Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Corruption in Nigeria
Benefits of foreign aid
Corruption in nigerian
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Corruption in Nigeria
When people read about foreign aid they immediately think of food and water. However foreign aid involves one nation giving resources to another nation that is struggling. Based on the country’s situation the aid can be financial, military, or simply food. The problem is there have been several of unsolved issues with these nations receiving their aid. Several of events has happened where our donations or the money the government gives have been misused or stolen.
In 2007 there was a case that occurred with the United Nations and North Korea; where the state department had to investigate and audit North Korea’s aid spending. North Korea spent $3 million dollars of the United Nation aid. Through this investigation the United Nations discovered
…show more content…
People argue that giving donations (tax dollars) to other nation leaders won 't help them succeed as a country. Doug Brandow wrote in his article called, “Foreign aid is a massive waste of U. S taxpayer money”, he believes that the foreign aid is a program that constantly fails. Brandow later says “Foreign assistance has always had strong defenders. They believed that fistfuls of cash could buy political stability, spur social progress and eliminate poverty in the Third World”. Not only do several of American citizens have this theory, but many of the countries feel the same way. For example Nigeria, a state in with an abundance of natural resources. Nigeria is Africa’s largest exporter, they sit on about 35 billion barrels of oil reserves. Also, they have approximately 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gases. In 2011 Nigeria was capturing almost 2 billion dollars a day! The profits would cover 70 percent of the Nigerian government 's …show more content…
BBC news reports said, “The National Bureau of Statistics said 60.9% of Nigerians in 2010 were living in “absolute poverty” - this figure had risen from 54.7% in 2004.” BBC also claims the trend of poverty will on increase. But if Nigeria is economically flourishing then why do still receive aid? Michael Burleigh wrote an article with the bold title “ A country so corrupt it would be better to burn our aid money” he says that, “Since gaining its independence in 1960, Nigeria has received $400 billion (£257 billion) in aid — six times what the U.S. pumped into reconstructing the whole of Western Europe after World War II.” So what do they do with both the profits from oil and the aid the government gives Nigeria? They us all the foreign aid money to help the oil and natural gases businesses grow and give the leftover money to build small stores, schools, and homes with poor infrastructure. Nigeria misuse the government money by using it to build their businesses and make the wealthy leaders of the state more money, and giving little to none to the people who live
The United States continues to give around $550 billion in aid to other countries each year, making America the world's top donor by far (Richardson). While the United States government only supplies $252 billion to needy Americans each year. Former Assistant to the President for Communications, Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous" (Foreign Aid). The United States need to give money to support the domestic impoverished rather than supporting developing foreign countries because the poverty and homelessness in America is increasing faster than the aid necessary to reduce this trend. Part of the reason that the United States should aid the domestic impoverished is that some foreign countries cannot be trusted with the money given to them and in certain cases, the money intended to aid countries are harmful for that country’s well-being.
Before extending aid to other countries, we should focus on our more prevalent domestic problems. Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous. Almost every American knows it, feels it, believes it." The topic of United States foreign policy is greatly debated, and a decision on how to handle is very hard to come by. It seems as if we are finally leaning towards less aid to foreign countries, as we try to cut wasteful spending. The American government is finally opening its eyes to the realization that all of the aid we are giving out may not be worth it. Our priority should be to help our homeless, instead of other countries' poor.
In a state of national emergency, the United States government is expected to be efficient and organized. When Hurricane Katrina struck on August 25th, 2005, the United States government was not readily prepared for such an immense disaster. The mismanagement of relief efforts by the U.S. government led to a lack of adequate assistance to U.S. victims along with a prolonged restoration period for those in need. Had the government accepted more foreign aid and further prepared for the storm, hurricane Katrina may not have proved such a disaster in our nation’s history. This essay will explain how foreign aid was integrated into the relief effort. Additionally, this essay will explore the government’s refusal of aid from various countries willing to provide assistance and the lessons that can be learned from our nation’s actions in the aftermath of Katrina.
Like most eastern countries that rely on one source of income Nigeria has had major
What Foreign Aid Is There are two words that many politicians like to shy away from, and those are the ones that aren’t two words are "foreign aid. " Taking a firm stand on either side of this topic. is usually side-stepped by decision makers. Their opinions are usually based on a case-by-case analysis. This extremely controversial topic involves whether or not to support the policy of foreign aid to needy or sometimes not so needy countries.
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
The United States Agency for International Development (US AID) was established in the 1960s by an executive order issued by President Kennedy (US AID, 2014). The agency combines development assistance with the promotion of foreign policy to advance US interests abroad (US AID, 2014). In other words – and as noted on its website – US AID “reflects both the American people's compassion and support of human dignity as well as advances U.S. foreign policy interests” (US AID, 2014).
While short term aid is aid needed after sudden disasters such as the 2000 Mozambique floods or the 2004 Asian tsunami. Foreign aid can be considered as an ethical issue as some
Despite the numerous wealth generated on a daily basis from oil exportation over the years and the vast amount of untapped resources laying in commercial quantity, the country does not have a single or recognize means of directly addressing the welfare of its citizenry. Only the present democratic administration has promised to execute out a compulsory cash transfer of N5,000 to the poorest 25 million Nigeria (based on some conditions), pay graduating corp members some stipends for a year and design a one-meal a day for public primary school
Countries in need are not given aid because they hold no interest to the countries capable of providing assistance. When the Rwandan Genocide occurred, the United States gave no aid because Rwanda had nothing to offer, and American lives would have been at risk.
Foreign aid promote U.S. Leadership abroad to protect Americans at home by bring political, economic and social stability to the most hopeless and poor areas around the world. Foreign aid help prevent there areas from breeding ground for terror, disease, poverty, and lawless that can spill over into other countries and directly threaten American interests as well as the American homeland. American foreign aid can be used wisely to help stabilize and develop failing states by building institution; creating economic opportunities; developing standards for rule of law; and giving hope to young generation who have known violence, despair and ignorance. Foreign aid also help affirm and promote American values. U.S. Government program leverage billions of dollars in contributions by private American donors for critical projects in needy countries.
Many experts in the diplomatic and international relations fields believe that American self-interest is best served by a democratically secure, financially stable, and militarily peaceful (as well as grateful) world, with the populations in the world free from hunger, persecution, disease, and poverty. Patrick Marshall, who holds a master’s degree in International Studies from Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, states “Advocates of a robust aid program…say it is vital in protecting U.S. security interests, spreading democracy, and promoting U.S. exports.” In addition, as one of the wealthiest countries and one of oldest democracies, the United States has an ethical mandate to provide aid to suffering people around the world. Also, foreign assistance agreements frequently stipulate that the funds granted must be used to buy American goods or services, such as the aid packages offered to Israel to fund their military which require them to purchase arms and equipment from American companies, thereby returning much of the aid to U.S. businesses (Bearak). While it is true that the United States funds the largest portion of U.N. spending, it is also true that this funding, which equates to .17% of GNI (Gross National Income), is much smaller than other countries’ contributions as a percentage of GNI.
The question to be answered in this paper is to what extent has the resource curse affected the Nigerian economy and government? Resource curse is a term that states the observation that countries that have a plethora of natural resources (e.g. oil, coal, diamonds etc.). usually have unstable political and economic structures (Sachs, 827). Nigeria is categorized as a nation that has succumbed to the resource curse as it has an abundance of, and an overdependence on, oil, and a decreasing gross domestic product (GDP) (Samuels, 321-322). Nigeria is known for its specialization and overdependence on oil and according to Ross, nations of such nature tend to have high levels of poverty, large class gaps, weak educational systems, more corruption within the government, and are less likely to become democracies (Ross, 356).
Poor countries have been receiving aid from the international community for over a century now. While such aid is supposed to be considered an act of kindness from the donor nations or international bodies, it has led to over dependence among the developing countries. They have adopted the habit of estimating and including international aid in their national budgets to reduce their balance of trade deficits. It is believed that foreign aid is necessary for poor nations in order to break the cycle of poverty that ties their citizens in low productivity zones and so their economy will not be weak. However, some critics view the extension of aid to poor countries as means of keeping the nations in economic slumber so that they can wake up from only by devising ways of furthering self-sustainability. Because of these two schools of thought concerning the topic, debate has arisen on which side is more rational and factual than the other. The non-sustainable nature of international aid, however, leaves the question of what may happen in the event that foreign aid is unavailable for the poor nations. After thorough consideration on the effects of the assistance to poor countries, it is sufficient to state that giving international aid to the poor nations is more disadvantageous than beneficial to the nations. This point is argued through an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of giving international aid to the poor countries with appropriate examples drawn from various regions of the world to prove the stance.
Corruption in the Niger delta region of Nigeria has led to abject poverty in the state. State governs in the Niger delta are making living unbearable for the indigenes of state by embezzling public funds for their own purposes. For example in the New York Amsterdam News Guthrie Gray mentioned that “Despite its new wealth, however, the money allocated to Niger delta states does not appear to be getting to most of its citizens” (Guthrie Gray). The means of lively hood in the states has been destroyed by corrupt oil companies and public officers. People in the state can no more farm and fish because their land and water has been destroyed by the oil companies in the area; however, some funds are released by oil companies and the federal government but the government of the Niger delta have refused to put the funds to good use because they are corrupt. They prefer to use the funds for their own benefits, buying houses overseas and having numerous foreign accounts. For about 35 years Oil Company in the Niger delta has refused to give to the community good infra...