As for the multiple African countries, I could throw in some Jamaicans and Brazilians, if you want.
My criticism is NOT about form but content. It boild down to this: Where Halliburton is the major global war profiteering corporation, OXFAM is the major global hunger profiteering charity. Both get stinking rich on public money (or subsidies), which allow their execs to live extravagant lifestyles. I also pointed out that OXFAM has unsound business practices which are not even compatible with the ethic code to operate in the capitalist lion den of Wallstreet. To make it even clearer: OXFAM is the gatekeeper who stands between the poor in 3rd world countries and the donor countries in the 1st world. Their main task is to make sure that the peoples will adopt to their (Oxfam's that is) project dev plans and methodologies. They introduce 'modernity' and western thinking to the 'natives' societies. They also keep their hands tightly on the purse (whilst being paid grotesquely high experts fees)and make sure that they keep in control. The indigenous people and their leaders are assigned a role of sub alternity. They are also expected to bow to the technical, operational and professional wisdom of their OXFAM overlords. I have seen these guys at conferences here and on the field overseas. It's Burmese days all over again. Hypocrites and hunger profiteers. "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819
NGOs want oil companies to spend money locally (good idea) and to pay decent amounts to the host government (mostly a good idea), but they then say that these governments and local authorities are corrupted by the oil money and need outside supervision (i.e. theirs) to spend it "properly". While they were no doubt well-intentioned at the start (pushing to spend on schooling, local development ,etc...) what they are now doing is perilously close to
(i) neocolonialism (the locals are too dumb and too corrupt, let's "help" them;
(ii) racketeering of the big oil companies, who pay them to get the stamp of approval provided by the still highly positive reputation of these NGOs;
I'll say that ironically, the NGOs are still probably cheaper to "buy" (if more time consuming) for the oil companies than the local authorities, and thus the local populations are probably losers in that transfer... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The cotton subsidy to American producers is loathsome. Cotton farmers in western Texas deliberately plant thousands of hectacres of short-staple cotton and then hope the crop fails -- in order to get the Crop Failure Insurance and so they can re-plant a crop proper to the area. The cotton is substandard, hard to gin, hard to spin, and is manufactured into a substandard fabric. Meanwhile the crop is dumped on the market at much less than the cost of production depressing cotton prices world-wide and is directly responsible for starvation in African countries.
The situation is compounded by the fact African long-staple cotton is prefered by the market and is made into a desired high-quality fabric.
I will be even more forthright: American cotton subsidies starve Africans to death so President Bush can received political support for bombing Iraqis in the attempt to control oil resources.
This drives me absolutely crazy but there is diddle-squat I can do about it except make long posts pointing out policy alternatives in the hope someone, somewhere, will read them, have the interest in the presented alternative, and have the political 'pull' to actually do something to actually change the objective conditions.
