Development aid versus military spending - a lopsided disaster - by RM

There is something terribly wrong when you look at these charts, in particular when you compare that to what our political and corporate executive "leaders" want you to believe, about all the good they do in promoting health, peace and prosperity around the world.

If we look at the  5 largest economies in the world, and their latest official figures, re: their military budgets this is what we see. Mind you, these "official" figures are just the top of the iceberg, governments do have a history of hiding some military expenditures in other budgets.

China :  $ 146 billion
EU:           220
India           53
Russia        69
USA         639
Total    $ 1.1  trillion

Please note that the figures above do not include the overall global expenditures, as to military spending, which was $ 1.8 trillion in 2018

 In comparison the total amount of development aid provided to countries in need (OECD figures), to military expenditures  is quite alarming.

 One thing is certain, however, politicians, corporate executives and economists should keep in mind what Abraham Lincoln once said: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time ".  

This EU-Digest report can only be copied or  republished if EU-Digest is quoted as the source

Europe’s Terrible Start to 2016 - Carnegie Europe - by Judy Dempsey

Open borders in Europe are all but dead. During the first week of 2016, several EU countries imposed border controls and checks at train stations and other crossings. The bridge linking Denmark and Sweden is no longer an open gateway to the Nordic region after a new Swedish law came into force demanding that travelers from Denmark show identity documents.

Other countries have built fences to keep out the refugees fleeing the wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Germany’s open-door policy, which Chancellor Angela Merkel has defended, is under threat too. The reported assault of many women by groups of men, allegedly of North African or Arab backgrounds, at the New Year’s Eve celebrations in the western German city of Cologne will vindicate those who believe Merkel’s generosity has been misguided.

The influx of refugees has been manna for populist movements and Euroskeptics. They want to see an end to the Schengen system, which did away with most border controls across the EU, even though reinstating such controls would have serious economic consequences for the free movement of labor and goods.

This populism is being translated into something that is eroding the very fabric of the EU. It is a patriotism based on a nationalist agenda that contradicts everything the EU was supposed to represent. Plans by Poland’s governing conservative Law and Justice party to introduce a media law that will promote patriotic values is symptomatic of the deep crisis now affecting Europe.

Europe is divided, vulnerable, and maximally insecure. Governments are going their own way, a trend most obvious in new alignments of Europe’s three major powers in new (and opposing) directions,” according to the Top Risks 2016 report, which has just been published by Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy.
Divisions are nothing new for the EU. Indeed, it is remarkable that despite its differences, the bloc has so far managed to remain united in keeping the sanctions that were imposed on Russia for its March 2014 annexation of Crimea.

But today’s divisions are different and much more difficult to overcome than previous ones. This is because they represent a profound lack of confidence by publics across Europe in the EU and in the merits of globalization. This lack of confidence coincides with the dangerous and persistent waning of the transatlantic relationship. Both trends are undermining—indeed damaging—the liberal Western order that emerged after 1945. That is the greatest threat facing Europe as it enters 2016. 

Note EU-Digest: the remedy to all these problems facing the EU could be solved by some very precise utopian actions, to include: 1) Put Assad back in charge of Syria, tied to a framework of measurable democratic changes, and stopping all military activities in Syria, 2) Forbid all international weapon sales to all countries, including every country in the Middle East 3) Turn the Middle East (including Israel) into a Nuclear free zone. 4) Abolish all global military pacts, including NATO and replace them with economic development Agreements 5) revoke the EU/US  embargo against Russia and have the Russian minority in Ukraine vote in a referendum where they want to belong 6) Earmark 1 % of all global national budgets for research and development towards developing alternative and clean energy resources.

Read more: Europe’s Terrible Start to 2016 - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Pe

Development Aid: Why European countries give more aid than others

The best-known philanthropists may herald from the U.S., but the leading European nations send far more aid overseas in proportion to the size of their economies.

While the U.S. is much the biggest provider of overseas development aid (ODA) in absolute terms — sending $32.2 billion abroad in 2014 — it falls behind if its aid is considered as a proportion of gross national income (GNI) — a measure that aggregates gross domestic product (GDP) with income obtained from abroad.

"Europe has a long, if occasionally somewhat troubled, history of being strongly engaged in global affairs — aid and development is a part of this," Bond, a network of over 400 international development organizations and the U.K. Aid Network, said in a statement to CNBC this week.

Note EU-Digest: Maybe by cutting their inflated military budget and putting some of those funds into development aid the US could certainly get more "bang for their buck" than pouring it into the bottomless military budget, like they do now, with very little to show for?

Read more: Development Aid - Why European countries give more aid than others

US Development Assistance: OPIC Achieves $3 Billion in Commitments for 2014, While Supporting American Business Growth in Developing Countries

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the U.S. Government’s Development Finance Institution, today announced $3 billion in financing and insurance commitments made during fiscal year 2014. Consistent with its mission to catalyze private capital flows, OPIC anticipates that these commitments will also mobilize an additional $3.2 billion in private-sector investment into emerging markets.

“OPIC’s trajectory is a testament to the powerful and growing role of the private sector in international development. Because OPIC’s model is fully self-sustaining, the Agency can achieve our development mission at no cost to the taxpayer, while enabling U.S. companies, small and large, to tap into dynamic markets abroad,” said Elizabeth Littlefield, OPIC’s President and CEO.

OPIC’s commitment to economic development and growth has led to a focus on investments in the world’s lowest income countries, especially in Africa, which accounted for over a quarter of the Agency’s overall 2014 commitments. Projects in Africa ranged from support for a healthcare facility in Angola to increased lending access for Zambian small and medium-sized businesses.

Highlights for the year included a new record of more than $1.2 billion in renewable energy commitments, supporting both large and small-scale projects across four continents, including what will be the largest solar project in Latin America once complete. This represents a nearly 10-fold increase in support to the sector over the last five years and a resounding confirmation of the economic opportunities that U.S. companies and investors are realizing in these fast-growing regions and sectors.

OPIC-supported projects were diverse in size, sector, and region. Examples include a small agricultural expansion project in Senegal, large partnerships to expand small and medium enterprise lending in Asian and Middle Eastern markets, and a major telecommunications modernization project in Colombia.

OPIC continued its strong financial performance in fiscal year 2014. Through its financing and insurance products, OPIC generated $358 million for the U.S. Treasury and produced its 37^th consecutive year of reducing the Federal budget deficit. In addition, the Agency’s credit portfolio once again performed with lower than 1% write-offs (net of recoveries), an extraordinary accomplishment for a development finance institution taking risks in some of the world’s most challenging markets.
 
Read more: OPIC Achieves $3 Billion in Commitments for 2014, Catalyzing Billions More, While Supporting American Business Growth in Developing Countries | OPIC : Overseas Private Investment Corporation

Nuclear Power - the Netherlands: Support for development aid and nuclear power continues to shrink

Only 22% of the Dutch population thinks more money should be spent on development aid, compared with 50% in 2006, the national statistics office CBS said on Friday.

The contrast is clearest within the two coalition parties. Just 7% of the right-wing VVD say more money should go to aid projects, compared with over 30% of Labour voters.

The new coalition agreed to slash the aid budget by €1bn from next year, taking the Netherlands below the UN target of 0.7% of GDP.

The new CBS survey also shows just 20% of voters favour building more nuclear power stations. In 2010, one third of the population backed an expansion of nuclear power.

The figures are contained in the latest CBS voter survey, which canvassed public opinion on the big issues shortly after the general election.

Read more: DutchNews.nl - Support for development aid and nuclear power continues to shrink

Denmark to provide free education to students from developing countries - by Jyllands-Posten

The development minister, Christian Friis Bach (Radikale), and the education minister, Morten Østergaard (Radikale) want to provide scholarships for young people from developing countries in Asia and Africa so that they can receive a university education in Denmark.

Bach said that he hopes to offer the assistance to at least 50 young people as early as next summer, with an eye towards expansion.

“There are many students in poor countries who do not get the education they dream about,” Bach said. “We can over them the opportunity to come here and then return home and participate in improving their society.”

Denmark to provide free education to students from developing countries | The Copenhagen Post | The Danish News in English

To Keep Wilders happy Dutch foreign aid could be slashed by one billion euros - will Kathleen Ferrier and Ad Koppejan of the CDA go along with this?

Kathleen Ferrier 

It seems that in order to get Geert Wilders "back on board" during the this week's Rutte Government coalition austerity meetings in the Hague, the PM Mark agreed to Wilders demand to slash the Dutch development aid budget by one billion euros, as one of the items to be cut, to bring the Netherlands budget deficit in-line within EU limits.

But when and if the new budget proposals eventually come before the Dutch Parliament for a vote, Kathleen Ferrier and Ad Koppejan, two CDA parliamentary members who have always been critical of their party's cooperation with Geert Wilders PVV,  could very well hold the key to PM Rutte's survival.

Ad Koppejan

Each year, the Netherlands spends 4.6 billion euros on development aid. The one-billion euro cutback amounts to more than 20 percent of the total budget, reducing the Dutch contribution to less than 0.6 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. The United Nations norm is 0.7 percent

Even US billionaire Bill Gates tried to influence the talks on the development cooperation budget. He on his own initiative to express his concern and said he feared that if the Dutch cut the aid budget to developing countries other countries will follow.

To ensure the Dutch budget deficit remains under the European norm of 3 percent, the Dutch government would need to cut another 9.6 billion euros on top of their earlier proposed 18 billion euros.

All by all this means that there is little negotiation flexibility for Dutch PM Mark Rutte. Both Geert Wilder's PVV and the Christian Democrats of Maxime Verhagen could at any time torpedo the coalition based on a variety of issues, including dissident opposition within their own parties.