What's new

New donors shake up humanitarian aid

EjazR

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,148
Reaction score
1
Factbox: New donors shake up humanitarian aid | Reuters

LONDON, Jan 26 (AlertNet) - Emerging powers are gaining influence on the international humanitarian aid scene, bringing new funds and perspectives.

Here are the top 10 new donors in terms of humanitarian aid reported to the United Nations between 2006 and 2010, bearing in mind that much of the aid from emerging donors is not reported.

SAUDI ARABIA

Humanitarian aid: $1.247 billion

In some years Saudi Arabia's reported contributions have outstripped those of some Western donors.

In 2008, Saudi Arabia gave $500 million in cash to the World Food Programme -- the largest contribution in the WFP's history.

The world's leading oil exporter uses humanitarian aid to exercise its growing influence, contain regional crises and ease domestic tensions with its large expatriate population, many from poor disaster-prone countries.

Charitable giving is a key tenet of Islam, which has an obligatory annual offering of 2.5 percent of a person's wealth.

The overheads of multilateral agencies are a major concern for Saudi's faith-based charities. Religious rulings stipulate that administrative costs should not exceed 18 percent.

Some Saudi officials have said U.N. agencies are expensive and slow to distribute funds.

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Humanitarian aid: $588.9 million

The oil-rich Gulf state is establishing itself as an important humanitarian donor, giving large aid contributions and shaping international policy discussions on humanitarian aid.

Most of its humanitarian aid goes to Arab and Islamic countries, in line with its foreign policy. It also gives aid in response to disasters affecting the home countries of its large expatriate population.

KUWAIT

Humanitarian aid: $175.7 million

RUSSIA

Humanitarian aid: $137.6 million

Humanitarian aid has been an integral part of Russian foreign policy since 1993.

TURKEY

Humanitarian aid: $97.9 million

Turkey has been warmly welcomed as a new player in the multilateral humanitarian arena because of its clear commitment to established humanitarian principles and coordination, researchers say.

Its fast-growing economy straddles Europe and Asia.

CHINA

Humanitarian aid: $61.7 million

China's reported humanitarian aid is probably significantly lower than the actual figure, partly because its reported figure for aid to its impoverished neighbor North Korea is improbably low.

The world's second-largest economy gives most of its humanitarian aid bilaterally to governments and via national Red Cross societies, although it has increasingly made contributions to multilateral agencies since the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

China's search and rescue team is among the most advanced in the world, and the country has experience in handling large-scale disasters internally.

China refers to humanitarian principles as a basis for its approach to giving aid.

Traditional donors often see Chinese humanitarian aid -- especially to African countries -- as part of its often-criticized development policies, researchers say.

It is one of the largest recipients of the Global Fund.

INDIA

Humanitarian aid: $54.7 million

India has recently moved from being a major recipient to one of the most important non-Western donors of humanitarian aid.

The government refused humanitarian aid in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, and quickly provided aid to neighboring affected countries.

India says its main reasons for giving humanitarian aid are to help countries in distress and to foster friendly relations.

Most of its aid goes to strategically important neighbors.

The South Asian giant has developed a sophisticated disaster management system and helped countries in the region set up similar systems.

India emphasizes countries' sovereignty, giving most of its aid directly to the affected country's government, and stressing that it should not be linked to political objectives.

Indian officials have criticized international aid agencies, saying they have too many expensive Western staff and don't use funds efficiently.

It has channeled some aid multilaterally in recent years, either when the recipient country asked for this -- as Pakistan did after the 2010 floods -- or in conflict zones.

India is one of the Global Fund's largest recipients.

THAILAND

Humanitarian aid: $39.1 million

BRAZIL

Humanitarian aid: $34 million

Brazil has been a donor for decades but recently increased its volume of humanitarian aid significantly, in parallel with its emergence as a regional power in Latin America.

Most of its humanitarian aid has been given bilaterally. The 2010 Haiti earthquake was an exception.

Most of its aid goes to countries in Latin America, the Economic Community of West African States region and Portuguese-speaking African countries.

In 2010 Brazil joined the Good Humanitarian Donorship group.

QATAR

Humanitarian aid: $22 million

SOURCES: U.N. Financial Tracking Service, Overseas Development Institute, Global Public Policy Institute, U.N. Financial Tracking Service, Development Initiatives
 
.
No such thing as aid in global politics, if more then 2 people know about your charity you are doing it for the wrong reasons.
 
.
More Western babbling and propaganda.

Saudi Arabia and China use aid for selfish, nefarious purposes, while the Western darling India uses it for altruistic reasons.
 
.
More Western babbling and propaganda.

Saudi Arabia and China use aid for selfish, nefarious purposes, while the Western darling India uses it for altruistic reasons.
I agree, pakistan has been a victim of such nefarious design of SA, :)
 
.
I agree, pakistan has been a victim of such nefarious design of SA, :)

The article could have just reported the facts rather than juxtaposing their subjective interpretation of alleged reasons behind the aid. It is clear the article is intended more to convey Western propaganda and stereotypes rather than any information.
 
.
The article could have just reported the facts rather than juxtaposing their subjective interpretation of alleged reasons behind the aid. It is clear the article is intended more to convey Western propaganda and stereotypes rather than any information.

Well I guess a plain table with numbers probably would be of less interest to common man(not experts).
You can disagree with the analysis, without rejecting the idea behind it.
 
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom