Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Authorization for military aid generally comes from the United States Congress. This aid can take several forms, but the most common are direct grants given to governments to purchase American-made weapons, services and training. Nearly $91 billion has been allocated in this way since 1950, and the majority of this aid goes to Israel and Egypt.[5] Congress enacted the Foreign Assistance Act in 1961 which separated military from non-military aid and created the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to administer non-military assistance.

The act also states that countries violating the human rights of its citizens will not be eligible for any type of aid.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_aid

***

My Note –

Then to give this military aid to Mubarak and Gaddafi (Qaddafi) was illegal.

– cricketdiane

***

US Foreign Assistance Act states that countries violating the human rights of its citizens not eligible for any aid – Libya Qaddafi and Mubarak illegitimate receipt of US foreign military aid grants

***

Hmmm………

US Economic and Military Assistance to the World - from the GreenBook US Overseas Loans and Grants

US Economic and Military Assistance to the World - from the GreenBook US Overseas Loans and Grants

(from)

http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/

See About the Greenbook for more important information about this site. Also see the U.S. Foreign Assistance Reference Guide, which presents in clear, understandable terms the arcane world of international development assistance.

This web site, a companion to the annual publication U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants, Obligations and Loan Authorizations—commonly known as the Greenbook—provides a complete historical record of United States’ (U.S.) foreign aid to the rest of the world by reporting all loans and grants authorized by the U.S. Government for each fiscal year.

To understand how the data on this site differ from U.S. Official Development Assistance (ODA) please see our Comparison of Official Development Assistance and Foreign Assistance

***

This page on a special interest group site has an overview of the legislative appropriations process which is valuable for anyone who would like to understand it – it is a glossary, well-written, easy to understand and does explain why things in Washington happen as they do. This is one of the entries:  ( – cricketdiane)

“Wish list” letters are submitted by members of the Committee on Appropriations, as a special, early opportunity for appropriators to weigh in on their priorities with the key decision makers (the chairman and the ranking member of the committee).

Because these letters are given particular weight by the key decision makers, it is important at RESULTS that we make sure our issues are represented in as many of them as possible.

The due dates for these “wish lists” generally range from between March and May.

http://www.results.org/skills_center/glossary_of_legislative_terms/id=2736

***

Now if every special interest lobby is doing that, it is one thing – but also I noticed that where we, as citizens have no right to be on the floor of the legislature – foreign legislators do – and, where the above special interest group promotes anti-poverty programs through USAID and other agencies to nations around the world from our US funds – other groups could be promoting damn near anything. It also notes the multiple agencies where the appropriations are being made, including from those agencies which would not be obvious sources of international funding systems from our tax money.

– cricketdiane

***

As the chart above shows – over $50 billion dollars going to military and non-military aid, may or may not be completely inclusive of all grants, all loans – the money we send to multilateral development banks and grants outside the 150 Account that covers most USAID funding.

The wikipedia entry about US foreign military aid also includes this note –

United States Congress created the Economic Support Fund (ESF) to promote economic and political stability in strategic regions where the United States has special interests. The funds are provided on a grant basis and are available for a variety of economic purposes, like infrastructure and development projects. Although not intended for military expenditure, these grants allow the recipient government to free up its own money for military programs.[5]

Indirect military aid also amounts to a significant source of aid. Some countries receive International Military Education and Training grants to pay for training on U.S. weapons systems, and military management in general.

(and)

* Military aid is given predominantly to Middle Eastern countries, particularly Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Saudi-Arabia neither of which is a developing country.

* Corruption is a major problem – funds often go directly to leaders who may not share the aid with citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_aid

***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_agencies

***

USAID’s stated goals include providing “economic, development and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States”.[5] It operates in Sub-Saharan Africa; Asia and the Near East, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe, and Eurasia.

* In 2004, the Bush Administration created the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) as a new foreign aid agency to provide financial assistance to a limited number of countries selected for good performance in socioeconomic development.[13] The MCC also finances some USAID-administered development assistance projects.To support U.S. geopolitical interests, USAID is often called upon to administer exceptional financial grants to allies. Also, when U.S. troops are in the field, USAID can supplement the “Civil Affairs” programs that the U.S. military conducts to win the friendship of local populations and thus to undermine insurgent support. In these circumstances, USAID may be directed by specially appointed diplomatic officials of the State Department, as in Afghanistan and Pakistan at present. USAID can also be called upon to support projects of U.S. constituents that have exceptional interest.

Financial assistance supplies cash to developing country organizations to supplement their budgets. USAID also provides financial assistance to local and international NGOs who in turn give technical assistance in developing countries.

In recent years, the USG has increased its emphasis on financial assistance in place of technical assistance. In 2004, the Bush Administration created the Millennium Challenge Corporation as a new foreign aid agency that is mainly restricted to providing financial assistance. In 2009, the Obama Administration initiated a major realignment of USAID’s own programs to emphasize financial assistance, referring to it as “government-to-government” or “G2G” assistance.

The U.S. Government’s 150 Account funds the budgets of all International Affairs programs and operations for civilian agencies, including USAID.

In FY 2009, the Bush Administration’s request for the International Affairs Budget for the Department of State, USAID, and other foreign affairs agencies totaled approximately $39.5 billion, including $26.1 billion for Foreign Operations and Related Agencies, $11.2 billion for Department of State, and $2.2 billion for Other International Affairs.

(from)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAID

***

The National Endowment for Democracy, or NED, is a U.S. non-profit organization that was founded in 1983 to promote US-friendly democracy by providing cash grants funded primarily through an annual allocation from the U.S. Congress.[1] Although administered as a private organization, its funding comes almost entirely from a governmental appropriation by Congress and it was created by an act of Congress. In addition to its grants program, NED also supports and houses the Journal of Democracy, the World Movement for Democracy, the International Forum for Democratic Studies, the Reagan-Fascell Fellowship Program, the Network of Democracy Research Institutes, and the Center for International Media Assistance. It has been accused by both right-wing and left-wing personalities of interference in foreign regimes, and of being set up to legally continue the Central Intelligence Agency‘s prohibited activities of support to selected political parties abroad.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy

(and)

The international affairs budget enables a variety of programs worldwide that promote the security and values of the American people. This budget helps to ensure long-term stability, fosters economic growth around the world, and reinforces a humanitarian ethos both domestically and abroad. The international affairs budget currently achieves all of these objectives for slightly more than 1 percent of the U.S. federal budget. In contrast, current defense spending comprises almost 15 percent of the U.S. federal budget.

The majority of U.S. foreign assistance is contained in the international affairs budget requested and allocated through the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This is also referred to as Function 150 or the “150 account”, and contains spending on global economic, diplomatic and humanitarian programs by the State Department (DOS), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) among others. The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition provides thorough updates on the status of 150 Account budget, including a summary of individual program, or “account,” allocations.

http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/assistance/budget

***

(and)

It has been said that in the 1960s and early 1970s USAID has maintained “a close working relationship with the CIA, and Agency officers often operated abroad under USAID cover.”[44] The 1960s-era Office of Public Safety, a now-disbanded division of USAID, has been mentioned as an example of this, having served as a front for training foreign police in counterinsurgency methods.[45]

Folha de São Paulo, Brazil’s largest newspaper, accused USAID of trying to influence political reform in Brazil in a way that would have purposely benefited right-wing parties. USAID spent 95,000 US$ in 2005 on a seminar in the Brazilian Congress to promote a reform whose aim was to push for legislation to punish party infidelity. According to USAID papers acquired by Folha under the Freedom of Information Act, the seminar was planned so as to coincide with the eve of talks in that country’s Congress on a broad political reform. The papers read that although the “pattern of weak party discipline is found across the political spectrum, it is somewhat less true of parties on the liberal left, such as the [ruling] Worker’s Party.” The papers also expressed a concern about the “‘indigenization’ of the conference so that it is not viewed as providing a U.S. perspective.” The event’s main sponsor was the International Republican Institute.[46]

In December 2009, Alan Gross, a contractor for USAID, was arrested in Cuba. He and US government officials claim Gross was helping to deliver internet access to the Jewish community on the island, however the head of the Jewish community in Cuba, Adela Dworin, denies any knowledge of Gross and says that recognized international Jewish organizations have provided them with legal Internet connections. Cuban officials have said that Gross remains under investigation on suspicion of espionage and importing prohibited satellite communications equipment (known as a B-gan) to Cuban dissidents. [47]
Support of forced sterilization

In Peru, former president Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000) pressured 200,000 indigenous people in rural areas (mainly Quechuas and Aymaras) into being sterilized.[29] In July 2002, a final report from the Health minister proved that between 1995 and 2000, 331,600 women and 25,590 men had been sterilized. The program was mainly financed by the USAID (36,000,000 dollars) and the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund). [48]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAID

***

*and*

Freedom House – (but how is it being used?)

In 2001 Freedom House had income of around $11m, increasing to over $26m in 2006.[14] Much of the increase was due to an increase between 2004 and 2005 in US government federal funding, from $12m to $20m.[14]

On June 25, 2005, freelance journalist F. William Engdahl asserted on the GlobalResearch.ca website that Freedom House was “created in the late 1940’s to back the creation of NATO” and criticized the group for being headed by former CIA director James Woolsey at the time of his article’s publication.[13]

In 2001 Freedom House had income of around $11m, increasing to over $26m in 2006.[14] Much of the increase was due to an increase between 2004 and 2005 in US government federal funding, from $12m to $20m.[14] Federal funding fell to around $10m in 2007, but still represented around 80% of Freedom House’s budget.[14] As one scholar noted, “This is unusual, especially when one considers that the organizations involved in the assessment and monitoring of human rights, democracy and freedom in the world refuse on principle – as a guarantee of their independence and credibility – government funding.”[14]

The authors suggest this can be most notably seen by the way it perceived the US ally El Salvador in the early 1980s, a regime that used the army for mass slaughter of the populace to intimidate them in the run up to an “election”, but Freedom House found these elections to be “admirable”.[35] Freedom House was criticized for taking part in the rehabilitation campaign for the ARENA right-wing extremist party, which participated in the World Anti-Communist League and took responsibility for massacres in El Salvador.[36]

James Woolsey, chairman of the Freedom House, and a former director of the CIA, claimed Russia was becoming an increasingly fascist state, and that Russian administration under incumbent president Putin (2000–2008) was behaving “like a fascist government”.[citation needed] He added, “Mr. Putin and his movement toward fascism in Russia are on the wrong side of history. They are not going to succeed, they may hold on for some time in trying to undermine the democratic revolutions near Russia and in these adjoining states, and they may be partially successful here and there, but ultimately they will lose.”[citation needed]

In May 2001, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations of the United Nations heard arguments for and against Freedom House. Representatives of Cuba alleged that the organization is a U.S. foreign policy instrument linked to the CIA and “submitted proof of the politically motivated, interventionist activities the NGO (Freedom House) carried out against their Government”. They also claimed a lack of criticism of U.S. human rights violations in the annual reports. Cuba also claimed that these violations are well documented by other reports, such as those of Human Rights Watch. Other countries such as China and Sudan also gave criticism. The Russian representative inquired “why this organization, an NGO which defended human rights, was against the creation of the International Criminal Court.”[6]

Human Rights activists have denounced Freedom House for being a political instrument used by hawkish circles in the United States to put pressure on countries that do not behave according to their standards.[25]

It is controlled by a Board of Trustees, which it describes as composed of ‘business and labor leaders, former senior government officials, scholars, writers, and journalists’. While some board members were born outside the United States, and many have been affiliated with international groups, all are current residents of the United States. It does not identify itself with either of the American Republican or the Democratic parties.

The board is currently chaired by William H. Taft IV. Taft assumed chairmanship of the board in January 2009, replacing previous chair Peter Ackerman. Other current notable board members include Kenneth Adelman, Farooq Kathwari, Azar Nafisi, Mark Palmer, P. J. O’Rourke, and Lawrence Lessig,[15] while past notable board members have included Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Samuel Huntington, Mara Liasson, Otto Reich, Donald Rumsfeld, Whitney North Seymour, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Forbes, and Bayard Rustin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House

***

More about the US taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy – which sounds real good until really looking more into it –

Other critics say that the NED only supports candidates with strong ties to the military. William Blum accuses NED of being part of a U.S. government funding strategy to undermine left-wing leaders and “pervert elections”. Others are also critical of U.S. corporate investment in foreign countries, and criticize the NED for not supporting candidates who oppose free trade and the investing rights of US companies. For example, Bill Berkowitz of Working for Change claims, “The NED functions as a full-service infrastructure building clearinghouse. It provides money, technical support, supplies, training programs, media know-how, public relations assistance and state-of-the-art equipment to select political groups, civic organizations, labor unions, dissident movements, student groups, book publishers, newspapers, and other media. Its aim is to destabilize progressive movements, particularly those with a socialist or democratic socialist bent.”[8]

However, supporters of the NED say that the NED supports a myriad of groups of social-democratic and liberal orientation everywhere in the world. NED has also supported, provided training, and consulted with groups which approve of democracy, but criticize the United States, in countries such as Indonesia and Ukraine. The NED says that it focuses funding on democracy-minded organizations rather than opposition groups; however it does not support groups that openly advocate communism, fundamentalism, or dictatorships. Michael McFaul, in an article for the Washington Post, argues that the NED is not an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. As an example of this, he states that the NED was willing to fund pro-democratic organizations even when the U.S. government was supportive of non-democratic governments in the region.[9]

Activities and allegations

NED regularly provides funding to opposition candidates in elections in countries other than the USA. According to Allen Weinstein, one of the founders of NED, “A lot of what we [NED] do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA” [10].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy

***