Microsoft chairman Bill Gates has been held in awe for many years for his business acumen. But since the world’s richest man embarked upon a career change as a global philanthropist his self-importance has blossomed.

On the occasion of the latest global mega gabfest known as the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Mr Gates granted interviews to two German newspapers to vaunt his foundation’s work, and then to criticize and shame the Prime Minister of another European country – Italy – for not conforming to Gates’ definition of generosity. Such effrontery is almost unheard of. Is Bill Gates so involved in his own version of the finest in philanthropy that he never had time to learn diplomacy, manners or humility?

Mr Berlusconi, who has provided fodder for the prurient international press with his peccadilloes (which occurred on his Sardinian property and not in the government seat of power as with Bill Clinton in the Oval Office), has become the whipping boy of Bill Gates: his is the sole name on Gates’ “List of Shame.” What for? For allegedly reducing foreign aid as part of the Italian government’s budgetary measures to attempt to reduce a government deficit of 5.3 percent of GDP and an official debt of 115 percent of GDP.

Mr Gates chastised Mr Berlusconi because Italy’s foreign aid was 0.21 percent of its GDP in 2008 compared with top-of-the-heap Sweden with a ratio of 0.99 percent. However, Mr Gates gave a pass to the United States which was dead last on the list of 30 OECD countries with 0.19 percent because President Obama “proposed to double giving.”

Bill Gates is a firm believer that official aid is a force for good, ignoring many experts’ claim that foreign aid is significantly wasted and promotes corruption in the poorest of poor countries. Perhaps the decision by the Italian government actually makes more sense.

Regarding the newspaper interviews, the New York Post picked up the two messages and reported that “In a rare public jab” the Microsoft founder “ripped Berlusconi’s ‘stinginess’ with foreign aid and put him at the top of his ‘list of shame.’” Gates went on to further personalize his attack by stating to the Frankfurter Rundschau “Dear Silvio, I am sorry to make things difficult for you, but you are ignoring the poor people of the world.” Gates gave another interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung on the same theme, embellishing his remarks with additional shamelessness: “Rich people spend a lot more money on their own problems – like baldness – than they do to fight malaria” – an apparent reference to Mr Berlusconi’s meticulous attention to personal appearance.

Does being the richest man in the world entitle Bill Gates to humiliate heads of government, duly elected in a democracy?

The verbal assault on Mr Berlusconi was truly inopportune, coming only a few weeks after he was physically attacked by a deranged, hate-filled leftist at a political rally in Milan. While still in the hospital, Mr Berlusconi sent a message expressing gratitude to Pope Benedict XVI and others for their get well wishes, publicly forgave his attacker and stated that “love always triumphs over envy and hatred.” Bill Gates should take note.

In castigating the Prime Minister, Bill Gates cast his aspersion on all of Italy too. But Italians need no lessons in generosity from Bill Gates. One example will illustrate the point. Thousands of Italians have dedicated their lives to alleviating poverty as missionaries who “live where they work” in distant lands helping the poor 24/7 without media attention. Their contribution goes beyond money and is nurtured by Caritas.

Too often Italians at all levels find themselves being humiliated by the “holier than thou” crowd. But there has to be some sense of awe at the contributions of Italians over the centuries. Even on the part of Bill Gates….

In the mid 1990s, Mr Gates made an historical purchase: Leonardo da Vinci’s Codex Leicester – the only manuscript of the renowned Italian genius in the United States.

The Italian government museum authorities had bid for the same document, wanting repatriation as a matter of recognition and pride of ownership, but their budget could not match the bottomless money pit of a determined Bill Gates who reportedly paid $31 million. Should Gates look at the complexity of the Codex from time to time, it should give him food for thought: this is only one of the countless works of genius produced by Italians, something he could only buy with money – but never create!

Besides missionaries, who is helping the poor? Surely the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides plenty of assistance through grants. Bill Gates can show lots of personal pictures, balance sheets and even an “Annual Letter” to toot his own horn and chastise those who do not do as he does. His recently released 2010 letter explains how the Gateses have given away millions of dollars for worthy causes especially for disease control and prevention such as malaria.

But the Gates Foundation also provides plenty of financial assistance so that certain nonprofit organizations have all the abortifacients they need, especially in Africa. William H. Gates Sr., Bill’s father, who also is part of the Foundation, was once head of Planned Parenthood. Bill Gates is in bed with the culture of death. He fully embraces the “fewer people, better environment” ideology.

Mr Gates’ 2010 letter includes this line: “… not spending on health is a bad deal for the environment because improvements in health, including voluntary family planning, lead people to have smaller families, which in turn reduces the strain on the environment.”

This is the arrogance of his kind of philanthropy – a direct contradiction of the word’s true meaning!

On its web site, the Gates Foundation shows a set of 15 “Guiding Principles.” Number 12 on the list states: “We demand ethical behavior of ourselves.” Perhaps Mr Gates should reconsider the order, making this number one – and abiding by it in dealing with others. Even with Prime Ministers.

Vincenzina Santoro is an international economist in New York. She represents the American Family Association of New York at the United Nations.

A geek with cheek

 

After years of profligate spending, Greece is becoming overwhelmed. Barring some sort of large-scale bailout program, a Greek debt default at this point is highly likely. At this moment, European Central Bank liquidity efforts are probably the only thing holding back such a default. But these are a stopgap measure that can hold only until more important economies manage to find their feet. And Europe’s problems extend beyond Greece. Fundamentals are so poor across the board that any number of eurozone states quickly could follow Greece down.

And so the rest of the eurozone is watching and waiting nervously while casting occasional glances in the direction of Berlin in hopes the eurozone’s leader and economy-in-chief will do something to make it all go away. To truly understand the depth of the crisis the Europeans face, one must first understand Germany, the only country that can solve it.

Germany’s Trap

The heart of Germany’s problem is that it is insecure and indefensible given its location in the middle of the North European Plain. No natural barriers separate Germany from the neighbors to its east and west, no mountains, deserts, oceans. Germany thus lacks strategic depth. The North European Plain is the Continent’s highway for commerce and conquest. Germany’s position in the center of the plain gives it plenty of commercial opportunities but also forces it to participate vigorously in conflict as both an instigator and victim.

Germany’s exposure and vulnerability thus make it an extremely active power. It is always under the gun, and so its policies reflect a certain desperate hyperactivity. In times of peace, Germany is competing with everyone economically, while in times of war it is fighting everyone. Its only hope for survival lies in brutal efficiencies, which it achieves in industry and warfare.

Pre-1945, Germany’s national goals were simple: Use diplomacy and economic heft to prevent multifront wars, and when those wars seem unavoidable, initiate them at a time and place of Berlin’s choosing.

“Success” for Germany proved hard to come by, because challenges to Germany’s security do not “simply” end with the conquest of both France and Poland. An overstretched Germany must then occupy countries with populations in excess of its own while searching for a way to deal with Russia on land and the United Kingdom on the sea. A secure position has always proved impossible, and no matter how efficient, Germany always has fallen ultimately.

During the early Cold War years, Germany’s neighbors tried a new approach. In part, the European Union and NATO are attempts by Germany’s neighbors to grant Germany security on the theory that if everyone in the immediate neighborhood is part of the same club, Germany won’t need a Wehrmacht.

There are catches, of course — most notably that even a demilitarized Germany still is Germany. Even after its disastrous defeats in the first half of the 20th century, Germany remains Europe’s largest state in terms of population and economic size; the frantic mindset that drove the Germans so hard before 1948 didn’t simply disappear. Instead of German energies being split between growth and defense, a demilitarized Germany could — indeed, it had to — focus all its power on economic development. The result was modern Germany — one of the richest, most technologically and industrially advanced states in human history.

Read:

Germany’s awful choice

© 2012 New Jersey CFO Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha