The writer of this article is a naïve journalist. A naïve journalist who admits it candidly and who wants to know: If Pakistan had $1.4 billion to acquire fighter planes from Lockheed very recently, why doesn’t Pakistan have $460 million to help its own “drenched” citizens?Hat-tip Ken Maginnis
I apologize to the Red Cross, to CARE, to Oxfam and other non-governmental organizations, but I, for one, will not give one red penny towards the humanitarian relief in Pakistan. I will NOT give a penny to help Pakistan because Pakistan never had any problem buying military equipment or getting financial help to buy some.
I don’t mind helping Haiti, a small country that has nothing (except corrupted rulers). I don’t mind giving for help to Africa; it’s the least I can do.
I will not give to Pakistan as I will not give to the New Orleans fishermen . . . inhabitants of the richest country in the history of humanity, whose source of income was annihilated by a giga-multinational company with a market valuation of $120 billion, and belonging to one of the most lucrative industries – energy – on this planet.
5 October 2010
Soothscribe - French Canadian on the Pakistan floods
Patrice Lagacé explains in Montréal's La Presse why he will not contribute a penny to Pakistan flood relief.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Lagace is perhaps not so much a naive journalist as a disingenuous one. In donating, one must always take account of the ability of the NGO or charity to deliver. For him to discern the fact that the Pakistani political class is neither a charity nor an NGO needs no sudden epiphany.
ReplyDeleteWhat the Pakistani critics of their own government are saying publically is that it is hard to make the case that foreign states or individuals should contribute to them when their own government has proven so indifferent - let alone incapable - toward meeting the needs of the crisis. To whom was this a surprise?
There's a comparative chart somewhere (can't find it, alas) that shows what proportion of aid administered by different agencies actually gets through to the intended recipients. UN aid is something like 5 cents on the dollar. The best used to be the Salvation Army, with approaching 90 percent, but I suppose even they have been corrupted by Gordon Brown's deliberate campaign to make the entire voluntary sector state-dependent.
ReplyDelete