UN security council bid

[Rorschach]

RAOUL HEINRICHS: In some cases bids will have been - votes will have been bought, I should say, two or three times, maybe more and the highest bidder can still ultimately be betrayed. So it's very hard to know exactly what will happen until the night.

HAYDEN COOPER: It's the buying of votes that bothers foreign policy analyst Raoul Heinrichs. He believes Australia's aid funding has been skewed to win support. Since the bid began, aid for Africa, home to 53 votes, has trebled. Funding for the Caribbean, home to 15 votes, has gone from zero to almost $50 million this year.

RAOUL HEINRICHS: I think the motivations are quite clear. Although the Government is often reluctant to admit it at the risk of being seen as insincere, the motivations are to coddle favour and to essentially buy votes for our UN Security Council bid.

HAYDEN COOPER: Some of those who spend the money acknowledge there's no doubting the link. Action Aid Australia works all over the world. Many of its projects are in Sub-Saharan Africa, helping the poor feed themselves. It's part of a new funding program established since the UN bid began. Action Aid's executive director himself used to work for the UN Development Programme.

ARCHIE LAW, ACTION AID AUSTRALIA: There's little doubt that the UN Security Council bid has led to an increase focused on aid in Africa. You just need to go to the Department of Foreign Affairs' website and it's all over it. And for us at Action Aid, that's a great thing to happen.

ROBERT HILL: No-one's naive, but what I'm saying is that there are considerable benefits in our aid - in my view, in our aid investment in Africa beyond the Security Council bid. Being seen to help and committed to the development of these countries actually supports them in their endeavours as well, so I think there's a multiple benefit that flows from it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-18/a ... id/4321672" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Aussie]

No-one's naive, but what I'm saying is that there are considerable benefits in our aid - in my view, in our aid investment in Africa beyond the Security Council bid. Being seen to help and committed to the development of these countries actually supports them in their endeavours as well, so I think there's a multiple benefit that flows from it.

THOM WOODROOFE, ASIA SOCIETY: What a lot of people that make this suggestion perhaps forget is that the decision to double the aid budget in 2007 over a long period of time predated the campaign and Australia's going through the growing pains of expanding that aid at the moment. So I think it's a little bit unfair to say a lot of Australian aid has been redirected. Certainly we've started providing aid perhaps in greater quantities or to new places, but certainly not just wholly at the expense of the Security Council vote.

[IQS.RLOW]

So give your opinion of what possible benefit to Australia there is...other than your ability to blindly cheer lead for the GALP. Here's your chance to prove you aren't just a drooling ALP retard

[Aussie]

So give your opinion of what possible benefit to Australia there is...other than your ability to blindly cheer lead for the GALP. Here's your chance to prove you aren't just a drooling ALP retard

I am sure we cannot change the World but it can matter if we choose carefully where we put our effort. I first round win like this is a big boost to Australia's influence.

[IQS.RLOW]

I see you are also clueless on the intricacies and implications...but still cheer like a retard even when you hve no understanding.

Let's dumb it down for you...
How much do you think should be spent on having a 2 year temporary seat at a veto enabled table populated by such other luminary nations like Rwanda, Ghana, Tanzania and Congo...perhaps you can outline the benefits enjoyed by those nations? I won't be holding my breath...

Back to the money side of things, that being an ALP supporter, I know you not only don't care but have no clue about but $3.25bn seems to be ok with you so far. Would $10bn be ok? What about $20bn or $50bn?

Just where does an ALP supporters morality about spending other people's money kick in? Oh look...Greece is also on the UNSC. Hoping Wayne will pick up some tips from their treasurer?

[Rorschach]

I'm sorry but you can shove what young Tom Woodroofe said where the Sun don't shine because he's being political, dishonest and just plain wrong.

Certainly we've started providing aid perhaps in greater quantities or to new places, but certainly not just wholly at the expense of the Security Council vote.

We spent $50 million on just one new country doofus. When he says just not wholly on getting a Security Council seat... what do you think that means?

Most of the added and NEW expense has been directly in order to make Rudd look good and shore up the UN Security Council bid. IE: BUY VOTES. As has been pointed out by others. Not by some wet behind the ears newbie wanting to win favours from this government. Rudd upped our foreign aid in order to boost our chances with the UN. His chances too.

Bob Carr said the $25 million was just on the consign. That is, it was spent in sending additional diplomatic envoys to Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and eastern Europe.



Look Aussie if you are so bad, naive ignorant when it comes to politics why do you bother to come here at all?

[Mattus]

A kick in the balls for Kevin.

[Aussie]

A kick in the balls for Kevin.

Are you serious!

[Mattus]

A kick in the balls for Kevin.

Are you serious!

Well sure. It was his vision and hard work but he had to step down and let the doyen de partie and abject media slut Carr take the glory. What's worse they will hand that knuckle dragging bruiser Abbott a seat at the unsc in just a matter of months.

Fly kick to the crotch for kevin, IMO.

[Neferti]

Poor Kev, he can't win. Can't stand Carr. Why on earth did she invite him back into the fold?