation of traffic jamps and decrease of pollution caused by the increasing number of motor vehicles.<br /><br />The assistance package includes a loan of Rs 1648.36 crore (Y 33.640 billion) for the Delhi Mass Rapid Transport System Project (Phase II). The total cost of Phase I of the project was appraised by JICA at Y 274.612 billion and the Japanese government has committed Y 162.751 billion. The total cost of Phase II of the project has been appraised at Y 388.670 billion and the Japanese Government has committed Y 211.976 billion. The first phase has been completed and the second phase is being implemented.<br /><br />There is a Rs 1146.75 crore (Y 23.403 billion) loan for the Kolkata East-West Project Phase II. The total cost of the project has been appraised by JICA at Y 140.199 billion. The Japanese government has committed Y 6.437 billion for Phase I and Y 23.403 billion for Phase II.<br /><br />The package also includes Rs 263.82 crore for the Sikkim Biodiversity Conservation and Forest Management Project and Rs 150.53 crore for the Rengali Irrigation Project.<br /><br />With today's Exchange of Notes, the cumulative commitment of ODA from Japan has reached Rs 155840 crore (Yen 3116.81 billion). India continues to be the highest recipient of ODA from Japan.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-12776081108721667832010-04-03T09:22:31.500-07:002010-04-03T09:22:31.500-07:00Here's an Indian blogger's perspective on ...Here's an Indian <a href="http://escapefromindia.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">blogger's perspective</a> on foreign aid to India:<br /><br /><i>India is the World Bank’s largest borrower, In June 2007 it provided $3.7bn in new loans to India. Due to the fake ‘India Shining’ propaganda launched by Hindutva idiots, foreign donors are reluctant to help the poor people in this country. According to figures provided by Britain’s aid agency, the total aid to India, from all sources, is only $1.50 a head, compared with an average of $17 per head for low-income countries. [Financial Times]<br /><br />Gridlocked in corruption, greed, inhumanity and absolute inequality – of class, caste, wealth, religion – this is the Real INDIA. Hindutva Idiots, Your false pride and actions make our life miserable.</i><br /><br />http://escapefromindia.wordpress.com/Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-77637007861460382882010-04-01T11:24:40.737-07:002010-04-01T11:24:40.737-07:00To answer the oft-repeated question of the differe...To answer the oft-repeated question of the difference between aid and soft loans, the answer is that most of what is called foreign aid comes in the form of soft loans from donor nations and IFIs such a WB and IMF. <br /><br />Here is an <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/HG26Dh01.html" rel="nofollow">example</a> of Japan's $5 billion in aid, bulk of it as soft loans, to post-war Iraq:<br /><br />[QUOTE]Japan has pledged $5 billion in total aid - $1.5 billion in grants-in-aid, with the rest being soft loans - for postwar Iraq, the largest amount committed by any single nation, bar the US. The $1.5 billion portion has already been disbursed, and the $3.5 billion soft loan is to be fully allocated by the end of 2007. Japan, the world's second-largest donor of official development assistance (ODA) after the US, is also considering becoming actively involved in an international project to create a new framework for Iraq's reconstruction. [/QUOTE]<br /><br />http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/HG26Dh01.html<br /><br />Here's another <a href="http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/03/11/stories/2008031151801000.htm" rel="nofollow">example</a> of Japanese ODA (official development assistance, aka aid) to India: <br /><br />[QUOTE]New Delhi, March 10 Japan on Monday agreed to extend soft loans amounting to Rs 7,074 crore for seven large-scale projects including the Delhi MRTS Project (Phase-II), Hyderabad Outer Ring Road project and the Hogenakkal Water Supply project in Tamil Nadu.<br /><br />The concessional loans under the Official Development Assistance (ODA) package would be made available through the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). The total soft loan committed by Japan for financial year 2007-08 stood at Rs 8,582 crore if the Rs 1,345 crore loan package committed in August 2007 was also counted.<br /><br />The Exchange of Notes were signed and exchanged between Mr Hideaki Domichi, Ambassador of Japan to India, and Mr Kumar Sanjay Krishna, Joint Secretary in Finance Ministry, on behalf of their respective Governments, in the presence of the Union Finance Minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, here today.<br />[/QUOTE]<br /><br />http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/03/11/stories/2008031151801000.htm<br /><br />Here's another example of US <a href="http://www.cdrb.org/journal/current/2/2.pdf" rel="nofollow">aid</a> to Pakistan as loans:<br /><br />[QUOTE]The major American aid to Pakistan has come in form of loans with varying rates and conditions. The loan dealing with ...<br />[/QUOTE]<br /><br /><br />http://www.cdrb.org/journal/current/2/2.pdfRiaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-50816246279871751342010-04-01T10:20:31.123-07:002010-04-01T10:20:31.123-07:00Here's an opinion piece talking about India...Here's an <a href="http://www.planetd.org/2006/09/16/india-aid-recipient-or-donor/" rel="nofollow">opinion piece</a> talking about India's status as both donor and recipient of foreign aid:<br /><br /><i>"According to the World Food Programme (WFP), India was its 15th largest donor in 2006, donating $52 million, much of it for Iraq and Afghanistan.<br /><br />First came the criticism that India should not be spending money to feed others, when its own citizens are starving or malnourished. Then came the counter-arguments explaining why malnourishment would not be solved even if India did not give food away. Both miss the real point.<br /><br />Endemic malnourishment in India as a criticism of India’s donations is no criticism at all. And to respond to it is to respond to the wrong criticism. Before I explain, some numbers on India’s economic aid program.<br /><br />Each year India accepts about $5 billion in economic aid, mostly from 6 major bilateral donors, as well as the World Bank, IMF and other multilateral donors. In 2000 India was a net recipient of WFP money. However, India also runs a small but long-established aid program of its own.<br /><br />In 2003, it became a creditor to the IMF (remember the 1992 balance of payments crises?). Early this year, India committed $50 million to Afghanistan, bringing total aid provided to over $600 million. In summer, India promised Nepal $218 million in economic aid, in addition to waiver of loans made for military supplies. Longer-term loans included $110 million to finance Indian exports in Africa, $500 million to West African nations, and help to Tajikistan to upgrade and operate the Farkhor Air Force base.<br /><br />Food aid distributed through the WFP is part of a larger economic aid program, and must be viewed as such. It comes from the Foreign Ministry, so it would only be spent on economic aid. The question therefore is not whether this money would be better spent on India’s hungry or on Iraq’s. Rather, it is whether this money would be better spent through the WFP or through bilateral aid programs. Put another way, is India’s aid allocation substantially sound?<br /><br />To answer that question, one must be clear on what economic aid achieves. Beyond the merely philanthropic, economic aid generates direct benefits, often through conditionalities such as political or economic favors. This is best done through bilateral aid. Second, indirect benefits include goodwill and greater legitimacy and power, particularly in multilateral fora such as the UN and WFP."</i><br /><br />India giving food aid seems to be akin to a shoemaker's children having no shoes to wear.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.com