" thought that it was general knowledge that a condition of American Aid is that the money is spent in America - that goes back to the Marshall Plan era." (Teribus 12 March)

I wonder if the general public is so aware of aid policies? Yes, it is a common condition of development aid, and the US isn't the only country which ties these conditions to aid packages. Some NGO development agencies have been very critical of the way foreign aid is granted. I can understand that it is much easier to get legislators and other authorities to agree to give aid if it can be clearly shown that their own country will also benefit from the aid. But where local contractors and/or supplies are available, using them will probably cost less and will certainly do more for building the economy of the developing country.

Even more crucial, the requirement that aid money is spent in the donor country may be the determining factor in deciding what projects are funded, rather than the needs and best interests of the recipient country. Thus big construction projects such as dams are likely to be preferred to smaller and more sustainable intermediate technology projects.

In development aid, at least the aid is given to deal with an existent problem. At the moment, the US government are talking about awarding construction contracts to rebuild after it does the damage it is planning. The fact that the bidding has been offered to a small list of powerful companies only intensifies the deep suspicion that many of have about the true motivations of the US government and military in acting so aggressively on the Iraqui issue.