The Compassion Con
One day I should like to understand how the U.N.’s highest
representative in Ethiopia could be unable to see the murderous
nature of these deportations, thereby lending a blessing to one of
the world’s bloodiest and most tyrannical governments.1
• Dr. Rony Brauman,
director of Doctors Without Borders Reader’s
Digest, October 1986
Ethiopia’s awful tragedy is but one reason a
growing number of economists, from left to right, are beginning to
realize that the World Bank and its “good intentions” have become
the chief paving agent for the road to hell.... [T]he World Bank’s
financing of major governmental agricultural restructuring and
resettlement projects had been the main cause of the famine-deaths
of millions, and of the denuding of the environment.
• Warren Brookes,
syndicated columnist, December 16, 1987
The World Bank is helping Third World governments cripple their
economies, maul their environments, and oppress their people.
Although the bank started with the highest ideals some 40 years ago,
it now consistently does more harm than good for the world’s
• James Bovard,
The World Bank vs. the World’s Poor, September 28,
“The UN has its glaring faults,” many people readily
acknowledge, “but it also is responsible for so many important
humanitarian efforts around the world.” This vision of selfless UN
servants distributing food to famine victims, providing emergency
relief to refugees, and immunizing “Third World” children against
killer diseases is a powerful image that has, no doubt, saved the
United Nations from mass defections among its supporters. It is
difficult to think ill of an organization involved in such noble
endeavors. Unfortunately, this image too is largely a myth, one of
the UN’s cruelest hoaxes as well as one of its most tightly guarded
This is not to say that no famine victims, refugees, or children
have been helped through UN programs; indeed, many have. Many of
these UN aid recipients, however, were actually placed in their dire
predicaments by harmful actions and wrong-headed policies of the UN
and its agencies. Moreover, in stark contrast to the portrait of
saintly benevolence bestowed on UN relief programs, the record
clearly shows that UN aid personnel, particularly at the higher
levels, are guilty of some of the most crass, heartless, and
unethical behavior imaginable.
The UN propagandists have cynically
and persistently exploited the world’s compassion as a protective
cover to advance their sinister global agenda. Before we venture any
further down this dangerous path we would do well to examine the
real results of the UN’s “humanitarian” programs.
In December 1985, the medical personnel of Doctors Without Borders (Medecins
Sans Frontieres) were expelled from Ethiopia. Dr. Rony Brauman, a
French physician and director of the international, nonprofit,
humanitarian group, described their experience:
Armed militiamen burst into our compounds, seized our equipment and
menaced our volunteers. Some of our employees were beaten, and our
trucks, medicines and food stores confiscated. We left Ethiopia
branded as enemies of the revolution. The regime spoke the truth.
The atrocities committed in the name of Mengistu’s master plan did
make us enemies of the revolution.3 [Emphasis in original]
Unfortunately, it took a great deal more time before the governments
and press of the Free World decided to declare themselves “enemies
of the revolution.”
The major Western news media “discovered” the Ethiopian famine in
October 1984. Then, for months, the haunting images of masses of
starving refugees and vacant-eyed, dying children huddled in
pathetic make-shift camps dominated the newspaper front-pages and
nightly newscasts. Our hearts were touched, even devastated. How
could they not be, in the face of such suffering and carnage? People
responded worldwide with a phenomenal outpouring of financial and
What most of the people of the world did not find out
until much later was that the tragic drama they had been witnessing
was not the result of a natural drought; it was a planned famine,
the result of conscious, inhuman policies of the communist regime of
“President” Mengistu Haile Mariam. It was an extension of the
communist textbook-style terror program Mengistu had unleashed on
the populace in 1977. Copying the “successful” starvation campaigns
employed by Lenin against the Russian peasants, Stalin against the
Ukrainian kulaks, and Mao against the rural Chinese, the central
government in Addis Ababa initiated forced “collectivization” of
agriculture and began massive “resettlement” programs that
guaranteed large-scale starvation.
The famine had already been in progress for several years and many
tens of thousands had already perished when NBC’s broadcast of
October 23, 1984 brought the shocking reality of Ethiopia’s anguish
into American homes for the first time. But not until May 21, 1991,
when the Soviet-backed Mengistu regime was overthrown, did it become
politically acceptable in the CFR-Establishment media to denounce
the brutal policies and expose the Marxist central planning
responsible for the famine. By then, this “news” was too late to be
of any help in speeding Mengistu’s removal or in averting the agony
of his millions of hapless victims.
What most Americans — and most people of goodwill the world over who
contributed generously to the famine relief effort — still have not
been told, however, is that the United Nations and its specialized
agencies bear an enormous share of the responsibility for promoting
and prolonging the Ethiopian nightmare.
Soon after seizing power, Colonel Mengistu did what all Marxist
dictators do: He asked for aid from America and the United Nations
“lending” institutions — the World Bank and International Monetary
He was met with open arms and open wallets, courtesy of the
taxpayers of the United States, Western Europe, and other reviled
“Between 1978 and 1982,” Robert W. Lee
reported in The New American for March 23, 1992, “Ethiopia received
$1 billion in aid from the West, most of it channelled through the
IMF and other multilateral lending agencies.”4
During this time, the aid officials could not have been unaware of
Mengistu’s diabolical record. Did his well-documented atrocities and
disastrous, openly-Marxist economic policies endanger his
creditworthiness or raise eyebrows at the UN? To the contrary, these
excesses made him a preferred customer with the World Bank/IMF
pinstripes and a hero to an array of UN-backed petty tyrants
throughout the Third World. On October 16, 1984, the UN’s
Administrative and Budgetary Committee voted 83 to 3 to provide
$73.5 million in UN funds to Ethiopia.
But these funds were not
intended for the starving famine victims; the money was specified
for improvements on the conference facilities of the UN’s Economic
Commission for Africa (ECA) in Addis Ababa! While entire Ethiopian
villages and provinces were succumbing to unimaginable privation,
the pampered and sanctimonius UN “humanitarians” were whining that
the ECA facilities were “wholly inadequate” and “sorely” in need of
upgrading. By a vote of 122 to 5, the UN General Assembly, “the
conscience of the world,” backed the committee and approved the
Richard Nygard, U.S. Representative to the UN, noted that the $73.5
million could have inoculated one million Ethiopian children, built
25,000 wells and pumps for 12.5 million people, and fed 125,000
Ethiopian families for a year with enough left over to supply all
1985 cereal imports for drought-stricken Chad.5 The $73.5 million
for improving the conference facilities, however, was a pittance
compared to the big-time sums Mengistu customarily obtained from the
The World Bank, wrote author/researcher James Bovard in
1987, “helped to lay the groundwork for the Ethiopian government’s
current murderous resettlement program.” In The World Bank vs. the
World’s Poor, a scorching indictment of bank’s lending record,
published by the Washington DC-based Cato Institute, Bovard noted
that because of government policies, thousands of Ethiopians “are
being kept in concentration-camp-type facilities, where death rates
are reported to be quite high.”6 In 1986, human rights groups began
to point to UN backing of the murderous regime.
British Economist “cited Ethiopia for the worst human rights record
in the world.” Yet, said Bovard, “Throughout this period, the bank
has provided large amounts of aid to the Mengistu regime.”7 Other UN
agencies and officials performed in the same criminally callous
manner. Perhaps one of the worst examples involves Edouard Saouma,
Director General of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
since the late 1960s. According to other FAO officials and the
former commissioner of the Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation
agency, Saouma held up emergency food aid for 20 days in 1984, at
the height of the famine, because of a personal dislike for Tessema
Negash, an Ethiopian FAO official.
Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner Dawit Wolde-Giorgis
has described his meeting in 1984 with the intractable Saouma:
I went [to FAO headquarters in Rome] and tried to brief [Saouma] on
what was going on in Ethiopia.... He interrupted the discussion and
told me that our representative was not a very likeable person ...
that it would be very difficult for him to co-operate ... as long as
we had Tessema Negash as our FAO representative.... There I was
trying to brief a senior UN official about the impending disaster
and the number of people dying every day and I was confronted with
personal problems ... that was sickening.8
This was not the only
indictment of UN official Saouma. Throughout the famine years, it is
charged, Saouma also carried on a long-running battle with the
Director of the UN World Food Program (WFP) over which of them had
authority over food aid shipments.9 Was Mr. Saouma disciplined,
reprimanded, or even investigated as a result of these serious
charges? To the contrary, in 1987 he was given another six-year
claim on his posh post, along with the usual automatic UN pay raise.
Occasionally, embarrassing publicity will result in a modicum of
justice. As, for instance, in the case of UN High Commissioner for
Refugees Jean-Pierre Hocke. Hocke, a Swiss citizen, resigned in
October 1989 after a scandal erupted over his misuse of tens of
thousands of dollars annually for personal expenses from a fund
established to educate refugees.
According to the New York Times, Hocke misappropriated the money from ... a fund set up by Nordic
countries for refugee education to pay for entertainment and
firstclass air travel, sometimes aboard the Concorde, for himself
and his wife.... Mr. Hocke spent between $32,000 and $96,000 a year
from Denmark’s contribution on his entertainment and travel without
informing the Danish government or asking its permission.
Mr. Hocke has never denied this.10
Again and again, the UN’s pious platitudes and noble rhetoric prove
to be cynical devices exploited by the organization’s professional
plutocrats, who are too preoccupied with personal empire-building to
be bothered with “the world’s poor” they claim to serve.
This point was driven home to Dr. Brauman time after time in
Ethiopia. “Even the famous drought proved to be something of a false
issue,” he learned. The physician recounted that his group had
dispatched a hydrogeologist to the northern Sek’ot’a area, where “he
discovered an enormous deposit of readily accessible underground
water. At relatively low cost — only a small fraction of what was
being raised for famine aid — there could have been water for
But UN officials and government officials weren’t
interested. Neither were the UN officials interested in hearing
about the atrocities and genocidal policies of their “host,” Colonel Mengistu. Brauman was outraged:
I was particularly shocked by the U.N.’s resident representative, an
assistant secretarygeneral installed in Addis, who invariably
dismissed our protests with a few condescending phrases. Even when I
told him point-blank that the resettlement program which the West’s
aid had made possible was killing more Ethiopians than the famine
was, he answered, “I have no reason to believe that these people
left the camps against their own free will.” One day I should like
to understand how the U.N.’s highest representative in Ethiopia
could be unable to see the murderous nature of these deportations,
thereby lending a blessing to one of the world’s bloodiest and most
Ethiopia is, however, far from being the
only victim of the UN’s “compassion” and “largesse.” Through its
myriad agencies and ever-multiplying programs the United Nations and
its adjuncts have wreaked havoc world wide; few corners of the globe
have escaped their “benevolence.” The World Bank, for instance, said
Bovard in 1987, “is a major cause of the Tanzanian people’s current
misery.”13 The bank underwrote the communist regime of former
President Julius Nyerere, who implemented his ujamaa or
villagization program to ... drive the peasants off their land, burn
their huts, load them onto trucks, and take them where the
government thought they should live.... with the result that hunger
has increased in Tanzania....
The bank also helped finance the brutal policies of the Vietnamese
government in the late 1970s that contributed to the deaths of tens
of thousands of boat people in the South China Sea.14 After
surveying the economic destructiveness of the World Bank’s policies
in many countries, James Bovard concluded:
[T]he bank exists largely to maximize the transfer of resources to
Third World governments. And by so doing, the bank has greatly
promoted the nationalization of Third World economies and has
increased political and bureaucratic control over the lives of the
poorest of the poor.
Bank officials are now leading a rhetorical crusade in favor of the
private sector. Yet every time the bank loudly praises the private
sector, it silently damns its own record. More than any other
international institution, the bank is responsible for the rush to
socialism in the Third World — the rise of political power over the
private sector — and the economic collapse of Africa.15
The Debt Profiteers
Likewise, the World Bank’s sister institution, the International
Monetary Fund, has been subsidizing the global socialist revolution
for decades. Columnist Doug Bandow pointed out in March 1992:
Six nations — Chile, Egypt, India, Sudan, Turkey and Yugoslavia —
relied or have relied on I.M.F. aid for more than 30 years; 23
nations have been borrowers for 20 to 29 years. And 48 have been
using fund credit for 10 to 19 years.
Since 1957 Egypt has never been off the I.M.F. dole. Yugoslavia,
which got its first loan in 1949, was not a borrower in only three
of the last 40 years. Bangladesh, Barbados, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau,
Pakistan, Uganda, Zaire and Zambia started borrowing in the early
70’s and haven’t stopped.16 Like domestic welfare drones, once these
parasites attach themselves to the taxpayers, they never let loose.
With the admission in 1992 of virtually all of the “former
communist” countries into both the IMF and World Bank, UN officials
and their international welfare lobbyists launched a sustained
campaign for massive new infusions of capital (to come primarily
from U.S. taxpayers, of course) that they could lend to the
tottering socialist regimes.
Bandow warned against succumbing to the
[T]he West provided some $44 billion to Russia last year without
obvious results. Moreover, once the I.M.F. begins lending to Moscow
it will be under enormous pressure to maintain its lending,
irrespective of Russia’s compliance with its conditions. And the
fund’s record suggests that it is likely to give in to such
For years, foreign money has helped delay the day of reckoning for
many economies. Today the borrowers are left with huge debts and low
growth. They need economic reform, not more loans. Once reforms are
in place, private credit and investment will follow naturally.... [I]ncreased
lending, whether in the former Soviet Union or the third world, is
only likely to waste more money.17 [Emphasis in original]
While these “development” and “restructuring” loans further
impoverish the so-called Third World peoples under crushing debt
payments, they enrich certain Insider bankers. U.S. Senator Jesse
Helms exposed and denounced the shameful racket in 1987 in these
[I]t is no secret that the international bankers profiteer from
sovereign state debt. The New York banks have found important profit
centers in the lending to countries plunged into debt by Socialist
The New York banks find the profit from the interest on this
sovereign debt to be critical to their balance sheets. Up until very
recently, this has been an essentially riskless game for the banks
because the IMF and the World Bank have stood ready to bail the
banks out with our taxpayers’ money.18
To which banks was Senator Helms referring? That is not difficult to
deduce; their loan sheets are filled with socialist client states,
their boards of directors are filled with members of the Council on
Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, and they are closely
identified with the Rockefeller-Morgan banking interests. The CFR-Rockefeller-Morgan
Establishment has had a monopoly hold on the World Bank presidency
since the institution was created: Eugene Meyer (CFR), 1946; John J.
McCloy (CFR), 1947-49; Eugene R. Black (CFR), 1949-62; George D.
Woods, 1963-68; Robert S. McNamara (CFR), 1968-81; A. W. Clausen,
1981-86; Barber Conable (CFR), 1986-1991.
Lewis T. Preston (CFR),
the current president of the World Bank, sports a career path
typical of his predecessors. After joining J. P. Morgan in 1951, he
rose to become chairman of the board and president of both J. P.
Morgan & Co. and Morgan Guaranty.19 In 1991, he stepped down from
those prestigious offices to take over the World Bank, where he now
transfers money from taxpayers in both the rich and poor countries
to his fellow bankers in the rich countries and the privileged
dictators and plutocrats in the poor countries.
“Success,” then, as defined by the World Bank and other multilateral
institutions, is measured by the amount of increase of their annual
budgets, appropriations, and loans, rather than by an objective
assessment of the performance of their projects. Thus, in 1987,
World Bank President Barber Conable was able to boast: “The 1986_7
fiscal year, which ended on 30 June, was a success; our commitments
represented $14.2 billion as against $13 billion in the previous
year.”20 (Emphasis in original) At the same time, the Bank’s own
Operations Evaluation Department was warning that “the drive to
reach lending targets” is “potentially damaging” and is “a major
cause of poor project performance.”21 In his important 1989 book,
Lords of Poverty: The Power, Prestige, and Corruption of the
International Aid Business, experienced African correspondent Graham
It is thus probably not entirely coincidental that, out of a
representative sample of 189 of its projects audited worldwide, no
less than 106 — almost 60 per cent — were found in 1987 either to
have “serious shortcomings” or to be “complete failures.” A similar
proportion of these projects — including many judged in other senses
to be “successes” — were thought unlikely to be sustainable after
completion. Furthermore, it is in the poorest countries of the
world, and amongst the poorest segments of the populations of these
countries, that the Bank does worst. In sub-Saharan Africa, for
example, 75 per cent of all agricultural projects audited were found
to have failed.22
Hancock catalogs numerous misguided projects of UN
“aid” programs worldwide. Among the multitude of fiascos, he found:
[S]everal fish-farms in Egypt financed and managed by FAO during the
1980s have been unmitigated disasters: to date more than $50 million
has been wasted. The farms owe their existence to a single FAO
expert who made a very brief field visit and then proposed the
establishment in the delta region “of deepwater ponds rearing
several species of fish.” [Emphasis in original]
Proper field studies would have shown that the area’s soil was not
suitable for these grandiose, large-scale schemes. The UN “experts”
could have learned something from local wisdom. Hancock reported:
Meanwhile, not far away, a group of “un-aided” smallholders who had
established their own much less ambitious ponds in the wetlands of
the Lake Manzalah area were in no need of any expensive high-tech
“solutions”; far from having problems they were successfully
harvesting 27,000 tonnes of fish annually at no cost to Western
Bankrolling Tyranny, Socialism
There is scarcely a tyrant anywhere in the world who hasn’t
benefited handsomely from UN handouts. Graham Hancock lists many
examples, including Mobutu Sese Seku of Zaire and Jean-Claude “Baby
Doc” Duvalier of Haiti.
According to the 1987 World Bank Atlas, Zaire was ranked as the
eighth poorest country in the world.24 The main reason this is so is
dictator Mobutu, whose brutal police state discourages private
investment and entrepreneurial activity. Mobutu himself, however,
has become one of the richest men in the world, with an estimated
personal net worth of over $3 billion, which he has stolen from his
own people and the taxpayers of the West.25 Since launching this
world-class grand larceny spree in 1965, the “Butcher of Zaire” has
been showered with UN aid and IMF loans. In the 1986-87 period
alone, Mobutu was the recipient of $570 million in new IMF loans,
despite having defaulted on previous loans.
Next to Mobutu, Haiti’s Duvaliers were pikers but still managed to
expropriate tens of millions of dollars of public funds for their
personal use while the vast majority of their subjects lived in
abject poverty. All the while, they were developing a horrible
record on human rights that matched the performance of some of the
world’s more infamous despots. Graham Hancock noted:
Interestingly enough, however, Haiti was a major recipient of
foreign aid throughout the Duvalier era — with the United States,
Canada, West Germany and France prominent amongst the bilateral
donors and with the World Bank, FAO, WHO, UNDP, and UNICEF the most
notable of the multilaterals. With all these “assisters” on the
scene, a question has to be asked: Did the ruin of the Haitian poor
occur in spite of foreign aid, or because of it? 26 [Emphasis in
Indeed, the same question has to be asked regarding the ruin of
scores of countries. The answer is not pleasant. Moreover, when one
sees in this ruination a recurring pattern of foreign aid-caused
calamities and crises, always leading to more loss of freedom and
ever greater concentration of power in government, and when one
observes the same individuals again and again implementing the same
disastrous policies with the same tragic results in one country
after another and with these same individuals and institutions
benefiting from the misery they are inflicting, then a whole host of
questions beg to be asked. The foremost of which is: Is it possible
that the UN foreign aid officials and the bankers who have been
involved in these repeated and colossal catastrophes are so
incompetent and incapable of learning from their numerous mistakes
that they continue to make the same blunders out of sheer ignorance?
To believe that simple incompetence is responsible for these
disasters is to stretch credulity beyond all reason. These are some
of the brightest men in the world, with all the advantages of the
best education money can buy. They have armies of advisors and
technicians — “the best and the brightest” — to plot and plan each
move they make. They have had, additionally, the benefit of the
warnings of a host of independent expert analysts, from all
political and ideological stripes, who have repeatedly condemned
these programs for the fraudulent schemes they are.
One individual who has researched this issue very extensively over
many years and who has argued very trenchantly against multilateral
and bilateral “aid” programs is British economist Peter T. Bauer.
After two decades of critical examination of Third World economies,
Lord Bauer, one of the world’s most distinguished development
The central argument for foreign aid has remained that without it
Third World countries cannot progress at a reasonable rate, if at
all. But not only is such aid patently not required for development:
it has tended to obstruct development more than it has promoted it.
External donations have never been necessary for the development of
any society anywhere. Economic achievement depends on personal,
cultural, social and political factors, that is people’s own
faculties, motivations and mores, their institutions and the
policies of rulers. In short, economic achievement depends on the
conduct of people and their governments. It diminishes the people of
the Third World to suggest that, although they crave for material
progress, unlike the West they cannot achieve it without external
American philosopher-economist-theologian David Chilton, in
Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt- Manipulators, his powerful
riposte to Ronald J. Sider’s redistributionist economics, cogently :
The government-to-government transfer of tax receipts is not
conducive to the development of a market-oriented society; indeed,
it is a denial of it. Moreover, it positively encourages the growth
of statism and the politicization of life in recipient countries.
Foreign aid simply turns the recipients into “little Soviets.” ...
Like other bureaucracies, multinational aid organizations and their
staffs have two main goals in life: spend the money, and increase
the budget (as much as two-thirds of an aid organization’s budget
will be spent on “administrative costs”).28 [Emphasis in original]
On the left too, we have very devastating critiques of the aid
fiascos by reputable scholars. The September 1987 issue of Britain’s
Keynesian-socialist Economic Journal, for instance, carried a
withering blast at the World Bank authored by three British
economists: Paul Mosley, John Hudson, and Sara Horrell. After
exhaustive statistical analyses of Bank projects around the globe,
they concluded, “empirically we have found it impossible to
establish any statistically significant correlation between aid and
the growth rate of GNP in developing countries.”
Moreover, the economists said:
The apparent inability of development aid over more than 20 years to
provide a net increment to overall growth in the Third World must
give the donor community, as it gives us, cause for grave concern.
Even “liberal” Newsweek (a principal CFR transmission belt) admitted
in a 1990 survey of foreign aid programs that aid ultimately hurts
Third World countries because it “tends to prop up incompetent
governments or subsidize economies so they can never stand on their
own.”29 Perhaps the most damning indictment of the UN’s so-called
aid programs has come from author Graham Hancock, who would probably
describe himself politically as a liberal. After examining repeated
cases of the most destructive and unconscionable policies, he wrote
in Lords of Poverty:
“UNICEF, UNHCR, and the World Food Programme et
al. do indeed deliver relief supplies during emergencies; the
quality, timeliness and relevance of these items, however, as we
have seen ... often leave a great deal to be desired.”30
totality of the record of these multilateral agencies led him to the
following very negative and bitter conclusion:
Of course, the ugly reality is that most poor people in most poor
countries most of the time never receive or even make contact with
aid in any tangible shape or form: whether it is present or absent,
increased or decreased, are thus issues that are simply irrelevant
to the ways in which they conduct their daily lives. After the
multi-billion-dollar “financial flows” involved have been shaken
through the sieve of over-priced and irrelevant goods that must be
bought in the donor countries, filtered again in the deep pockets of
hundreds of thousands of foreign experts and aid agency staff,
skimmed off by dishonest commission agents, and stolen by corrupt
Ministers and Presidents, there is really very little left to go
around. This little, furthermore, is then used thoughtlessly, or
maliciously, or irresponsibly by those in power — who have no
mandate from the poor, who do not consult with them and who are
utterly indifferent to their fate. Small wonder, then, that the
effects of aid are so often vicious and destructive for the most
vulnerable members of human society.31 [Emphasis in original]
Even if the UN’s aid agencies and programs were as wonderfully
effective as they would have us believe, our continued membership
in, and support of, an institution dedicated to our destruction
would remain unconscionable. The new global superstate rising behind
the facade of UN beneficence presents a mortal danger to the
independence and liberty of people in all lands, regardless of
whatever appeals to compassion and claims to charity its public
relations wizards can concoct.
We need not jeopardize our freedom in
order to assist those around the world who are truly in need.
Private charitable organizations such as Save the Children Fund,
International Christian Aid, World Vision, Catholic Relief Services,
International Red Cross, Oxfam, Africare, Doctors Without Borders,
Project Hope, and many, many others are actively providing aid daily
to the destitute and disaster victims in all four corners of the
They offer adequate alternatives for channeling our charity
to those in need. In most cases, they do so far more effectively and
with far lower overhead and corruption than their governmental
counterparts, either national or international. Private charitable
groups must rely on persuasion for their funding; governmental
agencies — including the UN’s — depend on coercion.
Under the guise of compassion, will we allow the UN to acquire the
means for global coercion?
1. Dr. Rony Brauman, “Famine Aid: Were We Duped?” Reader’s Digest,
October 1986, p. 71.
2. James Bovard, “The World Bank vs. the World’s Poor,” Cato
Institute Policy Analysis, No. 92,
September 28, 1987, p. 1.
3. Brauman, p. 72.
4. Robert W. Lee, “International Welfare,” The New American, March
23, 1992, p. 26.
5. Robert W. Lee, “The Truth About the Communist Planned Famine in
Ethiopia,” American Opinion,
6. Bovard, pp. 2, 5.
7. Ibid., p. 5.
8. Graham Hancock, Lords of Poverty (New York: Atlantic Monthly
Press, 1989), p. 85.
9. Ibid., p. 104.
10. Paul Lewis, “U.N. Refugee Chief Quits Over His Use of Funds,”
New York Times, October 27, 1989.
11. Brauman, p. 70.
12. Ibid., p. 71.
13. Bovard, p. 3.
15. Ibid., p. 1.
16. Doug Bandow, “Why Waste Aid on Russia? Consider the I.M.F’s
dismal record,” New York Times,
March 26, 1992.
18. Senator Jesse Helms, Congressional Record, December 15, 1987, p.
19. Official vita supplied to author by World Bank on September 1,
20. Hancock, p. 144.
22. Ibid., p. 145.
23. Ibid., pp. 122-23.
24. Ibid., p. 178.
26. Ibid., p. 180.
27. P.T. Bauer, Reality and Rhetoric (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1984), pp. 43-44.
28. David Chilton, Productive Chrisitans in an Age of
Guilt-Manipulators (Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics, 1981), pp. 300-01.
29. Douglas Waller, “Foreign-Aid Follies,” Newsweek, April 16, 1990,
30. Hancock, p. 109.
31. Ibid., p. 190.