I have often been frustrated when human rights organisations in some developing countries have categorically refused aid that comes from certain sources. My frustration arises when I am unable to do work that I believe is important and which seems to be highly valued by others, because my salary is paid in dollars. My frustration seems reasonable as long as one holds on to a picture of aid that comes from the well-heeled and well-meaning of the First World and goes to the innocent, poor, diseased and conflict-ravaged of the Third World. Sadly though this picture is seldom accurate! A closer look at the politics of aid quickly makes the actions of organisations that turn down certain monies seem both principled and smart.

A recent report from Oxfam, entitled "Whose Aid is it Anyway?" brings many of these issues into sharp focus. Some of the scary statistics included in the report are:

• Since 2002, one third of all development aid has gone to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. During this period, Iraq and Afghanistan alone have accounted for 40% of the global increase in aid provided by wealthy countries.
• Poorly conceived and executed projects aimed at "winning hearts and minds" have proved ineffective, costly and have damaged aid workerss credibility and security.
• In several Middle Eastern and African countries aid has been conditional upon cooperation with military forces and has been used to buy information and/or compliance.
• At times aid delivered through military structures have been much more costly that similar assistance provided through humanitarian structures.

These and other statistics make it very clear that aid is very often offered according to very narrow political and security agendas and is hardly at all about caring for the needy. This becomes particularly destructive when aid is delivered through military structures. Of course Oxfam make some broad recommendations around changing this state of affairs. But, until aid policy is consistently dictated by need and effective service delivery, many of the world's most vulnerable people will continue to tell wealthy nations what they can do with their "assistance". And all power to them!

Human Rights Watch have released their annual World Report 2011 documenting human rights abuse in more than 90 countries during 2010. The report does not try for any sweeping (and ultimately reductionist) conclusions about the state of human rights in the world. Instead the HRW researchers present a brief synopsis of the situation in each country listing significant themes and events. As such this report provides excellent reference material.

One theme worth noting is that of weak international leadership and response to repressive states around the world. This criticism is directed towards the world's most powerful states as well as the United Nations. Local readers might be interested to note that South Africa receives special mention as a country which promotes a vibrant democracy at home but is consistently unsupportive of international human rights initiatives. Of course Zimbabwe is the prime example, but it is certainly not the only one. This is tragic given the impact that international solidarity had on the protection of human rights in South Africa less than 20 years ago. How are we, as South African human rights activists, to encourage out government to take a stronger, more principled position in international affairs?

Download the full report.

The new Military Veterans Bill was gazetted in November and will be before parliament during the next few months. While, in my opinion, the provisions and mechanisms included in this bill are woefully late, they are nevertheless extremely welcome. In summary and from a mental health and human rights point of view the bill, lays down some important principles, including:

• Sacrifices made by military veterans are to be honoured;
• Compensation for disability is reparation and not a welfare benefit; and,
• Specific attention must be given to relieving physical and mental disability arising from military service.

Benefits to veterans include:

• Compensation to veterans who sustained disabling injuries or psychological trauma ... resulting from their participation in military activities; and,
• Dedicated counselling and treatment to military veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder or related conditions.

The high profile that mental health issues enjoys in this bill are testiment to the work that many people have done on this issue in the past two decades. It also presents some challenges to us in the field. Do we have the technical knowledge, personnel and facilitaties to provide these services at present? We do not and we need to quickly start including more comprehensive trauma training in our curricula, and building greater capacity in State, private and non-government services. As in all things, establishing the right to a service is meaningless when it is not possible to exercise that right!

Anyone who would like to read the Bill in full can download in from the the ever useful Polity.org here.