Comments on: Aid to Samoa

By: tennis

tennis — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:02:54 +0000

Havent read this blog before but this post caught the eye.
International Red Cross is good..I have helped with them abroad and often promoted them .They work hard.
Save the Children Fund is also great. They are one of the very very few charities where their staff are mostly volunteers and most of the money goes ot the cause.My mother was National publicity officer at one point so I grew up with them.Many charities still unfortunately take large adminstrative fees…
We had a successful appeal for our private Samoan Relief appeal for our charity, in spite of some odd nuisance inteference from some jealous cyber bullies which we ended up ignoring it was so ridiculous and factually incorrect …but our private appeal was accomplished successfully and we also do not have any adminstrative fees right now so that’s good.
Having dealt with both directly,Intl Red Cross and Save the Children Fund are my two top charities and have been most of the time.I can also recommend ours which we have planned since its inception to hold the official public launch next year in conjunction with another event.www.wildingfoundation.com

By: Philonz

Philonz — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:46:36 +0000

Barry, you are right that there have been some mistakes made with all the good intentions in the world. Most of the reputable aid organisations are now very aware of building long term self reliance instead of just bringing in food. Oxfam for example have the scheme where you can donate a goat to a village. The goat produces milk and can be bred to make more goats etc. Most of these organisations will try to source supplies locally to encourage local business. The EU and US have a lot to answer for though. They subsidise farmers to grow crops they have no demand for they often dump these on 3rd world countries and call it aid. Local growers in the third world are then put out of business because they can’t sell their wheat/cocoa/tomatoes/nuts/sugar/milk products.

By: Brian Marshall

Brian Marshall — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:29:51 +0000

Pete, Red Cross make a point of political neutrality .
As I noted, “IMO” which means “In my opinion”. And yes, I have seen examples of organisations that I think are misrepresenting what they tell the public (especially about their political agendas) and push a left wing agenda.
eg Greenpeace are the biggest bunch of leftwing anti-business nuts about. They lie to people and collect money which they then use to fund their further disemination of false ideas.
Another example are the anti-war and anti-nuclear organisations were funded by Soviet money during the 60′s and 70′s and I don’t know any of them that are pro business, yet they all say their purpose was anti war. Don’t even get me started on the communist and rotten socialist governments including the disgusting actions of the Rotten Labour government we just ditched.

By: barry

barry — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:10:48 +0000

I would suggest that everyone be very careful of the ‘Aid’ industry. Only this morning we see a report in the herald from a vistim of starvation saying that giving food (ie: the Bob Gledof aid thingy) is the wrong way to go.

Even the most ‘above board’ agencies spend up to 40% in NZ before anything goes overseas – wages, administration, advertising, etc.

And then you have a look at where it goes. Take Tonga – the king wasted a third of the total aid income (for the year) on his cornation. No way would I give aid to Tonga when the king takes it for his cornation. The money he took was aout the same as the ferry (that sunk) cost. They could have bought a decent ferry if he hadnt wasted so much.

And I think Africa was never better than the day before the colonial powers left. Ever since then theyve gone down hill – the more aid, the more die. Thats of course taking into account the backhanders that aid agencies have to give the administration in most african countries so that they can operate there. There are studies about african aid showing that rarely does more than 10% gets to the actual objective of helping people.

Im coning of the opinion that anything I give will be used within NZ – there are plenty of worthy targets here. And I will be giving directly to the target – not some intermediate agency.

By: Philonz

Philonz — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:05:29 +0000

the Red Cross certainly do good work. It’s important to have a range of organisations in a relief effort such as this though. Oxfam for example have a good reputation for their expertise in restoring clean water and longer term development projects which compliments the relief work of the Red Cross. I think that we could all agree that we should be avoiding many of the rogue charities like the one run by that crazy actress lady. Totally bonkers.

By: Pete George

Pete George — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:20:07 +0000

DPF: I am not such a fan

Slightly more criticism than Red Cross have on Wikipedia but hardly substantial and nothing related to Oxfam NZ. I’m sure they don’t do a perfect job either but no one can.

IMO Left wing agencies and governments seem broadly to be more corrupt than any centre or rightwing agencies or governments.

Based on what? How can you quantify and compare? Or is it just “I’m Right so the Left must be worse”?

Do you see Red Cross as Right or Left?

By: projectman

projectman — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:12:59 +0000

Rotary International, similarly, has a well-respected reputation for its efforts in many spheres of activity around the world. Its non-partisan, non-political, non-religious stance is recognised by the way it is received. As a voluntary organisation with over 1.2 million members word-wide, Rotary takes no overheads and all money donated goes to the intended destination.

Without detracting from the work that the Red Cross does, there are other agencies in whom one can have total confidence in relation to aid activities. Rotary International is one.

By: Brian Marshall

Brian Marshall — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:51:18 +0000

The Red Cross is one of only a couple of Charities that I give to without question. They fund their admin cost via the First Aid courses etc that they run, so that all donations given get to where they need to.

MNIJ, I really am struggling to see what you are saying. IMO Left wing agencies and governments seem broadly to be more corrupt than any centre or rightwing agencies or governments.

By: MyNameIsJack

MyNameIsJack — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:49:35 +0000

Interesting concept. I’d like to see some figures to back this up.

By: Swiftman the infidel

Swiftman the infidel — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:39:12 +0000

No good deed goes unpunished; no bad deed goes unrewarded.

By: Will de Cleene

Will de Cleene — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:20:16 +0000

The reputation of the Red Cross has been respected for a long time. Consider this story about smuggling escape maps in board games to POWs in WWII:

Hall and others familiar with the Monopoly maps say not wanting to compromise the integrity of the Red Cross, the secret service created fake charity groups to smuggle the games into the German camps.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/monopolys-hidden-maps-wwii-pows-escape/Story?id=8605905&page=1

By: Pete George

Pete George — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:46:16 +0000

I agree that Red Cross seems the best way to donate to specific disasters. But I also like Oxfam for general aid donations, they are also relatively unencumbered by agendas.

[DPF: I am not such a fan – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam#Criticism

By: PaulL

PaulL — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:42:26 +0000

MNIJ: there is a lot of allegation of corruption where money goes via the local governments. Particularly govt to govt aid. Is that the private hands you are talking about?

I would argue that govts are a far greater source of corruption than private individuals.

But in reality, corruption is something that is driven by individuals, it is crime pure and simple. Attempting to claim one system is superior to another based on the existence of crime seems a bit silly to me – crime can happen anywhere.

By: MyNameIsJack

MyNameIsJack — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:39:39 +0000

[DPF: What are you on about? What has the free market got to do with this, or are you trolling? Are you suggesting people should not be allowed to choose who they donate to?]

What I AM saying is that, almost every ase where aid money is siphoned off, it is not money sent via agencies such as Red Cross, but where private hands get to tickle the till. That was the gist of the complaints I heard from several Samoans on Sunday,

[DPF: You are using the wrong axis to measure. Governments embezzle a lot of aid money also. The measure should be how respected and reliable the person or organisation is. I would generally always trust the Red Cross. I would trust the NZ Govt not to embezzle, but not certain third world Govts. I would trust certain NZ companies to deliver aid to Samoa effectively, but wouldn't trust Jack down the street whom I know nothing about. It is not public/private - it is about reputation]

By: Brian Smaller

Brian Smaller — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:34:10 +0000

The Free Market at work.

Thieves at work you mean.

By: kiwicraig

kiwicraig — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:30:18 +0000

It is sometimes hard to choose which worthy charities to donate to. I too have a little bit of an issue with charitable groups that also push a particular agenda (whether religious or political) while assisting those in need. Your comments on the Red Cross are good to keep in mind.

By: annie

annie — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:19:45 +0000

Excellent idea to donate only through the Red Cross. I believe they also don’t waste donation takings by involving themselves heavily in domestic politics (unlike Save the Children Fund, for instance).

By: MyNameIsJack

MyNameIsJack — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:11:07 +0000

Interesting post, DPF. especially as it seems the accusations are aimed at donations that went via private individuals, not agencies like Red Cross. The Free Market at work.

[DPF: What are you on about? What has the free market got to do with this, or are you trolling? Are you suggesting people should not be allowed to choose who they donate to?]