Global Fund is a fund set up by private rich people and some countries to tackle the three biggies in Health-- AIDS, TB and Malaria. Really if the US hadn't 'buss up' the UN then there would have already been a big bureaucracy in place to deal with these three diseases on a large/global scale, which, with the increased mobility of the population, makes a lot of sense. Interesting to be reading The West on Trial in this decade to observe how the hegemonic policies of the US back in the '50's have turned out -- today's papers reported Donald Trump whinging about how South Korea and Saudia Arabia benefit from the US military but don't pay the US anything!!! Stups! Didn't the US 'make' Iraq 'pay' dem back for the first Gulf War?? And wasn't the whole second World War because the 'allies' basically screwed Germany into the ground with impossible reparation payments for the first World War?
But I digress, Germany, Spain and Denmark recently stopped paying their dues to Global Fund as presumabably they noticed how inefficient it was (HAH- sounds like the boot is on the other foot as that's the US's complaint about the current toothless UN)-- and that too, considering they are basically a creation of the private Sector - from my personal experience they seemed top-heavy with management making bad decisions and bascially doing squat while sitting on the fence being paid-- but then again that could be my jaundiced idea of most corporations (watch your back on the way up and pass the burning match on as soon as you can!).
The Guyana situation had some Brain approving the chief representative of the Principal Recipient being the Chairman of the Central Co-ordinating Mechanism-- fancy-speak for main person in the watch-dog body to see that the country was spending the funds wisely was the same person who is in chagre of spending said funds (HAH- shoulda been to see how bloody wasteful the damm Global Fund was!!). When questioned about Conflict of Interest, the American rep said she didn't 'think so' and the question was never minuted, even after being corrected in the following meeting. So after wasting several hours of my life (on one occasion five hours looking at Projects, being over-riden by a callow youth passing ridiculous and wasteful ones) and realising my purpose was to rubber-stamp bad and secret decisions I left. Eventually Head Office sends someone down to investigate why there's no Civil Society participation a few years later, who, pushed for time never bothered to ask the previous people on the Committee what they thought was the problem. There's a lot to be said for Exit Interviews! So the question is - how does one get around gerry-mandering?
But I digress, Germany, Spain and Denmark recently stopped paying their dues to Global Fund as presumabably they noticed how inefficient it was (HAH- sounds like the boot is on the other foot as that's the US's complaint about the current toothless UN)-- and that too, considering they are basically a creation of the private Sector - from my personal experience they seemed top-heavy with management making bad decisions and bascially doing squat while sitting on the fence being paid-- but then again that could be my jaundiced idea of most corporations (watch your back on the way up and pass the burning match on as soon as you can!).
The Guyana situation had some Brain approving the chief representative of the Principal Recipient being the Chairman of the Central Co-ordinating Mechanism-- fancy-speak for main person in the watch-dog body to see that the country was spending the funds wisely was the same person who is in chagre of spending said funds (HAH- shoulda been to see how bloody wasteful the damm Global Fund was!!). When questioned about Conflict of Interest, the American rep said she didn't 'think so' and the question was never minuted, even after being corrected in the following meeting. So after wasting several hours of my life (on one occasion five hours looking at Projects, being over-riden by a callow youth passing ridiculous and wasteful ones) and realising my purpose was to rubber-stamp bad and secret decisions I left. Eventually Head Office sends someone down to investigate why there's no Civil Society participation a few years later, who, pushed for time never bothered to ask the previous people on the Committee what they thought was the problem. There's a lot to be said for Exit Interviews! So the question is - how does one get around gerry-mandering?
No comments:
Post a Comment