China's economy has grown so fast, that even as it today towers over most developed nations, and in fact finances their budget deficits... it's still receiving foreign aid from them:

China spent tens of billions of dollars on a dazzling 2008 Olympics. It has sent astronauts into space. It recently became the world's second largest economy. Yet it gets more than $2.5 billion a year in foreign government aid - and taxpayers and lawmakers in donor countries are increasingly asking why.

With the global economic slowdown crimping government budgets, many countries are finding such generosity politically and economically untenable. China says it's still a developing country in need of aid, while some critics argue that the money should go to poorer countries in Africa and elsewhere.

Germany and Britain have moved in recent months to reduce or phase out aid. Japan, long China's biggest donor, halted new low-interest loans in 2008.

"People in the U.K. or people in the West see the kind of flawless expenditure on the Olympics and the (Shanghai) Expo and it's really difficult to get them to think the U.K. should still be giving aid to China," said Adrian Davis, head of the British government aid agency in Beijing, which plans to wrap up its projects in China by March.

In 2008, based on most recent data from the OECD, Japan gave $1.2 billion, while Germany gave about half this. France and Britain are the next two largest donors, while the U.S. only gave $68 million due to restrictions post-Tianamen Square. While the figures involved are small relative to each developed nation, the funny thing is that all of these developed nations are running budget deficits, while China is accumulating the amount of foreign debt it owns.

It's almost as if Japan (Or the U.S.) gives aid money to China, but then finances this charity by taking a loan from China, then paying interest to China on the charity it provided... to China. Yes the world is a complex place, but it's just an extremely peculiar arrangement here.

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-just-became-the-worlds-second-most-powerful-economy-but-its-still-receiving-25-billion-in-foreign-aid-2010-9

------------------------

Superpower,,,lol

------------------------

Back in 2001, I was the lead U.S. negotiator in international talks meant to transform the way that poor countries fight some of the world's most pernicious diseases -- HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Our vision looked like this: Instead of each country spending on its own, rich countries would pool donations into one coordinated fund that would give grants to help resource-strapped countries purchase medicines, build health programs, and prevent the diseases from spreading. We imagined the bulk of the money ending up in places like Lesotho, Haiti, and Uganda, where these three diseases have reached crisis levels. So it might surprise and concern you -- as much as it still does me -- to learn that one of the top grant recipients isn't in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, or impoverished Central Asia. It's a country with $2.5 trillion in foreign currency reserves.

Over the eight years since the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria first launched, China has applied for and been awarded nearly $1 billion in grants, becoming the fourth-largest recipient of funds behind Ethiopia, India, and Tanzania. Already, the country has drawn nearly $500 million from this credit line and soon expects to receive $165 million in new grants. China's aggregate award from the fund is nearly three times larger than that of South Africa, one of the most affected countries from these three diseases. Moreover, China has won malaria grant money totaling $149 million (and $89 million more might be on the way) -- in a country where only 38 deaths from the mosquito-borne illness were reported last year. That is more than the $122 million awarded to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which reported nearly 25,000 malaria deaths during the same period. In fact, only seven sub-Saharan African countries receive more malaria aid than China -- and 29 countries in Africa get less. Combined, those 29 countries report 64,000 deaths from the disease each year.

China has aggressively pursued Global Fund grants and has continued to win significant amounts with every passing year. Beijing does make a nominal contribution to the fund of $2 million annually, meaning that it has donated $16 million over the last eight years. By comparison, the United States, the leading donor, has committed $5.5 billion, and France has offered $2.5 billion over the same period. These contributing countries expect no financial return for their gift, but China has recouped its spending by 60 times.

Even more alarming, China's persistent appetite threatens to undermine the entire premise behind the Global Fund. The organization's leadership is trying to solicit between $13 billion and $20 billion to cover its next three years of operations -- a tall order at a time of global recession. Donors will grow even more reluctant if they realize that substantial funds are being awarded to a country that can more than pay for its own health programs.

How did China ever become eligible for grants in the first place? In short, because of a loophole. The Global Fund decides eligibility for grants based on the World Bank's classification system, which divides countries by income. High-income countries such as the United States, the European industrial countries, and Japan are ineligible. Low-income countries, including many in sub-Saharan Africa, are grant-eligible. In between, so-called lower-middle-income countries like China are eligible if the grants are part of a cost-sharing program through which the fund pays up to 65 percent and the country pays the rest. (China stays in this lower-middle-income category because its huge population keeps per capita figures down.) The country competes with the likes of Bolivia, Cameroon, and India in this category. But because the fund's pot of money isn't allocated by income group, any grants that China wins reduce the remaining money available for all eligible countries.

For a country like Cameroon, cost-sharing grants make a lot of sense. By giving part of the full amount, the fund can spur the host government into investing more of its discretionary budget in health. The extra cash can build health infrastructure and capacity, preparing the country to wean itself from foreign funds. But in China's case, the argument for a Global Fund grant is tenuous at best. During the depths of the world economic crisis in 2008, China put forth a massive economic stimulus package of $586 billion that included new health and education spending of $27 billion. The government announced its intention to boost rural health coverage with $125 billion in spending over the next several years. Even a fraction of that promised amount would negate any need by China to draw upon the Global Fund.

This is not to say, of course, that China's health system does not face formidable challenges. Indeed, global health policymakers worry that HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis in particular could rise dramatically as the country urbanizes and industrializes and a new middle class veers away from traditional social mores. Everyone remembers the SARS outbreak in 2002 and 2003 that practically shut down major cities in China. And beyond specific threats, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the chief implementer of the Global Fund portfolio and officiator of the government's public health strategy, has hard work ahead to build up China's health workforce and medical infrastructure.

But China might want these grants for reasons having more to do with politics than public health. The Health Ministry is the only member of China's policymaking State Council not led by a political party member. As such, its ability to compete for domestic funds pales in comparison with other assertive, powerful ministries led by longstanding party leaders. So the Health Ministry might be driven to external funding by political necessity. Or, China might value obtaining the technical assistance of international health agencies such as the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Global Fund grants provide a means of securing their advice and services. China's participation on the fund's board might also be useful to Beijing's global politics, confirming its importance on the world stage.

Whatever benefits China gains from seeking grants, however, stack up poorly against expensive opportunity costs exacted upon needier countries. The $1 billion awarded to China could have been used by the poorest countries to distribute 67 million anti-malarial bed nets, 4.5 million curative tuberculosis treatments, or nearly 2 million courses of anti-retroviral therapy for AIDS patients (a number equivalent to all those living with the disease in Kenya).

It is intriguing that health ministers from the poorest countries have expressed neither concern nor opposition to China winning grants. Nor has there been any substantial public challenge to or debate about the money China has received from the Global Fund. Part of the reason might be structural; the fund's large 26-member board (which includes representatives of countries, regions, organizations, and the Global Fund itself) operates based on consensus, and its meetings are time-constrained forums that pressure members to make rapid decisions. Changing eligibility policy, for example to exclude China, would entail time-intensive negotiations that may well pit groups of grantees against one another. The board also approves grants en bloc, relying upon the advice of technical experts who review them for feasibility and public health impact, not fairness, balance, or a country's ability to pay.

Even so, there is likely more behind the silence than just procedure. For many of the poorer countries that lose out, opposing China in international forums would risk incurring Beijing's diplomatic wrath. Health ministers are skittish to imperil their country's broader interactions with China, which in the case of African countries, often entails Chinese loans, grants, infrastructure projects, and investment -- and indeed, even further, health aid. In turn, African countries seeking access to the burgeoning Chinese market must curry Beijing's favor. Any country that openly opposes China at the Global Fund might see these economic links broken or be put at a disadvantage to competitors. And so the neediest countries endure a loss of grant money to China through their collective silence.

Donor governments have also been mute or reluctant to oppose China at the Global Fund, perhaps for similar reasons of not wishing to provoke a reaction that impacts other diplomatic or political equities elsewhere. In the United States, neither Congress nor the White House has voiced open concern that an amount equivalent to President Barack Obama's entire fiscal 2011 Global Fund budget request of $1 billion has gone to a country that can afford to pay its own way.

This has left the fund's leadership as the only front left for trying to change China's stance. Based on China's national income and the rate of other donor contributions, the Global Fund recommends that China should give $96 million over the next three years, amounting to 16 times its current annual donation. In 2007, prior to China's hosting of a board meeting in Kunming, the fund asked China's government to up its donor commitment, but the appeal went nowhere. In June, with fundraising pressures escalating, the fund's executive director, Michel Kazatchkine, met in Beijing with Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang, who issued a vague promise to cooperate with international organizations to expand disease prevention and treatment, but made no announcement to refrain from taking new grants or signaled any intent to become a major donor.

Not even a rival country's actions seem to have convinced Beijing. In recent years, nearby Russia has transformed itself from recipient to donor, and it has done so under arguably less favorable economic conditions than those in China today. In 2006, then President Vladimir Putin pledged to repay the Global Fund $270 million over four years, covering the past assistance it received, and announced $156 million in new domestic spending for HIV treatment. Now four years out, Russia has paid in $250 million to the Global Fund, essentially fulfilling Putin's pledge.

It is audacious for China to assert that it needs international health assistance on par with the world's poorest countries. In fact, at the same time it is drawing from the Global Fund, China is building its entire global image as one of economic growth, accumulating wealth and international stature. To boost its public profile and prestige, China spent billions to host the Beijing Olympics and the Shanghai World Expo. Surely it could spend another $1 billion of its cash on health as well. And why not take it one step further? By becoming a Global Fund donor, China could win acclaim with the West and the world's poorest -- earning exactly the kind of respect that a rising power deserves.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/19/chinas_billion_dollar_aid_appetite?page=full

------------------------------

The difference is unlike India which is better off under British rule, China is far more successful and these aid donations are just ways that China doesn't need to spend money on and foreign nations can gain economic influence in China so even when aid get cut down China would not suffer a lot. India on the other hand really depends on these aids and will suffer if there is not foreign aid.

====================================

\\The difference is unlike India which is better off under British rule, China is far more successful and these aid donations are just ways that China doesn't need to spend money on and foreign nations can gain economic influence in China..\\


Even aid to India is also to gain influence in India.LOL

India neither asks for any aid nor it really needs it.



===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

"India neither asks for any aid nor it really needs it."

I seriously doubt that.

====================================

The Chinese always doubt lot of things about othert people but hardly prove their 'doubts'. LOL

===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

China receives US$2.5 billion aid a year and gives US$25 billion a year.

US even received aid from China when it was hit by Katrina.

How much India can give others?

What Indians can make fun of?

\\China receives US$2.5 billion aid a year and gives US$25 billion a year.\\


That $25 billion "aid" includes concessional loans and overseas subsidized investments which benefits the Chinese more than the "aid" receiver. India also gives aid to other countries but its volume will be lower than China (but higher than many other developing countries) because the Indian investments in other countries are lower than China.


-----------------------------------------------

\\US even received aid from China when it was hit by Katrina.\\


US received aid from India too when it was hit from Katrina. LOL


-------------------------------------------------------


\\What Indians can make fun of?\\


Ignorant Chinese hypocracy, to mention one ! The Chinese have a habit of making fun of others EVEN while living in glass houses ! LOL




===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

"The Chinese always doubt lot of things about othert people but hardly prove their 'doubts'. LOL'

So can you prove that "India neither asks for any aid nor it really needs it."
or is this another delusional rant.


====================================

What a delusional chinese logic ! LOL

Using your own reasoning, can YOU prove that China does not beg for money ?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39361557/ns/world_news-asia-pacific/


"China spent tens of billions of dollars on a dazzling 2008 Olympics. It has sent astronauts into space. It recently became the world's second largest economy. Yet it gets more than $2.5 billion a year in foreign government aid and taxpayers and lawmakers in donor countries are increasingly asking why."


===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

Of course even China begs for free money who doesn't, at least I'm not delusional and say otherwise like you regarding India.

====================================

as expected ; super power china is ahead of india by a big yard even in getting foreign aid.

********************************************

"as expected ; super power china is ahead of india by a big yard even in getting foreign aid. "

Anther delusional India, how sad

====================================

\\Of course even China begs for free money who doesn't, at least I'm not delusional and say otherwise like you regarding India.\\


I am not sure if China or India actually "begs" for free money. For western NGO's who get the money from their govts, its mostly about consulting fees. Significant portion of that 'aid" money returns back to the western NGOs in the form of fees and as well as jobs for the NGOs. But for the western govts which actually give the money, its mostly about having influence in the corridors of power and nothing to do with poverty.


===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

"I am not sure if China or India actually "begs" for free money. For western NGO's who get the money from their govts, its mostly about consulting fees. Significant portion of that 'aid" money returns back to the western NGOs in the form of fees and as well as jobs for the NGOs. But for the western govts which actually give the money, its mostly about having influence in the corridors of power and nothing to do with poverty."

That might be true in China. In India where there is poverty everywhere I seriously doubt it.

====================================

\\That might be true in China. In India where there is poverty everywhere I seriously doubt it.\\


As i said before, you chinese have a habit of "doubting" others without providing any counter evidence ! LOL

===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

That might be true in China. In India where there is poverty everywhere I seriously doubt it.

another never set foot in china chingook

********************************************

"As i said before, you chinese have a habit of "doubting" others without providing any counter evidence ! LOL"

And do you have any proof that China's poverty level is as high as India or is this another delusional rant.

"another never set foot in china chingook"

Another delusional Indian do you have proof there is poverty everywhere like in India ?

====================================

me feeling bad super power china getting almost 2 times more aid than us. talks a lot about potential

********************************************

\\And do you have any proof that China's poverty level is as high as India or is this another delusional rant.\\


And what has poverty levels has to do with the topic at hand ? The debate essentially is whether India (or China) REQUESTED any aid or not ? You are saying India did and i am saying showing me the proff which you are NOT able to provide.

Even if you replace India with China or Sudan or Chad, the argument remains the same. The point is NOT whether xyz country has any poverty but whether that xyz country has REQUESTED aid in the first place or not .

===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

"And what has poverty levels has to do with the topic at hand ? The debate essentially is whether India (or China) REQUESTED any aid or not ? You are saying India did and i am saying showing me the proff which you are NOT able to provide.

Even if you replace India with China or Sudan or Chad, the argument remains the same. The point is NOT whether xyz country has any poverty but whether that xyz country has REQUESTED aid in the first place or not ."

Another delusional rant. I repeat again do you have any proof that China's poverty level is as high as India??

====================================

\\ I repeat again do you have any proof that China's poverty level is as high as India?? \\


Did you even read my response or just typed "delusional rant" just because you need to type some BS. I am asking you again, How does proverty levels in India and China has ANYTHING to do with the aid requests. Do you mean to suggest that ALL poor nations BY DEFAULT REQUESTS aid from other countries ? If yes, provide EVIDENCE to it !

===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

Another delsional rant, first you say this is due to economy influence that aid is given. Then I said this is true in China but not in India because India has higher poverty level than China and now you demanded this.

"How does proverty levels in India and China has ANYTHING to do with the aid requests."

My god you have no comman sense at all. This is arguenment going around & round in loops by you and I'm not intereting in this topic anymore.

====================================

This is arguenment going around & round in loops by you and I'm not intereting in this topic anymore.

Translation - Me not know english but me pumped up on chinaman-BEST bravado so me will continue make great dragon motherland proud! Me leaving now cuz me close to getting owned but me be back in other topic with same title.


==================================
Tu dhoop hain jham se bikhar
Tu hai nadee o bekhabar
Beh chal kahin ud chal kahin
Dil khush jahan teri toh manzil hai wahin.

If you are so confident why don't you prove AryanAryan argument is right. Or is it you are just trolling around and can't prove anything.
====================================

\\Another delsional rant, first you say this is due to economy influence that aid is given. Then I said this is true in China but not in India because India has higher poverty level than China and now you demanded this.\\


Dude, the kind of response you gave to me has nothing to do with what i asked. I said some countries give aid to India and China because they want to increase their influence among the corridors of power. To which you replied that :

"this is true in China but not in India because India has higher poverty level than China"


That basically means you are ASSUMING that countries with higher poverty level AUTOMATICALLY asks for aid from other countries. I am asking you, where is the EVIDENCE for your assumtion ?

===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

@ AryanArya

You have no common sense at all and are making a fool of yourself. Which is good for me by the way.

====================================

\\You have no common sense at all and are making a fool of yourself. Which is good for me by the way. \\


Easy to say such words dude ! If you think you have more sense, then why dont YOU prove your case and prove me wrong ?

Again i am asking you, where is the EVIDENCE to prove that ALL poor countries AUTOMATICALLY ask for aid ?





===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

Sorry is this for real or are you talking out of your @ss again as usual. You are a Joke.

====================================


01001001 01101110 01100100 01101001 01100001 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 00100000 01001010 01101111 01101011 01100101 00101110

\\Sorry is this for real or are you talking out of your @ss again as usual. You are a Joke. \\



Copy pasting the same thing again and again in multiple threads ? For what purpose ? LOL

===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

This is the Modern way of paying tribute. HA!

So its 'tribute' when paid to China but 'aid' when it is paid to India ? LOL


===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

I was being sarcastic, but if you look at the situation between India and China. Money to India does seem more like aid, just look at the lives of the lower caste its horrendous. As for money to China well I don't know why they bothered to give it or receive it.

The lives of "lower castes" in India may be horrendous, but how does that becomes a proff that what India is getting to is aid ? The Indian govt has enough resources to look after its poor. The "aid" to India is minicule compared to India's GDP and its laughing to call it as "aid". More likely it looks like "tribute" (to use your word) to please the people in the corridors of Power and increase the business relationship with India.



http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/02/21/economics-journal-why-a-flagging-britain-continues-aid-to-a-rising-india/

Why a Flagging Britain Continues Aid to a Rising India

"So why does the UK continue to give aid to India? Is it altruism or something else?

Andy Sumner of the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) in the UK, who testified earlier this year at the International Development Committees inquiry on British aid to India, and whose inputs have helped to shape the new pro-poor strategy, offered me the following thoughts via email: For DFID and the NGOs its about supporting the poor. For diplomats and the foreign office aid is part of bilateral ties, security and intelligence sharing. Most importantly, the balance of power has swung towards India and the UK wouldnt want to risk a long standing friendship with one of the worlds next big powers, would it?

Indeed, if you parse Mr. Mitchells remarks to the BBC, he almost admitted as much, when he spoke of the greatly re-energized relationship with India which resulted from the PMs significant visit last summer. This is mostly about the burgeoning commercial relationship, not aid."


The same thing applies to China as well.

===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------