Richard Grenell Quotes

Toward the middle and end of the Fifties, West European countries became somewhat more important as providers of aid to underdeveloped countries. It was partly due to the prodding of the United States that these countries, as they regained economic viability, should shoulder their share of the aid burden.

Foreign aid, though less than 1% of the annual federal budget, is often a hard case to make to constituents who are rightfully worried about domestic and economic issues.

I believe in generous aid policies.

Foreign aid is neither a failure nor a panacea. It is, instead, an important tool of American policy that can serve the interests of the United States and the world if wisely administered.

I have big hope for the Canadian government to help Somalia with something concrete and tangible. I haven't seen that.

In 2005 we have a once in a generation opportunity to deliver a modern Marshall plan for the developing world.

The Scottish Government's international development work began in 2005 with a £3 million budget focused solely on Malawi, reflecting the historic links between our two countries.

All of Britain's aid is spent in Britain's national interests, and some of it contributes to Britain's national security as well.

The Playground of Foreign Aid Experimentation: From 2006 to 2011, development aid from countries and multilateral organizations amounted to more than $30 billion, with limited results, much of the funds fueling mismanagement and corruption.

America needs to rethink how we distribute our foreign aid around the world.

India is more of an aid recipient than a provider of aid.

I have said it before but it bears repeating: Aid is not a gift. The United States provides foreign assistance because it serves OUR interests.

I believe our foreign assistance should be scrutinized, should be debated, and that we should strike the right balance, but in all cases the foreign assistance that we provide around the world should be used to further our national security interests.

In this financial year we will be spending at least $1.5 billion on foreign aid and we cannot be sure that this money will be properly spent, as corruption and mismanagement in many of the recipient countries are legend.

Countries which receive aid do graduate. Within a generation, Korea went from being a big recipient to being a big aid donor. China used to get quite a bit of aid; now it's aid-neutral.

Of course, aid is only one small part of international development. Some of the greatest benefits to the world's poorest can be achieved through policy changes by developed countries.

Rich countries have been sending aid to poor countries for the last 60 years. And, by and large, this has failed.

Some people have been talking about - every place I go, they bring up the issue of foreign aid. I go, 'You can't get rid of all foreign aid.'

We should stop giving aid to countries that hate us..

The United States must create a permanent nation-building agency.

When foreign assistance has a clear mission, buy-in from the aid-recipient country, and explicit metrics for implementation, the United States will be able to transition aid-recipient nations into strong trading partners. One of the greatest examples of this successful transition is South Korea.

I think a lot of the problem with foreign aid and things like that is you go in, give a bunch of stuff, and then it runs out. It's about helping them learn how to continue to be sustainable and live.

U.K. aid spending in India is that it ensures that we are able to work with our partners to develop their markets, business and enterprise, to boost labour standards and rights and, ultimately, to boost the incomes of the poorest which, in the long term, boosts demand for British goods and services.

European countries give much larger shares of aid for poverty relief than the U.S.

International aid as a means of development is a major failure, and not just in Haiti.