Quote:
Originally Posted by wraymond
What we do know about governments of all colours does not help to sell the concept of foreign aid. We can decide to boycott products that are believed to intercept secrets but still we send ‘aid’ to that country, allegedly for civil engineering/ primary education etc?
The theory about funding overseas research into obtaining technical info we are unable to get because we deem the process dangerous to us, but might be able to use, is an appalling abuse of our lofty humanitarian principles. I’d put that as worse than bribery of officials. It also leads to further corruption in other areas – once the principle is accepted it grows as more excuses are dreamed up.
In spite of our largesse nothing seems to change and there are always allegations of funds being diverted to other undisclosed causes. Control of these funds that might be better used at home is, to say the least, lax.
All of what we send is susceptible to corruption and misdirection unless totally administered by our own people. They should be under strict supervision with their costs being part of the donation. Anything else is abdication of responsibility to UK taxpayers. And it should apply to other closer-to-home destinations.
Just how many coal mines in China are being closed as a result of our contributions to their industrial prosperity? So we who extoll sustainability and survival of the planet can ban a principle and overtly fund it?
|
I should point out and stress, the theory about research is purely that, a theory. A theory based on my own cynicism and betwixt the line reading. Simply thrown out to offer a potential different train of thought.
Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk