Printable View
The Financial Times of London says that a two-month investigation shows that about 1/3 of the $590 million U.N. fund spent for the Indian Ocean tsunami relief may have been spent on administration, staff and related costs.
I guess since they got away with the Oil-for-food graft they think they can steal money from more needy people.
http://news.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=u...340.html&cid=0
And to think John Kerry in the last election wanted to rely on them, and have them tell America whether we should go to war or not. :rolleyes:
This is the same complaint you hear about all aid organisations, they have too much overhead, some money ends up in corrupt hands...
I think it's impossible to avoid it.. Yes it's beatiful to see goodhearted citizens package boxes and send them to Asia, but without any standardisation their efforts are even more meaningless because a great deal of what they ship out will never be used.
I was googleing for a supporting article or something, cherrypicking if you will :D. This is what I found:
http://tsunamihelp.blogspot.com/2005...ng-winter.html
It's quite funny really.
Yes, but the EU has not had it's books audited for many years now as corruption is too high and it is not clear where the public money is. The same applies to the UN.
Before I give to charities (in any meaningful amount) I check out their overhead percentage. If I found it was 1/3 I would put it into the catagory of charities that just exist to make money and not to actually do charity although there is much worse.
You can check out this web site to see what charities keep for themselves
http://www.give.org/reports/index.asp
Here is a story from the NY Times about how the U.N. is trying to clean up its act. They are starting with their "widely discredited" Human Rights Commission.
I hope that this is real reform and that we see more of it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/in...html?th&emc=th
When it comes to disaster relief its not just the UN but every Goverment that cooks the books. Organisations at the coal face usually claim that less than half of all pledged aid monies actually arrives.
Made up example follows.
Country A give 10 million a year to country B for AIDS treatment.
B has an earthquake that gets media attenion.
A promises 10 million in aid.
A stops the AIDS treatment donations.
Uses 1 million to buy nearly out of date food rations from its military.
A then pays its military 9 million to transport the food.
B is now down its 10 million in AIDS treatment and has a load of food that will be thrown out.
This is typical across organizations the world over.
For some strange reason, people with horrible management and organizational skills end up in charge.
Hehe..
My Premiere of Alberta (Thats what we call the person that runs the provinces here in canada) Is giving every one witha 2004 tax form (Just needed to send one in) 400$ each.
Because we have soooo much MONEY MONEY MONEY
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlaGuE
Since you have so much money, would you please allow the UN headquarters to relocate to your neck of the woods?
I'm tired of paying for those deadbeats.