new zealand aid and uncle scrooge














And goodnight from NZAID, as the New Zealand government folds its aid programme back into the ministry of Foreign Affairs.


. . .


FOLLOW UP | COMMENT


NZAID is dead.
Well coordinated as it was, the NGO campaign warning government against changes to the aid programme - Don't Corrupt Aid - failed to move Foreign Affairs minister Murray McCully, once regarded as the "dark prince" of New Zealand politics.
Lost in the furore is the fact that New Zealand has yet to live up to big-talking promises on the global stage. An Avaiki Nius Agency Follow Up offers a look back, a reminder that as well as boots on the ground in East Timor and Afghanistan, New Zealand needs more bucks on the ground in the Pacific.
SCROOGE?
New Zealand is among the seven meanest members of the world's richest countries, says a Green party spokesman on aid.
"New Zealand stands a miserly 16th out of 22 OECD donors -- the seventh most Scrooge-like rich nation on earth," Kennedy Graham told a summit on aid, organised by the opposition Labour party earlier this year.
OECD is made up of 30 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, based in Brussels. New Zealand has consistently paid lip service to increase aid spending to internationally agreed levels and place much greater focus on Pacific Islands, claim critics.
SIMMERING
Simmering controversy erupted when Foreign Affairs minister Murray McCully unexpectedly launched a full frontal attack on New Zealand aid agency, NZAID, accusing it of offering a "hand out" not a "hand up" to people in developing countries. Focus on "poverty elimination" was a feel-good waste of money better spent on real growth in "economic development."
Memorably, he evoked an aid utopia: ""You could ride around in a helicopter pushing hundred-dollar notes out the door and call that poverty elimination."
Sounds like the Iraq war.
BLUNT
Civil society organisations - many of them leading recipients of NZAID support - reacted in horror to the sneer, accusing McCully of unilaterally withdrawing from global aid structures. The NGOs combined with rare speed to start a campaign featuring a blunt warning.
McCully's provocative outburst was all the more curious for its timing - coming the same week as an otherwise triumphant visit by Kiwi prime minister John Key to his counterpart in Canberra, Kevin Rudd. Both leaders stepped out especially to announce a special review into impacts of the global economic meltdown on vulnerable Pacific Islands economies.
THE 'SUMMIT'
Their announcement was all but lost in the McCully furore.
Links to the "don't corrupt aid" campaign appeared on the Facebook page for John Key.
Reporting the 'summit' in apostrophes, the New Zealand Press Association quoted the Green's Kennedy as saying said the appointment of former prime minister Helen Clark to head the United Nations Development Programme presented an opportunity for New Zealand to raise its level of aid and become "a responsible global citizen".
"NO SCHEDULE"
Dr Graham said New Zealand's aid stood at 0.27 percent of GNI (gross national income).
He said Prime Minister John Key should forge a cross-party alliance and take New Zealand up the aid charts to the level of "Nordic countries."
Five countries have already reached UN aid targets of .7% of NGI, and exceeded them, the highest reaching 95 cents in $100 of GNI. Of them, four are Nordic. Figures from an aid watchdog show New Zealand in the bottom six OECD countries, with "no schedule" announced for reaching the point seven percent figure by 2015, target date for reaching the Millennium Development Goals, an eight point global manifesto for reducing poverty.
"CORPORATE WELFARISM"
Notable for main stream economic theory and, more valuable, peer review among those members, OECD partners have repeatedly urged New Zealand to live up to its international commitments.
They have also urged New Zealand to place a much greater focus on the islands.
Instead, locally the move by McCully is seen, at worst, as suspiciously reminescent of previous episodes of aid-driven "corporate welfarism" for big-country, big business interests.
"SECRETIVE PROCESS"
Summit organiser, Labour MP Phil Twyford said the main message from the meeting was that consultation with political parties and the public was essential.
"Unfortunately, what's going on is a secretive process to abolish NZAid and completely upend the policy focus and the mandate of half a billion dollars of taxpayer money."
Like Australia, "New Zealand Inc" scrambles to evince a Pacific Way ambience while imposing what long term concerns describe as "bullying" tactics on its island partners. Part of increasingly deathly-desperate attempts to rescue world trade talks - the more countries sign up the better - the same allegations are levelled at the European Union, thought to be third most important aid donor in the region.
MORE OF THE SAME"
In doing so, all three risk appearing hopelessly out-of-step with emerging global consensus against "more of the same" policies that dragged the planetary economy and its climate into global meltdown.
Against two decades of free market fundamentalism is an impression that world economic processes are so broken they need tossing into the back yard and replaced with a new web2 gov2 approach to looming disaster within the next few decades, a world of food riots, water wars, and a worldwide descent from diplomacy to anarchy.
This is not what might have been hoped for from National Party promises to look towards "innovative" solutions to the economic crisis.
UNCLE SCROOGE
This agency has previously criticised New Zealand's record in the Pacific Islands as "petty, penny-pinching and parochial."
Yet to cast New Zealand aid efforts as akin to Uncle Scrooge is to miss the seriousness of the risks involved in the McCully move to disband NZAID and return control to his own ministry.
Given there is half a billion aid dollars at stake, the petty part no longer makes as much sense and, if the critics are right about corruption, then it gives penny-pinching a whole new twist.
. . .

anonymous critic attacks PFF as a ghost

. . . UPDATE Roughly five weeks after their inaugural meeting, formal registration of the the Pacific Freedom Forum took place this afternoon in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, a few hours after this post. NEWS An anonymous critic has attacked the region's most vocal media group as a "ghost organisation." The Pacific Freedom Forum has "no credibility" because it is not registered anywhere, does not have an office or a formally written constitution, says the critic.

"Ghost organisation? The PFF is neither a registered nor a formal organisation, nor is it afflicted to any recognised body. It does not have an established office/secretariat and cannot be located at any given formal
address. What is it then? It is not an NGO? It is not an entity of such? It is just a 'discussion board' of people. Therefore its use of a formal letter head is unauthentic nor any of its materials."
It is the second time PFF has been attacked by an anonymous critic. Under a subtitle "FACTS", the critic questions whether PFF has a "hidden agenda" but does not spell out what that might be. "It claims to represent freedom of speech, advocacy, and good governance - But it has no recognised standing, representation nor legality. For example, how PFF elected its Chairman and its members are questionable. The PFF mandate is 'suspect' and is one of self-seeking agenda," reads the email. Sent to IFEX, a global media freedom alert organisation, the email was forwarded to PFF who released it to the forum's private email list, full text below. IFEX and UNESCO Apia were also criticised for recognising and supporting PFF. Both organisations should focus on PINA, the Pacific Islands News Association, as the only formally established media group, reads the email. Most PFF members were dismissive. "Obviously, this person is very jealous and envious of PFF", said one. Another welcomed the attack. "Detractors keep us honest", said the member. There was also debate on whether to respond publicly to the second anonymous email, very similar in tone to the first. The first anonymous email was forwarded by a member of PFF to the forum with a plea not to "shoot the messenger" about the email contents, also critical of PFF not being registered. PFF was set up to support the Pacific Islands News Association on freedom of speech issues, with PFF registration currently taking place in Rarotonga. FULL TEXT Following is the full text of the letter to IFEX:
"It is with surprise that the Pacific Freedom Forum has been endorsed as a "formal" member of your organisation. The Pacific Freedom Forum is an "illegal" organisation. The IFEX have lost credibility by endorsing an unrecognised illegal entity. "You have brought shame on your standing and lost respect for who you are and what you stand for. "The IFEX should de-register the PFF ASAP until the PFF provide full prove of its registration, location, policy (constitution) as a formal entity. "FACTS "Ghost organisation? The PFF is neither a registered nor a formal organisation, nor is it afflicted to any recognised body. It does not have an established office/secretariat and cannot be located at any given formal
address. What is it then? It is not an NGO? It is not an entity of such? It is just a 'discussion board' of people. Therefore its use of a formal letter head is unauthentic nor any of its materials.
"Hidden Agenda? The PFF does not have any policy or constitution. It claims to represent freedom of speech, advocacy, and good governance - But it has
no recognised standing, representation nor legality. For example, how PFF elected its Chairman and its members are questionable. The PFF mandate is 'suspect' and is one of self-seeking agenda.
"The PFF is not a recognised media training entity - It does not have 'recognised' professional trainers nor is it a formally recognised training provider in the Pacific apart from PINA. Yet, the PFF organises workshops and training programs. A clear conflict of status! The PFF is sending project proposals to donors and seeking funds to run workshops, and joint projects - under no formal policy and representation. The recent support by UNESCO in the funding for media workshop in Samoa in May 2009 for the PFF is a clear violation of the 'partnership' of the UN with a nonregistered/unrecognised entity, PFF. This is against all UN mandates for good governance and practise and a mockery of the activities of the media fraternity in the Pacific. "Warning- that PFF members and facilitators are not practising journalists and go by self-appointed 'proxy 'names such as proxy facilitators, proxy consultants, advocates and trainers to promote their own unrecognised personnel. The names appear to camouflage their true positions or standing, and thus hide their false presences. "Warning - PFF project submissions for funding and partnership with PFF are not in the best interest for formal media organisation. Any organisation associated with PFF or uses PFF material should reframe immediately to safeguard the ethics and governance of current collaborations and cooperation's of media organisations, and standing of the media fraternity in the Pacific. "The PFF has no credibility and does not represent the views of Pacific Journalists. The Pacific Media views are represented formally by the Pacific Islands Media Association (PINA), the formal body recognised in the Pacific region, and not PFF. "All media organisations should reframe from using any material from the PFF in so far as its mandate, legality and representation are concerned.
. . .