How the US Used a “Terrorism” Ploy to Attack Islamic Charity to Iran

image: President Barack Obama reads a document in the Oval Office, January 7, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

By Gareth Porter

Contrary to President Obama’s promise to make it easier for American Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation to give one-fifth of their surplus income to charity, federal prosecutors continue to target Islamic charities and their donors, as illustrated by the recent prosecution of a Portland, Oregon, couple.

In his speech at Cairo University in June 2009, President Barack Obama pledged to change regulations that had made it harder for American Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation to give one-fifth of their surplus income to charity.

But for Iranian-American doctor Hossein Lahiji and his wife, Najmeh Vahid, who had donated $1.8 million to an Islamic charity for needy children in Iran, that Obama pledge has turned to be a bitter joke. They were convicted last year in Portland, Oregon, of conspiracy to defraud the United States and violating the US economic embargo against Iran. Now the US government is using the threat of prosecution on Medicare fraud charges to pressure them to give up his citizenship and her ten-year application for citizenship – and return to Iran under a plea bargain.

Along with the closely related prosecution of the Child Foundation (CF) and its founder, the prosecution of the couple was part of a long trail of cases in which the US government has sought to suppress US-based Islamic charities that work in the Middle East by charging them with material support to terrorism or with violating US economic embargos on Iraq or Iran.

Evidence introduced at the trial showed that Lahiji, a McAllen, Texas, urologist, is a devout Shi’a Muslim who believed that his faith required that he give one-fifth of his income after expenses to charity – a practice called khums in Shi’a Islam. Nevertheless the US government sought to portray the couple as motivated by “greed” and the donations to the Child Foundation as a device for illegally claiming deductions for business investments in Iran.

But the US attorney’s office in Portland also pursued a cynical strategy in its case against the Child Foundation and the Lahiji-Vahid couple of linking them to “terrorism.” The US attorney’s office made a prominent Iranian cleric with whom the foundation had been in contact a vehicle for dragging Lebanese Hezbollah into the case.

Playing the Hezbollah Card

The grand jury indictment in the Lahiji-Vahid case issued in December 2010 mentioned “Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi” six times, calling him a “a supporter of Hezbollah and of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Iran and Hezbollah, it pointed out, had been designated by the US government as terrorist entities. The document went on to claim that the Child Foundation, to which Lahiji and Vahid had donated, had “engaged in financial transactions in Iran in which they would split the proceeds of certain donations” with Shirazi.

The government sentencing memo after the conviction of the Child Foundation and founding director Mehrdad Yasrebi for conspiracy to defraud the US government and money laundering in March 2012, said some of the money had “funded radical Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi.” The memo further quoted Shirazi as joining three other leading Iranian clerics in declaring that he would allocate a percentage of their funds to the Lebanese people “as a way to support Hezbollah.”

The government memo conveniently omitted the fact that the statement by Shirazi and other clerics was made in the context of Iran’s Red Crescent Society providing planeloads of medicine and medical equipment to Lebanese victims of Israeli air and ground attacks in Lebanon in 2006, as reported August 1, 2006, by Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.

The sentencing memo also made an explicit argument against humanitarian aid to Iran, asserting that that “the resources provided by defendant and Child Foundation US in Iran helped to strengthen and perpetuate the current regime, a designated State Sponsor of Terrorism.”

The presiding judge in both the Child Foundation and Lahiji-Vahid cases, M. Garr King, was appalled by the government’s attempts to link the defendants to terrorism. He warned Assistant US Attorney Charles Gorder in a telephone conference before the start of the Lahiji-Vahid trial in April 2013 that he would not tolerate the attorney’s office making statements relating the case to terrorism, because it had produced no evidence to support such a contention.

Despite the judge’s warning, Gorder made it clear in his opening statement that he would continue to play the terrorism card. “I am going to mention Ayatollah Shirazi,” he declared to the judge. “He is the key to the case.” The government’s trial memorandum called Shirazi “a prime supporter of Hezbollah” who had “bragged that he and other clerics allocated a portion of their monies to Hezbollah in Lebanon, gave condolences for the death of the person who was responsible for killing of the US marines in Beirut in 1983.”

Government prosecutors repeatedly charged that donations from Lahiji through the Child Foundation were going to an Ayatollah who was, by implication, using them in part to support Hezbollah. But Ahmad Iranshahi, the former head of the CF in Iran, confirmed in a signed statement after the trial September 9, 2013, that his organization never transferred any funds “to any Ayatollahs or other religious leaders.”

Iranshahi said the foundation had “consulted with Ayatollah Shirazi and other Ayatollahs to ensure religious dues … could be credited by Muslim donors as proper religious khums without actually paying any money to the Ayatollahs or other religious causes.”

A letter from Child Foundation in Iran to Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei in November 2005 introduced into evidence by the defense supported that contention. It indicated that Shirazi had agreed that 50 percent of the charity donations from US residents would be used to support the Foundation’s charity work, and the other 50 percent would go to needy families who were categorized as sadats, or descendants of Mohamed, except for a small amount for a cultural center.

Did Lahiji and Vahid Benefit?

The US attorney’s charge that Lahiji and Vahid had conspired to reduce their tax liabilities by approximately $656,000 by improperly deducting funds provided to Child Foundation that violated the embargo then hid the fact that from the government, was similarly misleading.

The government claimed the couple purchased $250,000 of private property in the form of an office building in Tehran and invested $350,000 in a bank account for a five-year term at 20 percent interest per year, over which Lahiji “retained control.”

But the Memorandum of Understanding on the account between Lahiji and three officials of the Iranian affiliate of Child Foundation introduced into evidence shows that the funds could be used for humanitarian charity in Iran only. Under the agreement, Lahiji was to send $350,000 for a bank account in the names of the Child Foundation officials. At the end of the five-year term, Child Foundation could use the full amount of the principle for its charitable work, while Lahiji could use the interest earned for medical treatment centers or schools or on help for orphans or indigent families in Iran.

Government prosecutors did not challenge the authenticity of the agreement but argued instead that the Child Foundation US had not signed the agreement, so it had no control over the funds it sent to Iran, thus making the deduction for a donation to Child Foundation impermissible. During the trial of Child Foundation founder Merhdad Yasrebi, however, the government had cited multiple indications that Child Foundation US had “maintained a tight rein” over Child Foundation in Iran.

The office building in Tehran purchased with Lahiji’s donation in 2000 was used rent-free for ten years by the Child Foundation Iran, which also got substantial additional income from renting out two of the three floors to other tenants. Iranshahi said the foundation and Lahiji’s family had agreed that after ten years, the foundation would vacate the building and that Lahiji’s sister would “sell the property and have the proceeds committed to charitable purposes.”

The defense had counted on Yasrebi, the head of Child Foundation US, to testify to these details on behalf of Lahiji and Vahid. But shortly before the trial, Yasrebi suddenly invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify – despite the fact that he already had been convicted of evading the Iran embargo and defrauding the US government and sentenced to five years of probation.

Only in September 2013 after the trial of Lahiji and Vahid did defense lawyers discover the suspicious circumstances surrounding Yasrebi’s refusal to testify: After his March 2012 sentencing, he had been incarcerated for seven months pending an immigration hearing on possible deportation back to Iran. During that hearing, he was grilled intensively on his interactions with the Lahijis. Then he was removed from his cell and questioned for hours without his lawyer having been informed. Immediately after that interrogation, his deportation proceedings were dismissed abruptly without prejudice, and a few months later, Yasrebi refused to testify on behalf of Lahiji and Vahid.

That sequence of events, which Gorder did not deny in response to an inquiry by defense counsel, makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the US attorney’s office had used the offer of dropping deportation proceedings, combined with the threat of additional criminal charges to force Yasrebi not to testify as defense witness for Lahiji and Vahid.

The Prohibitions That Weren’t

The US attorney charged that Lahiji and Vahid had deliberately hidden their transfer of funds to Iran from the government and that they knew those transfers violated the regulations. But the couple’s accountant, Sam Gainer, testified that Lahiji and Vahid had been unaware of the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) and the economic embargo against Iran that it administered.

And after years of secretly listening to Lahiji and Vahid’s phone conversations and intercepting their e-mails, the government was unable to cite a single mention in any of those communications of  OFAC regulations that supposedly forbade the transactions with the Child Foundation.

The most startling testimony at the trial, however, showed that OFAC officials had not even considered the use of charitable donations to Iran to purchase a building or to establish a bank account as illegal. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Paffen testified that in April 2004, after the defendants he had learned about the purchase of the office building with $245,000 from the Child Foundation’s 990 IRS forms, he had checked with OFAC and was told that it was “no violation of OFAC’s regulation.”

Steven Pinter, chief of licensing at OFAC from 1987 to 2000, testified that there was nothing in the regulations forbidding donations that were put into a bank account in Iran. “We assume that if funds are given, those funds are deposited in a bank account,” Pinter said. “They are not kept in a sack under the bed.”

Hal Eren, who worked at OFAC from 1992 to 2000 and helped write the regulations for OFAC, confirmed in testimony that there was “no prohibition” against a “non-commercial remittance” such as humanitarian aid to Iran. That meant that the Child Foundation was not required to have a license to send humanitarian aid to Iran as the government had insisted.

The Child Foundation had sent a letter to OFAC in 2000 laying out in detail what it was doing in Iran and asking whether a license was required. OFAC acknowledged the letter but never responded to the question. The foundation wrote again to inquire in 2001 but got no response.

But a November 2002 memo signed by Hal Harmon, the chief of enforcement for OFAC, revealed the real reason no answer had been sent: The US attorney’s office and customs service had a “criminal investigative interest” in the case. OFAC’s enforcement office and its allies in Justice and Treasury engaged in seeking to shut down Islamic charities preferred to keep the Child Foundation in the dark to add yet another Islamic charity to their target list.

In the years following 9/11, the US government shut down nine Muslim charities – seizing their assets – and raided six of them, all on the charge that they were linked to terrorism – for which the evidence was scant or nonexistent. The prosecution of the Child Foundation and the Lahijis, with its invocation of terrorism as a ploy, sheds further light on a policy of repression of Islamic charities that continues to be exercised to this day, contrary to Barack Obama’s 2009 promise.

Gareth Porter (@GarethPorter), an independent investigative journalist and historian covering US national security policy, was awarded the Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 by the UK-based Martha Gellhorn Trust. His new book Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, will be published in February.

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Fighting Al Shahab Rebels: Washington’s Terrorism or Counter-terrorism in Somalia?

Somalia has become a breeding ground for Washington’s black operations since 2001, with the African country suffering human losses due to US  hegemonic policies.

Only recently, it has been revealed that the US secretly deployed two dozens of troops under the guise of military advisors. It is naïve to think that the US has no ulterior motives other than giving advisory clues to the military men in Somalia or protecting the security of the African people.

In 1993, the US embarked on a military expedition dubbed Operation Gothic Serpent in Somalia under the pretext of eliminating a Somali warlord, an operation which sadly caused massive human losses.  Quite naturally, the US swiftly exonerated itself and attributed it to a misstep.

According to Charles William Maynes, editor of Foreign Policy, CIA officials privately concede that the US military may have “killed from 7,000 to 10,000 Somalis during its engagement. America lost only 34 soldiers. Notwithstanding that extraordinary disparity, the decision was to withdraw.” So, the estimates delivered by the US media have been drastically overlooked or underestimated.

The fact is that there is no justification for this human catastrophe. However, as is their wont, Washington officials barefacedly insist that their mission was to capture Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid who was openly opposed to the presence of the US in Somalia.

Later, much to the disappointment of many, this military farce was unfortunately glorified on the screen by Ridley Scott in a movie called Black Hawk Down.

Among other black operations in Somali is a series of killer drone sorties which the US had been carrying out for years without openly acknowledging the fact. It was in 2012 when the White House eventually lifted the lid of secrecy on its black ops in the Horn of Africa and admitted to the crime for the first time.

The US excuse for launching such attacks is the same old story: eradicating the al-Qaeda elements.

A count by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism claims that the US-conducted drone attacks have so far at least 112 Somali militants. This treacherously dubious number excludes the 60 civilians who were killed in the killer drone attacks. Washington’s method of distinguishing between the civilians and non-civilians is understandably strange. Those who are adults are non-civilians and those who are not, are civilians.

Interestingly, the US used to prefer a policy of denial regarding the drone attacks until a few months ago when the CIA acknowledged that the drone attacks in Somalia and other parts of Africa were carried out under the supervision of the espionage agency.

Further to this, there is an active CIA station in Mogadishu. In August, Jeremy Scahill reported on the CIA’s compound at Mogadishu’s Aden Adde International Airport, sating, “the facility looks like a small gated community, with more than a dozen buildings behind large protective walls and secured by guard towers at each of its four corners. At the facility, the CIA runs a counter-terrorism training program for Somali intelligence agents and operatives aimed at building an indigenous strike force capable of snatch operations and targeted “combat” operations against members of Al Shabab.”

According to Scahill, the CIA is not in the least interested in dealing directly with Somali political leaders, who they say are corrupt and untrustworthy. Instead, the United States has Somali intelligence agents on its payroll. Somali sources with knowledge of the program described the agents as lining up to receive $200 monthly cash payments from Americans. “They support us in a big way financially,” says the senior Somali intelligence official. “They are the largest [funder] by far.”

What is the US really doing in Somalia?

A look at the natural resources of this country is enough to provide an answer to this question.

An LA Times article reveals that nearly two-thirds of Somalia’s resources were allocated to theAmerican oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia’s pro-US President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991. Industry sources said the companies holding the rights to the most promising concessions are hoping that the Bush Administration’s decision to send U.S. troops to safeguard aid shipments to Somalia will also help protect their multimillion-dollar investments there.

Officially, the Administration and the State Department insist that the U.S. military mission in Somalia is strictly humanitarian. Oil industry spokesmen dismissed as “absurd” and “nonsense” allegations by aid experts, veteran East Africa analysts and several prominent Somalis that President Bush, a former Texas oilman, was moved to act in Somalia, at least in part, by the U.S. corporate oil stake.

According to a report issued by Range Resources, there are some huge oil seeps in north Somalia (Somaliland) and in the southwest where Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia meet.

New estimates of the country’s oil reserves, onshore and offshore, run as high as 110 billion barrels. According to the reports, there are likely vast natural gas reserves in Somali waters in the Indian Ocean. Add to that a series of fields which have been found off Mozambique and Tanzania and which contain an estimated 100 trillion cubic feet of gas.

 Under the banner of combating terrorism, the ghoul of imperialism intervenes and vindicates its spree killer drone attacks and other inhuman black operations and spares no efforts in reaping the ill gotten benefits of its military lust in the Muslim lands.

American Diplomacy and Israeli Intimidation: John Kerry Empowers Israel to Violate International Law

Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon articulated publicly what Israeli leaders say privately: Give us your tax money, weapons and your veto power but “leave us alone.”

He called the US peace efforts “not worth the paper it is printed on,” and accusing US Secretary of State John Kerry of being a glory hound “messianic” and “inexplicably obsessive.”

His statement – likely with the tacit approval of Israeli prime minister – was quintessential Israeli tactics to publicly influence American policy, and it did.

Receiving the message loud and clear, Kerry cancelled a visit scheduled this week to the region. Failing to commit the Israelis on a written framework agreement, his aides are already talking about extending the negotiation past the April deadline.

Each of Kerry’s visits was greeted by an Israeli policy decision to undermine his efforts. Since last July it has authorised building 7,500 “Jewish only” homes on occupied West Bank and demolished 200 Palestinian residences. A ministerial committee led by the governing Likud party has overwhelmingly voted to annex the occupied Jordan valley.

 Still, the administration wants to give Israel more time to add to its annexation’s menu. This is while it ludicrously claims to be impartial mediator when it empowers Israel, materially and diplomatically, to indulge in activities violating international law.

If one thing is very clear from past American diplomacy, the current efforts will most likely deliver on Israeli demands upfront, while suspending Palestinians’ concerns for a later date. At the signing of the Oslo Accord in 1993, the Palestinian Liberation Organisationrecognised Israel over 78 per cent of historical Palestine while Palestinians were promised to negotiate a “five-year transitional period” for the remaining 22pc.

Almost 10 years later, president George Bush’s road map for peace called for “permanent status agreement” by 2005. To address one of Israel’s 14 reservations, Bush sent then prime minister Ariel Sharon a letter adopting one Israeli reservation – undermining his own plan – stating it would be “unrealistic … of final status negotiations” to result in the return to the 1967 borders.

At the road map’s onset, Israel “legitimised” its illegal “Jewish only” colonies, while Palestinians were promised an elusive future “agreement by 2005.”

During his last visit, Israeli prime minister privately asked Kerry to annex additional 18pc of the West Bank as a “realistic” adjustment to the 1967 borders. Irrespective of Israel’s “forthcoming” obligations causing Yaalon’s anger outburst, Kerry – violating the mediator’s role – has told the Palestinians that recognising Israel as a racialist “Jewish state” was an American demand. Imagine if he publicly opined that compliance with UN resolutions were the bases of his impending framework. Israel will certainly cry louder accusing him of prejudging the negotiation.

Years after Kerry delivers another advanced instalment or extends the endless negotiation, Israel is unlikely to have ceased building illegal colonies. Meanwhile, the overdue promises to Palestinians will join the grave side with those from the Oslo Accord and Road Map. That, until a new US administration comes up with a fresh proposal requesting Palestinians, again, to comply with – yet to be conjured – Israeli condition in return for further suspended promises.

Sadly, the Palestinian government is almost totally dependent on US and European largess – a fraction of what Arab governments spend on the fratricide fight in Syria. This is while American policies are emboldening an Israeli occupation responsible for perpetuating the state of the foreign aid dependent Palestinian economy.

Palestinian leadership should not regurgitate a new xenophobic recognition of Israel in exchange for another American mirage. They should not entertain extending the amaranthine negotiation and demand an immediate US recognition of Palestine or else, a bi-national state is the only remaining realistic option.

Morocco: Polisario Renews Willingness to Cooperate "Constructively" With UN Efforts to Decolonize Western Sahara

Chahid Al Hafed — Polisario Front has reiterated willingness of the Saharawi party to cooperate "constructively" with the efforts being made by the UN Secretary General and his Personal Envoy Mr. Christopher Ross, aiming at decolonizing the Western Sahara.

In a statement concluded a meeting of its Bureau held yesterday, National Secretariat of the Polisario Front called on the UN to assume "full responsibility" towards the decolonization of Western Sahara, which goes through the exercise by the Saharawi people of their natural and legitimate right to freedom and independence, through a free, just and transparent referendum on self-determination.

The statement, on other hand, "strongly" condemned Moroccan state's policies of settlement, looting of Saharawi natural resources and repression carried out against the innocent Saharawis in the occupied territories of Western Sahara and in southern Morocco, lately of which the crackdown on a peaceful demonstration held in the occupied city of El Aaiun mid-January.

It also expressed "deep concern" over the condition of health of the Saharawi political prisoners incarcerated inside Moroccan jails, appealing to the UN to "speedily intervene" to protect and release them.

The statement, in this respect, recalled to the need to set up a mechanism allowing the MINURSO Mission to protect, monitor and report about Morocco's human rights abuses in the occupied Western Sahara.

Bill Gates: Foreign Aid Works #StopTheMyth

3 MYTHS 

THAT BLOCK PROGRESS FOR THE POOR 

By almost any measure, the world is better than it has ever been. People are living longer, healthier lives. Many nations that were aid recipients are now self-sufficient. You might think that such striking progress would be widely celebrated, but in fact, Melinda and I are struck by how many people think the world is getting worse. The belief that the world can’t solve extreme poverty and disease isn’t just mistaken. It is harmful. That’s why in this year’s letter we take apart some of the myths that slow down the work. The next time you hear these myths, we hope you will do the same.

- Bill Gates

MYTH ONE

POOR COUNTRIES ARE DOOMED TO STAY POOR

by Bill Gates

I’ve heard this myth stated about lots of places, but most often about Africa. A quick Web search will turn up dozens of headlines and book titles such as 'How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor.'

Thankfully these books are not bestsellers, because the basic premise is false. The fact is, incomes and other measures of human welfare are rising almost everywhere, including in Africa.

So why is this myth so deeply ingrained?

I’ll get to Africa in a moment, but first let’s look at the broader trend around the world, going back a half-century. Fifty years ago, the world was divided in three: the United States and our Western allies; the Soviet Union and its allies; and everyone else. I was born in 1955 and grew up learning that the so-called First World was well off or “developed.” Most everyone in the First World went to school, and we lived long lives. We weren't sure what life was like behind the Iron Curtain, but it sounded like a scary place. Then there was the so-called Third World—basically everyone else. As far as we knew, it was filled with people who were poor, didn't go to school much, and died young. Worse, they were trapped in poverty, with no hope of moving up.

 

The statistics bear out these impressions. In 1960, almost all of the global economy was in the West. Per capita income in the United States was about $15,000 a year.1 (That’s income per person, so $60,000 a year for a family of four.) Across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, incomes per person were far lower. Brazil: $1,982. China: $928. Botswana: $383. And so on.

Years later, I would see this disparity myself when I traveled. Melinda and I visited Mexico City in 1987 and were surprised by the poverty we witnessed. There was no running water in most homes, so we saw people trekking long distances by bike or on foot to fill up water jugs. It reminded us of scenes we had seen in rural Africa. The guy who ran Microsoft’s Mexico City office would send his kids back to the United States for checkups to make sure the smog wasn’t making them sick.

Today, the city is mind-blowingly different. Its air is as clean as Los Angeles’ (which isn’t great, but certainly an improvement from 1987). There are high-rise buildings, new roads, and modern bridges. There are still slums and pockets of poverty, but by and large when I visit there now I think, “Wow, most people who live here are middle-class. What a miracle.”

MYTH TWO

FOREIGN AID IS A BIG WASTE

by Bill Gates

You may have read news articles about foreign aid that are filled with big generalizations based on small examples. They tend to cite anecdotes about waste in some program and suggest that foreign aid is a waste. If you hear enough of these stories, it’s easy to get the impression that aid just doesn’t work. It’s no wonder that one British newspaper claimed last year that more than half of voters want cuts in overseas aid.

These articles give you a distorted picture of what is happening in countries that get aid. Since Melinda and I started the foundation 14 years ago, we’ve been lucky enough to go see the impact of programs funded by the foundation and donor governments. What we see over time is people living longer, getting healthier, and escaping poverty, partly because of services that aid helped develop and deliver.

I worry about the myth that aid doesn’t work. It gives political leaders an excuse to try to cut back on it—and that would mean fewer lives are saved, and more time before countries can become self-sufficient.

It is ironic that the foundation has a reputation for a hard-nosed focus on results, and yet many people are cynical about the government aid programs we partner with.

Bill Gates

So I want to take on a few of the criticisms you may have read.3 I should acknowledge up front that no program is perfect, and there are ways that aid can be made more effective. And aid is only one of the tools for fighting poverty and disease: Wealthy countries also need to make policy changes, like opening their markets and cutting agricultural subsidies, and poor countries need to spend more on health and development for their own people.

But broadly speaking, aid is a fantastic investment, and we should be doing more. It saves and improves lives very effectively, laying the groundwork for the kind of long-term economic progress I described in myth #1 (which in turn helps countries stop depending on aid). It is ironic that the foundation has a reputation for a hard-nosed focus on results, and yet many people are cynical about the government aid programs we partner with. The foundation does a lot to help these programs be more efficient and measure their progress.

The U.S. government spends more than twice as much on farm subsidies as on health aid. It spends more than 60 times as much on the military. The next time someone tells you we can trim the budget by cutting aid, I hope you will ask whether it will come at the cost of more people dying.

Corruption

One of the most common stories about aid is that some of it gets wasted on corruption. It is true that when health aid is stolen or wasted, it costs lives. We need to root out fraud and squeeze more out of every dollar.

But we should also remember the relative size of the problem. Small-scale corruption, such as a government official who puts in for phony travel expenses, is an inefficiency that amounts to a tax on aid. While we should try to reduce it, there’s no way to eliminate it, any more than we could eliminate waste from every government program—or from every business, for that matter. Suppose small-scale corruption amounts to a 2 percent tax on the cost of saving a life. We should try to reduce that. But if we can’t, should we stop trying to save lives?

You may have heard about a scandal in Cambodia last year involving a bed net program run by The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Cambodian officials were caught taking six-figure kickbacks from contractors. Editorial writers trotted out headlines like “How to waste foreign aid money.” One article mentioned me as someone whose money was being wasted.

Four of the past seven governors of Illinois have gone to prison for corruption, and to my knowledge no one has demanded that Illinois schools be shut down or its highways closed.

Bill Gates

I appreciate the concern, and it’s a good thing when the press holds institutions accountable. But the press didn’t uncover this scheme. The Global Fund did, during an internal audit. In finding and fixing the problem, The Global Fund did exactly what it should be doing. It would be odd to demand that they root out corruption and then punish them for tracking down the small percentage that gets misused.

There is a double standard at work here. I’ve heard people calling on the government to shut down some aid program if one dollar of corruption is found. On the other hand, four of the past seven governors of Illinois have gone to prison for corruption, and to my knowledge no one has demanded that Illinois schools be shut down or its highways closed.

Melinda and I would not be supporting The Global Fund, or any other program, if the money were being misused in a large-scale way. Malaria deaths have dropped 80 percent in Cambodia since The Global Fund started working there in 2003. The horror stories you hear about—where aid just helps a dictator build a new palace—mostly come from a time when a lot of aid was designed to win allies for the Cold War rather than to improve people’s lives. Since that time, all of the actors have gotten much better at measurement. Particularly in health and agriculture, we can validate the outcomes and know the value we’re getting per dollar spent.

MYTH THREE

SAVING LIVES LEADS TO OVERPOPULATION

by Melinda Gates

We see comments like this all the time on the Gates Foundation’s blog, Facebook page, and Twitter feed. It makes sense that people are concerned about whether the planet can continue to sustain the human race, especially in the age of climate change. But this kind of thinking has gotten the world into a lot of trouble. Anxiety about the size of the world population has a dangerous tendency to override concern for the human beings who make up that population.

Going back at least to Thomas Malthus, who published his An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798, people have worried about doomsday scenarios in which food supply can’t keep up with population growth. As recently as the Cold War, American foreign policy experts theorized that famine would make poor countries susceptible to Communism. Controlling the population of the poor countries labeled the Third World became an official policy in the so-called First World. In the worst cases, this meant trying to force women not to get pregnant. Gradually, the global family planning community moved away from this single-minded focus on limiting reproduction and started thinking about how to help women seize control of their own lives. This was a welcome change. We make the future sustainable when we invest in the poor, not when we insist on their suffering.

The fact is that a laissez faire approach to development—letting children die now so they don’t starve later—doesn’t actually work, thank goodness. It may be counterintuitive, but the countries with the most deaths have among the fastest-growing populations in the world. This is because the women in these countries tend to have the most births, too. Scholars debate the precise reasons why, but the correlation between child death and birth rates is strong.

Take Afghanistan, where child mortality—the number of children who die before turning five years old—is very high. Afghan women have an average of 6.2 children.7 As a result, even though more than 10 percent of Afghan children don’t survive, the country’s population is projected to grow from 30 million today to 55 million by 2050. Clearly, high death rates don’t prevent population growth (not to mention the fact that Afghanistan is nobody’s idea of a model for a prosperous future).

When children survive in greater numbers, parents decide to have smaller families. Consider Thailand. Around 1960, child mortality started going down. Then, around 1970, after the government invested in a strong family planning program, birth rates started to drop. In the course of just two decades, Thai women went from having an average of six children to an average of two. Today, child mortality in Thailand is almost as low as it is in the United States, and Thai women have an average of 1.6 children.

If you look at the graph below of Brazil, you’ll see the same thing: As the child mortality rate declined, so did the birth rate. I’ve also charted the population growth rate, to show that the country’s population grew more slowly as more children survived. If you graphed most South American countries, the lines would look similar.