The worst of these has been one that's been around for a long time, Oxfam, an organisation that is becoming less and less embarrassed about advocating its socialist agenda due to not been challenged in our now morally inverted, post-modern world.
When the person in the street gives to charity it's done completely apolitically and out of the goodness of their hearts with the hope that people who haven't got enough food or clothing can be taken care of and that important projects (such as building wells, schools or hospitals) can take place.
Check out the home page of Oxfam and determine whether their agenda is poverty relief and infrastructure projects or the usual litany of leftist causes-du-jour.
The first give away that they're a leftist advocacy group is their motto "United for a more equitable world". Surely, a charity's motto should be something like "Empowering the poor to feed themselves, teach their children and build a better life"?
The three areas of concern, as highlighted on Oxfam's home page are:
- Adapting to climate change
- Women build peace in Ethiopia
- G8 Summit 2007
- Oxfam reaction to G8 agreement on climate change
- Killed by HIV/AIDS: the cost of G8 penny-pinching in Germany?
- New World Bank President will need to prove he is right for the job
- Governments look away as Chad crisis worsens
A climate change advocacy position in which they're aiming to pick the pockets of "Rich countries" to the tune of $50B each year; a priority of women's rights (a big thing in the NGO world) over reducing hunger and addressing lack of infrastructure; a negative opinion on the G8 meeting (huge surprise, that); the accusation that "Rich nations" are killing people by not funding cheap HIV/AIDS medicines; and an opinion piece on the new World Bank President - read that one, it will make your hair curl. No wonder they didn't like Paul Wolfowitz. He was taking too hard a line on corruption within the system. Can't have that.
In the article on the Chad crisis, Oxfam criticises rich nations, including Australia, for not sending enough aid money. Chad is a land-locked African country of some 10 million people bordering Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Libya, Niger, Nigeria and Sudan. A couple of US companies have invested $4B in drilling for oil in the country's south and it's anticipated that reserves of 2B barrels exist - more than $100B at today's prices. Gaining independence from France in 1960 it's had a history of conflict and violence in the nearly 50 years since.
Here is a perfect example of an African nation that has the internal resources to improve the lot of its people but whose corrupt leaders end up achieving poverty, hunger and despair. Why would anyone in their right mind want to provide aid assistance to a country like Chad?
All of that is not a problem for advocacy groups like Oxfam, though, who are always prepared to turn a blind eye to government corruption as long as their own political agenda can be advanced.
Here's the front cover of Oxfam's new Strategic Plan 2007-2012.
"Demanding justice" seems an overwhelmingly ironic title for an organisation that happily panders to corrupt governments throughout the countries in which it operates.
And what are Oxfam's four main aims?
- Economic justice
- Essential services
- Rights in crisis
- Gender justice
If you look through the Strategic Plan under Essential services, an aim that you would expect to be focused on helping the poor help themselves, then you might be surprised to see:
- demand that national governments fulfill their responsibilities for equitable delivery of good quality health, education, water and sanitation, especially for women and excluded groups.
- support civil society organizations and alliances to hold governments accountable for the delivery of these services.
- ensure better policies and more funding from rich countries and international institutions, as well as make sure they honor already existing commitments on aid and debt reduction.
Where is Oxfam's drive to improve people's lives by helping them help themselves?
Unfortunately, less than half of every dollar donated to Oxfam goes to what the public expects a charity to be doing. The rest goes on supporting the socialist political goals that, ironically, maintain the ongoing poverty and immiserisation of their core constituency as was proven beyond doubt, and to the cost of 100 million people, in the 20th century.
Oxfam really is a disgraceful organisation. Please think twice before donating to them.