Considering the vast amounts of Irish taxpayers' money involved (€830 million in 2007, with €914 million earmarked for 2008), it is surprising that the Government's foreign aid programme (Irish Aid) has never been rigorously appraised by the media.
Irish journalists are not normally slow in seeking to hold public servants to account, particularly where matters of finance are concerned. Media hesitancy seems stranger still when one considers that the bulk of this money is being filtered through some of the most corrupt governments in the world.
As Michael Foley pointed out on this page recently (November 8th), Irish Aid's eight top recipient countries score only between 2.4 and 2.9 out of 10 on the global rankings of the world-renowned anti-corruption organisation, Transparency International.
To put it mildly, these abysmal evaluations should raise real concerns about the amount of Irish aid actually reaching the unfortunate people for whom it is intended. Yet instead of reacting to the alarm bells, the media has shown little or no interest. The only consistent opponent of Government policy on the distribution of aid has been John O'Shea of Goal.
However, lack of public support from journalists, politicians or even fellow NGOs, who are no doubt fearful of biting the hand that feeds, leaves O'Shea isolated, and his concerns largely ignored by Irish Aid representatives. One can only speculate on possible reasons for the uncharacteristic reticence of local journalists. Perhaps they, like most other Irish citizens, take great pride in their country's financial commitment to the alleviation of world suffering, and are reluctant to pose awkward questions.
On the face of it, there is much for them to be proud about. Spending on aid this year amounts to more than 0.5 per cent of Irish gross national product (GNP). In per capita terms, Irish Aid is now the sixth-largest donor in the world, and well on course to meeting the UN's target of 0.7 per cent of GNP by 2012. For a small, only recently enriched country, such generosity is truly remarkable. Of Irish Aid's eight priority recipients, six are in Africa. Indeed, about 80 per cent of Ireland's overseas development aid goes to African countries.
Maybe some journalists feel it is racist, or capable of being interpreted that way, to point out that the vast majority of African governments are profoundly corrupt. In fact it is racist to hold that a different set of standards and values should apply to the governments and citizens of Africa, simply because they are African. Given half a chance, our own politicians would hardly be any less corrupt than their African counterparts.
Others may be concerned that highlighting how this money is being managed might cause the Irish public to lose faith in overseas aid altogether. However, fear of destroying confidence in a mismanaged but otherwise exceptionally noble endeavour is no excuse for disregarding the fact that a substantial amount of Irish taxpayers' money is finding its way into the coffers of various dictators, despots and serial human rights abusers.
Media pressure on Irish Aid could help force a much-needed change in aid distribution. Bypassing the corrupt middlemen would ensure that the greatest possible number of disadvantaged people derived maximum benefit from the generosity of the Irish public.
Irish Aid will argue that only by working through corrupt governments and their officials can reform be achieved. Not only is there no evidence to support this theory, it flies in the face of all we know about basic human nature. Never in the history of mankind has a thief been reformed by making it easy for him to steal. Like other western donors, Irish Aid is concentrating too much on fulfilling its 2012 UN target, and not enough on monitoring where the money is going. Even if there were sufficient inclination, Irish aid is so widely spread that proper monitoring would be virtually impossible.
John O'Shea argues that, aside of course from emergencies, Irish Aid should concentrate its considerable resources in only one or two developing countries, with distribution and utilisation being strictly monitored by Government-appointed project managers. In that way, he says, aid could be used to create infrastructure of real and lasting benefit. Critically, political accountability and respect for human rights would be a basic requirement, not a hopelessly naive aspiration.
The West does at least pay lip service to political accountability and human rights. However, what potential leverage it enjoys through aid is fast disappearing, as China increasingly gains influence across Africa with its no-strings-attached investment projects.
The greatest indictment of western aid is that for all of the billions pumped into Africa, there is virtually nothing tangible to show for it.
There is still time, however, for Irish Aid to make a real and lasting difference, but only if it changes its distribution policy. The Irish media should be pushing it to do just that: or is John O'Shea to be left as a lonely voice in the wilderness, fighting this righteous battle?