5 ms·

Found one for ya: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcla7WoWIpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcla7WoWIpQ The USAID Office of Transition Initiatives (USAID/OT

Found one for ya: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcla7WoWIpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcla7WoWIpQ The USAID Office of Transition Initiatives (USAID/OTI) began its program in Haiti in January 2010 as part of the post-earthquake response, supporting short- and medium-term activities aimed at stabilizing Haiti through support for community revitalization, improved governance, and economic strengthening.

somenameforme 2y ago
Whether this is a great or awful example probably depends on one's views of USAID. They were associated with the Red Cross there in the high profile failure that managed to spend more than $1.5 billion to ultimately build a total of 6 permanent housing units. [1] While that was definitely more Red Cross than USAID, the video also makes no secret of what one of the major issues with USAID is. It uses the pretext of aid, but generally has the goal of manipulating the politics in other countries, which often leads to conflict. Quoting literally from that video, --- ... the following november the election represented a potential flashpoint for instability but also an opportunity for haitians to determine their own future. usaid coordinated the first televised presidential debates and supported voter education campaigns including a mobile strategy using text messages to help with political awareness ... --- Ironic because it's rather clear who USAID was endorsing [2] because his opponent (who lost) [3] ran specifically on a platform of a "more independent Haitian state, one less reliant upon and subject to foreign governments and NGOs." The USAID (and Bill/Hillary Clinton) backed candidate was roiled in numerous claims of corruption, subsequent vote rigging, backing Haitian criminal gangs, and was ultimately sanctioned by the US and Canada for involvement in cocaine trafficking into the US. Incidentally, as the video also mentions, USAID spent their money not on the people, but the government - they built the units for this lovely fellow's government to reside in as the Presidential Palace was severely damaged in the quake. [1] - https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Martelly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Martelly [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirlande_Manigat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirlande_Manigat
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  You can’t just walk into a third world country and expect the candidate pool to be a bunch of noble laureates (we barely have such a candidate pool in the West). Logistically, I would try organize via the government too for maximum effect. Nonetheless, your investigation is important. We need way more testimonials to get to the bottom of these things. Are programs like USAID a grift, or are the people cancelling it the grifters, or is the answer the dreaded middle? This is the only way we’re going to re-find the spirit of this country (because it is absolutely absent at the moment). Americans have always been proud of programs that carry the legacy of the Marshall Plan. I don’t want to get rid of a program just because it failed, anything can fail. We need to know if the people getting rid of these things even believe in goodwill and charity. They may not, in which case debating the finances and accounting is the obvious distraction. This is less about if we have the money in the room, and more so about did we put people with the right fucking hearts in the room. An uncharitable person will fight goodwill even if it’s free.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    I somehow don't get the impression that his opponent, an older lady and the widow of a former president, was exactly into gangs, drugs, and the like. And similarly, I find it difficult to imagine that we couldn't vet the USAID candidate, a musician, to find his ties to such. Wiki apparently states he was well known for "cursing on stage, cross-dressing as well as using homophobic slurs." What a great guy to spend US taxpayer funds to promote. But the reality is that it's not about finding a good person, but about finding a person who will fulfill US interests. By the way the same thing was true, to a smaller degree, of the Marshall Plan. 5% of all its funding went straight to CIA front organizations [1] helping to ensure Europe developed in the "right" way. The same thing continues today where USAID was doing all it could to try to undermine Hungary. It's like all this rhetoric about democracy being about the will of the people suddenly becomes meaningless when the will of the people is not equivalent to the will of the US. And I don't think this is conducive to a stable world order, to say the least. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Funding_for_CIA_fronts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Funding_for_CIA_...
anon291 2y ago
USAID, the UN, and these other NGOs often make life worse in the receiving country. This is very hard for Americans to grasp because we're so charitable individually and thus feel our nation should be as well, but these NGOs interests are not aligned with the average American and they're certainly not aligned with the receiving country's. One need only look at the stability of recipients of USAID money v those countries that have refused. Charity is great but when it comes from NGOs demanding cultural subjugation to American culture and restrictions on how the money works, this leads to resentment, instability and war. Of course, most Americans would probably not just want to hand out money willy-nilly without any restrictions. Thus, in my opinion, the entire premise of USAID is flawed, save for a select few endeavors to a small cadre of countries. The entire diplomatic purpose of USAID is to build up good will abroad, but that's simply not working. No amount of money handed to whomever is going to change the fact that, within recent history, America has undertaken several pre-emptive wars and managed them poorly.
- troyvit 2y ago
  I've heard lots of bad about USAID from people directly involved in it too. I've heard lots of good as well fwiw, and your points about NGOs demanding cultural subjugation to American culture can't be more spot-on. It's incredibly difficult to provide assistance without actually creating more harm. IOW I probably agree that the premise of USAID is flawed. However wiping it off the face of the earth over a matter of days is a massive over-reaction to the problem and is going to kill people short-term that didn't need to be killed if we had decided to take a deliberate approach to dismantling it. > The entire diplomatic purpose of USAID is to build up good will abroad, but that's simply not working. No amount of money handed to whomever is going to change the fact that, within recent history, America has undertaken several pre-emptive wars and managed them poorly. That is just so damn true. We do such a fantastic job of creating enemies of America.
- Xen9 2y ago
  Even with all the social & economical issues within & outside of the U.S., they should in my view occupy the power vacuum for the time being. The real issue is then not that U.S. is evil, but that you cannot both be the tyrant playing zero sum with China & Russia, and the gentleman. Security wise U.S. cannot even if they can intervene with socially bad policy except to prevent widespread civil arrest etc which is why CIA exists. U.S. pre-emptive wars were good for the military-industrial apparatus that keeps them in power & made sure others can't get those places. In global strategy terms, I suspevt Web3 & DeFi should be seen as an economical third party that reduces Chinese & Russian share of the Western economical pie at times dollar weakens. The public can never understand that you need to be "though" to win because might makes right in statescraft & geopoli, so the U.S has to censor the internet including inside NATO to prevent economical ties' risk of dying due political pressure. It's understandable. If the game is played classified, and most humans hesitate to pull a gun's trigger, they have no idea about the world inside the entities that protect them. They cannot see that it's a very very zero-sum world, hobbesian world. This is different from human history because WWII ±25 years we boiled over the techno-industrial pot, and nowadays all of the seemingly evil work of US & its agencies is, actually, necessary for the survival of mankind.

somenameforme 2y ago

Whether this is a great or awful example probably depends on one's views of USAID. They were associated with the Red Cross there in the high profile failure that managed to spend more than $1.5 billion to ultimately build a total of 6 permanent housing units. [1] While that was definitely more Red Cross than USAID, the video also makes no secret of what one of the major issues with USAID is. It uses the pretext of aid, but generally has the goal of manipulating the politics in other countries, which often leads to conflict. Quoting literally from that video, --- ... the following november the election represented a potential flashpoint for instability but also an opportunity for haitians to determine their own future. usaid coordinated the first televised presidential debates and supported voter education campaigns including a mobile strategy using text messages to help with political awareness ... --- Ironic because it's rather clear who USAID was endorsing [2] because his opponent (who lost) [3] ran specifically on a platform of a "more independent Haitian state, one less reliant upon and subject to foreign governments and NGOs." The USAID (and Bill/Hillary Clinton) backed candidate was roiled in numerous claims of corruption, subsequent vote rigging, backing Haitian criminal gangs, and was ultimately sanctioned by the US and Canada for involvement in cocaine trafficking into the US. Incidentally, as the video also mentions, USAID spent their money not on the people, but the government - they built the units for this lovely fellow's government to reside in as the Presidential Palace was severely damaged in the quake. [1] - https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Martelly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Martelly [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirlande_Manigat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirlande_Manigat

bloomingkales 2y ago
You can’t just walk into a third world country and expect the candidate pool to be a bunch of noble laureates (we barely have such a candidate pool in the West). Logistically, I would try organize via the government too for maximum effect. Nonetheless, your investigation is important. We need way more testimonials to get to the bottom of these things. Are programs like USAID a grift, or are the people cancelling it the grifters, or is the answer the dreaded middle? This is the only way we’re going to re-find the spirit of this country (because it is absolutely absent at the moment). Americans have always been proud of programs that carry the legacy of the Marshall Plan. I don’t want to get rid of a program just because it failed, anything can fail. We need to know if the people getting rid of these things even believe in goodwill and charity. They may not, in which case debating the finances and accounting is the obvious distraction. This is less about if we have the money in the room, and more so about did we put people with the right fucking hearts in the room. An uncharitable person will fight goodwill even if it’s free.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  I somehow don't get the impression that his opponent, an older lady and the widow of a former president, was exactly into gangs, drugs, and the like. And similarly, I find it difficult to imagine that we couldn't vet the USAID candidate, a musician, to find his ties to such. Wiki apparently states he was well known for "cursing on stage, cross-dressing as well as using homophobic slurs." What a great guy to spend US taxpayer funds to promote. But the reality is that it's not about finding a good person, but about finding a person who will fulfill US interests. By the way the same thing was true, to a smaller degree, of the Marshall Plan. 5% of all its funding went straight to CIA front organizations [1] helping to ensure Europe developed in the "right" way. The same thing continues today where USAID was doing all it could to try to undermine Hungary. It's like all this rhetoric about democracy being about the will of the people suddenly becomes meaningless when the will of the people is not equivalent to the will of the US. And I don't think this is conducive to a stable world order, to say the least. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Funding_for_CIA_fronts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Funding_for_CIA_...

anon291 2y ago

USAID, the UN, and these other NGOs often make life worse in the receiving country. This is very hard for Americans to grasp because we're so charitable individually and thus feel our nation should be as well, but these NGOs interests are not aligned with the average American and they're certainly not aligned with the receiving country's. One need only look at the stability of recipients of USAID money v those countries that have refused. Charity is great but when it comes from NGOs demanding cultural subjugation to American culture and restrictions on how the money works, this leads to resentment, instability and war. Of course, most Americans would probably not just want to hand out money willy-nilly without any restrictions. Thus, in my opinion, the entire premise of USAID is flawed, save for a select few endeavors to a small cadre of countries. The entire diplomatic purpose of USAID is to build up good will abroad, but that's simply not working. No amount of money handed to whomever is going to change the fact that, within recent history, America has undertaken several pre-emptive wars and managed them poorly.

troyvit 2y ago
I've heard lots of bad about USAID from people directly involved in it too. I've heard lots of good as well fwiw, and your points about NGOs demanding cultural subjugation to American culture can't be more spot-on. It's incredibly difficult to provide assistance without actually creating more harm. IOW I probably agree that the premise of USAID is flawed. However wiping it off the face of the earth over a matter of days is a massive over-reaction to the problem and is going to kill people short-term that didn't need to be killed if we had decided to take a deliberate approach to dismantling it. > The entire diplomatic purpose of USAID is to build up good will abroad, but that's simply not working. No amount of money handed to whomever is going to change the fact that, within recent history, America has undertaken several pre-emptive wars and managed them poorly. That is just so damn true. We do such a fantastic job of creating enemies of America.
Xen9 2y ago
Even with all the social & economical issues within & outside of the U.S., they should in my view occupy the power vacuum for the time being. The real issue is then not that U.S. is evil, but that you cannot both be the tyrant playing zero sum with China & Russia, and the gentleman. Security wise U.S. cannot even if they can intervene with socially bad policy except to prevent widespread civil arrest etc which is why CIA exists. U.S. pre-emptive wars were good for the military-industrial apparatus that keeps them in power & made sure others can't get those places. In global strategy terms, I suspevt Web3 & DeFi should be seen as an economical third party that reduces Chinese & Russian share of the Western economical pie at times dollar weakens. The public can never understand that you need to be "though" to win because might makes right in statescraft & geopoli, so the U.S has to censor the internet including inside NATO to prevent economical ties' risk of dying due political pressure. It's understandable. If the game is played classified, and most humans hesitate to pull a gun's trigger, they have no idea about the world inside the entities that protect them. They cannot see that it's a very very zero-sum world, hobbesian world. This is different from human history because WWII ±25 years we boiled over the techno-industrial pot, and nowadays all of the seemingly evil work of US & its agencies is, actually, necessary for the survival of mankind.