Mabel Criticizes President Bush on AIDS: December 2005

[m67345]

In principle she's supposed to be non-partisan, and she could easily campaign for AIDS awareness without blaming America for all the world's problems and launching hysterical attacks against Bush. It's always so easy to criticise and much more difficult to actively attempt to alleviate problems without complaining and blaming others for them.
Also, claiming that America doesn't give enough aid is ridiculous. In 2003, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion out of a total $108.5 billion in foreign aid from the world's major countries - more than three times the amount from the next largest donor, the Netherlands, at $12.2 billion. Americans make up about 5 percent of the world's population and give about 35 percent of the aid.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

In principle she's supposed to be non-partisan, and she could easily campaign for AIDS awareness without blaming America for all the world's problems and launching hysterical attacks against Bush. It's always so easy to criticise and much more difficult to actively attempt to alleviate problems without complaining and blaming others for them.
Also, claiming that America doesn't give enough aid is ridiculous. In 2003, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion out of a total $108.5 billion in foreign aid from the world's major countries - more than three times the amount from the next largest donor, the Netherlands, at $12.2 billion. Americans make up about 5 percent of the world's population and give about 35 percent of the aid.

Nicely said

 

[Charlotte1]

In principle she's supposed to be non-partisan, and she could easily campaign for AIDS awareness without blaming America for all the world's problems and launching hysterical attacks against Bush. It's always so easy to criticise and much more difficult to actively attempt to alleviate problems without complaining and blaming others for them.
Also, claiming that America doesn't give enough aid is ridiculous. In 2003, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion out of a total $108.5 billion in foreign aid from the world's major countries - more than three times the amount from the next largest donor, the Netherlands, at $12.2 billion. Americans make up about 5 percent of the world's population and give about 35 percent of the aid.

The country that gives the highest percentage of its gross national product in aid is Norway. It gives 1% of its GNP. Aid agencies are pushing that all major developed countries give 1% of their GNP in aid, the US gives a very small percentage of its GNP in aid ( I have to look it up to see exactly what the percentage is) When looking at the population of the country plus the wealth it produces Norway is a far more generous donor than the US.

As far as Mabel is concerned, the attack she made against the Bush Administration has merit. She criticised their policy of not providing aid to agencies and NGOs who work with AIDS victims if they are not prepared follow the retoric the Bush Administration wants repeated. This she argues is unconstitutional ( and morally deplorable, my words not Mabel's) and that's why the Open Society Institute of which she is the acting director is suing the Bush Administration. Mabel was working for the OSI before she married, she is speaking in her capacity in that organisation, not as a member of the Dutch royal family. Regardless of whether she gets more publicity because of whom she married.

 

[Layla1971]

The country that gives the highest percentage of its gross national product in aid is Norway. It gives 1% of its GNP. Aid agencies are pushing that all major developed countries give 1% of their GNP in aid, the US gives a very small percentage of its GNP in aid ( I have to look it up to see exactly what the percentage is) When looking at the population of the country plus the wealth it produces Norway is a far more generous donor than the US.

As far as Mabel is concerned, the attack she made against the Bush Administration has merit. She criticised their policy of not providing aid to agencies and NGOs who work with AIDS victims if they are not prepared follow the retoric the Bush Administration wants repeated. This she argues is unconstitutional ( and morally deplorable, my words not Mabel's) and that's why the Open Society Institute of which she is the acting director is suing the Bush Administration. Mabel was working for the OSI before she married, she is speaking in her capacity in that organisation, not as a member of the Dutch royal family. Regardless of whether she gets more publicity because of whom she married.

I agree, in terms of population and production the US doesn't give as much as other countries.

Also, the Bush administration has been very discriminating against organizations that won't agree with and promote their beliefs and policies.

 

[Maxie]

In principle she's supposed to be non-partisan, and she could easily campaign for AIDS awareness without blaming America for all the world's problems and launching hysterical attacks against Bush. It's always so easy to criticise and much more difficult to actively attempt to alleviate problems without complaining and blaming others for them.
Also, claiming that America doesn't give enough aid is ridiculous. In 2003, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion out of a total $108.5 billion in foreign aid from the world's major countries - more than three times the amount from the next largest donor, the Netherlands, at $12.2 billion. Americans make up about 5 percent of the world's population and give about 35 percent of the aid.

I've said it before and I'm going to say it again (I think I'll make it my motto in life): Mabel is not a part of the Royal House anymore, so she is not automatically supposed to be non-partisan. Next to that I don't think that she is launching hysterical attacks against Bush or against I know who (I've never read or saw anything about it that really deserved to be called hysterical). She was just doing her job for Soros and so I suppose critisizing things that the organization she works for doesn't find okay is just the thing she does for a living, whether we like it or not.

(OMG. It's starting to look like I actually like Mabel, which I don't...argh! I just like to have the facts straight...)

That's an interesting thing you say about the aid contributions, by the way. I should never have supposed that the Netherlands (with it's 16 million inhabitants) would be the second country to contribute so much...

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

I sincerely hope this discussion doesn't turn into an anti-Bush politics or anti-American thread because I feel that this is where it is heading ; I don't visit this board to talk about such touchy sentiments and their feelings towards my country.

 

[Layla1971]

I sincerely hope this discussion doesn't turn into an anti-Bush politics or anti-American thread because I feel that this is where it is heading ; I don't visit this board to talk about such touchy sentiments and their feelings towards my country.

I must support GlitteringTiaras and say that I think we're all adult enough to keep this thread diplomatic and thoughtful rather than turning it into some petty and childish excuse to vent our anger.

Yes, I don't agree with Bush in any way, but I'm not anti-American in any way either.

 

[Maxie]

I sincerely hope this discussion doesn't turn into an anti-Bush politics or anti-American thread because I feel that this is where it is heading ; I don't visit this board to talk about such touchy sentiments and their feelings towards my country.

Neither do I. I just wished everybody read the earlier messages in this thread to figure out:

a. What is this thread about? (can Mabel do this?)
b. What is Mabels position? (she isn't a member of the Royal House)
c. Why does she do this? (it's her work)

These three things can put the whole situation in perspective, imho. To discuss this, we don't need to talk about the US, The Netherlands or even Burkina Faso (if somebody feels like it...). But I have to admit, this thread touches some very delicate matters, which I surely don't want to talk about myself (since I think this board is much more fun without them, and as I stated earlier: they're hardly interesting... )

 

[Alexandria]

Mabel is treading new ground as far as I am aware. She is a princess although her husband is no longer in line to the throne; her title as princess is honourary and represents her familial ties to the Queen. She doesn't carry out royal duties in the sense that Maxima does.

She has a very fine balancing act: As someone pointed out, while we at this forum and other royal watchers may be familiar with the distinction that Mabel is part of the Queen's family but not part of the royal family others in the mainstream media and public will not and will simply identify her as a Dutch princess, which could put the Dutch royal family in an impartial position.

On the other hand, as Mabel does not carry out any royal duties and is not paid to represent the Netherlands in any official capacity, she is a private citizen for those intents and purposes and as such, should be able to speak her mind as she sees fit.

I do not want to get into the dynamics of the individual or the government as a whole whom Mabel criticized, but I would say that at least Mabel's criticism is for a worthy cause. No matter whom or what country she criticized, I think that at least her heart and her social conscience are in the right place. Her criticism would've been a whole lot worst had it been for something trivial or had it been for something much more of a minefield, such as someone's religious beliefs.

I have always liked Mabel and from what I have read about her, I have found her to be a very intelligent, educated, and socially conscience individual. As such, I don't think she would do anything or put herself or the Queen or the rest of the family in a negative light.

Mabel would also not be the first person ever to say something politically charged or to comment on a particular leader or government. Charles has done this on several occasions as well and has been criticized for it, too, as did Phillippe of Belgium to a lesser degree. Perhaps this is new ground for royals: To comment, even if to skirt around, government policies and leaders, whether their own or another country's.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, if Mabel has a full-time job and this sort of statement is part of the job, then it's something she has to do. If it isn't appropriate for her to say things like this, then she should give up her job and find work that's less controversial.

Unfortunately her options are somewhat limited. If she gives up work altogether, she'll be accused of being a drain on her husband and only marrying him so she could be a kept woman. She can't give up work and do royal duties because she isn't a member of the Royal House. If this is the sort of work she's trained to do, she'd have a hard time finding the right sort of work elsewhere.

As long as this is part of her job, I think she's doing the right thing by not ducking her responsibility.

 

[m67345]

I was under the impression that as long as she retains her title, she remains a nominal representative of the royal family, if not an active one. If that's wrong, then obviously she is free to say what she likes.

In response to GNP percentages (sorry, I know this might be off topic), quoting GNP percentages makes no sense because its money that buys aid, not percentage points. In terms of money donated, the U.S. is the most generous country the world has ever seen, no other country comes close. For example, the U.S. has given more aid in the last 4 years than any combination of developed countries. And if you want percentages, last year, the U.S.'s $2.4 billion in disaster relief was 40% of all relief aid given in the world.
Percentage of GNP is an inaccurate measure of 'generosity' and is used only because calculations involving GNP are the most disparaging to the U.S. It completely ignores massive categories of aid such as military aid, food aid, trade policies, refugee policies, religious aid, private charities and individual giving. The billions that the U.S. spends on medicines it gives to third world countries for free, and military security from which the rest of the world profits dwarf those of Norway or any other country you may care to name. And these are only two examples.

 

[Pink Tulip]

I must support GlitteringTiaras and say that I think we're all adult enough to keep this thread diplomatic and thoughtful rather than turning it into some petty and childish excuse to vent our anger.

Yes, I don't agree with Bush in any way, but I'm not anti-American in any way either.

Yes and being against the views or actions of a particular government doesn't mean being against the people of that country.

I think she is justified in her statements. You don't have to agree with her but from what I can gather, with the work she does, she is making informed statements about the issue.

 

[susan alicia]

wonder why she did not mention the vatican too.

 

[Layla1971]

I was under the impression that as long as she retains her title, she remains a nominal representative of the royal family, if not an active one. If that's wrong, then obviously she is free to say what she likes.

In response to GNP percentages (sorry, I know this might be off topic), quoting GNP percentages makes no sense because its money that buys aid, not percentage points. In terms of money donated, the U.S. is the most generous country the world has ever seen, no other country comes close. For example, the U.S. has given more aid in the last 4 years than any combination of developed countries. And if you want percentages, last year, the U.S.'s $2.4 billion in disaster relief was 40% of all relief aid given in the world.
Percentage of GNP is an inaccurate measure of 'generosity' and is used only because calculations involving GNP are the most disparaging to the U.S. It completely ignores massive categories of aid such as military aid, food aid, trade policies, refugee policies, religious aid, private charities and individual giving. The billions that the U.S. spends on medicines it gives to third world countries for free, and military security from which the rest of the world profits dwarf those of Norway or any other country you may care to name. And these are only two examples.

You forgot to mention that America is also the most developed and most wealthy country in the world. They have more money than any of us to give to worthy causes.

Although my statement shouldn't allow the fact of how, to whom and why the money and aid is distributed, being unfair and completely conditional on the agreement and promotion of US policies.

 

[betina]

You forgot to mention that America is also the most developed and most wealthy country in the world. They have more money than any of us to give to worthy causes.
.

There are still a lot of poor people in USA as far as I know. I would think that Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Monaco are the most wealthy countrys in the world.

 

[Australian]

There are still a lot of poor people in USA as far as I know. I would think that Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Monaco are the most wealthy countrys in the world.

Well to be fussy, Liechtenstein and Monaco are not countries. But yes, those principalities are very wealthy.

I commend Mabel for speaking out. Royalty should do that more often. Im not saying i do or dont agree with her comments but i agree that she had a right to speak out. I hope this sets a precedent to other royals. What good is being in a public position without being allowed to speak out. Good on you Mabel.

 

[Roxsteve]

So many people are anti-American! Please let's keep our cool and move on. It does not matter if my country (US) gives money or not, we will be critized anyways so let's move on. Let's forget about Bush, Mabel and let's move on to other subjects.

 

[Emily]

As Alexandria alluded to in her post -- some royals in far stronger "royal" positions are beginning to speak up on issues. As an example, go to the thread on the recent visit of C & C to the US, and read through the posts -- at one point PC softly chided President Bush on his environmental policies. I think PC may even have said this at his speech at the White House dinner but maybe I'm wrong there. I appreciate PC's concern about the environment but I must admit I was surprised at his venue or bringing that up!

 

[tenngirl]

Mabel

I have kept checking the web for information on what Mabel said and if it was picked up in America. Interestingly enough, there are no ripples felt here. Which would seem to suggest that no one here really cares what she says. If she wants to go out and slam Bush, fine, but most people in America don't even know 1. who she is 2. who the Queen is, and 3. where the Netherlands are in Europe! And don't really care, to be honest with you.

In other words, they are just Royalties, they have absolutely no power and no real impact on the world.

It is too bad that Friso or whoever she is married to did not marry Princess Aimee. She is such a pretty girl and seems classy, not like this chick.

So far, I think relations between the Netherlands and America are still okay. We are not sending in the Marines yet!

 

[betina]

So many people are anti-American! Please let's keep our cool and move on. It does not matter if my country (US) gives money or not, we will be critized anyways so let's move on. Let's forget about Bush, Mabel and let's move on to other subjects.

I agree. We can always disagree with pilitics and religion. To my opinion lets close this thread because people are getting in bad mood am I right?
Nad merry christmas to all of you

 

[Genevieve]

It's about whether Mabel is stupid or not by mingling in this kind of business and being a princess at the same time...

I don't think Mabel's comments were stupid as long as she didn't position the comments as coming from a Dutch princess. As long as her comments came from her role within her organization then I think that everything is on the level.

I wonder what members think is worst? Margarita's comments about the royal family such as how Johan would wave with one hand and give the finger with the other or Mabel's comments for a valiant cause?

By far I think that Margarita's comments were worst as they portrayed the royal family in a very negative light and that is something hard to recover from since it came from one of their own. It wasn't a former butler saying that Johan was a jerk, it was his own cousin.

While Mabel's comments were critical of a political leader, that political leader won't always be in that position. So even if her comments ruffled his feathers (which it did not seem to have) in a few years he'll be out of office and she could start fresh with the next person.

 

[Charlotte1]

In response to GNP percentages (sorry, I know this might be off topic), quoting GNP percentages makes no sense because its money that buys aid, not percentage points.
Percentage of GNP is an inaccurate measure of 'generosity' and is used only because calculations involving GNP are the most disparaging to the U.S.

On the contrary, quoting what percentage of GNP is given in aid is the fairest and most equitable way of making a statement as to what country has the most generous aid programs. Those percentage points translate directly into money and generousity, a country with a small population who gives 1% of their GNP in aid compared to a country with an enormous population who gives a very small percentage in aid is far more generous as it's more of a sacrifice to give what they do in aid.
As far as being disparaging to the US, the first article I ever read on what percentage of GNP was given in aid by various countries was written by an Australian journalist critical of Australia's contribution. Both the US and Australia are lower down on the list of generous donors.

To get this back to Mabel's speech, US aid is not always without "strings attached" that was one of her major points. US policy for AIDS funding is conditional on following the Bush Administration line. In other words, "if you want the money you must do and say this" If you don't you won't get any aid. With some research it's possible to find many other examples where US aid funding is tied up with "follow our retoric or you won't get any" as well as "here's the money but you must buy everything you need in the US" often at inflated prices.

Mabel is a very intelligent woman who throughout her life has had a strong sense of social justice. She's a lawyer and made the decision to work in the area where she can globally make a difference, in the area of Human Rights. For that she should be universally commended.

 

[Genevieve]

Mabel is a very intelligent woman who throughout her life has had a strong sense of social justice. She's a lawyer and made the decision to work in the area where she can globally make a difference, in the area of Human Rights. For that she should be universally commended.

I wasn't aware that Mabel was a lawyer. Where did she study law and has she ever practiced?

I think it's great that Mabel went out on a limb and did something that royals aren't supposed to do for something she believes in. It takes a lot of courage to do that and that makes Mabel all the more admirable in my eyes.

 

[m67345]

The weirdest thing about Mabel's stance is that she resents that Bush advocates abstinence before condom use to prevent AIDS because she claims that in Africa most women's first sexual experience is 'involutary' and worldwide this apparently applies to 20-50% of women. But this seems irrelevant because no amount of policy changes are going to change that - how many rapists are going to use condoms? And how successful can this lawsuit be? Surely a government administration has the right to determine to whom and in what manner its own aid funds will be distributed. A Republican government is obviously going to pursue Republican values. That's the essence of government and democracy.

(Response to Charlotte1): %GNP statistics are unreliable because they completely ignore private donations. Europeans give most of their help through governments, Americans do so privately, eg. in 2000, the U.S. gave $53 billion in foreign aid - $33 billion of that came from the private sector.No other country comes close to this kind of system.
Secondly, it is based on a selective and expedient definition of 'aid', and while you may have read an article by an Australian, the stats you are referring to come from a French study. The U.S. contribution will only appear small if you very carefully exclude the areas I previously referred to. Since these are the areas America contributes to most massively, and most European countries have comparably negligible contributions in these areas, the stats become skewed in favour of European countries.
Most importantly, America's GNP is vastly greater than that of any other nation. This standard contends that a poor man with a net worth of $10 does more good when he donates a dollar, than does a millionaire who donates $9,000, and then claims the millionaire is stingy. Let's not pretend the poor man will provide more food or blankets.

 

[Charlotte1]

I have a question. When she is "working" what name does she use. If she referring to herself and introducing herself as Princess Mabel of Oranje-Nassau.

Last June Mabel spoke at the World AIDS conference in Bangkok, also criticising the Bush Administration's stand on AIDS prevention. There she was billed as Mabel van Oranje, I gather she doesn't use the princess title in her working life.

 

[Charlotte1]

I wasn't aware that Mabel was a lawyer. Where did she study law and has she ever practiced?

I think it's great that Mabel went out on a limb and did something that royals aren't supposed to do for something she believes in. It takes a lot of courage to do that and that makes Mabel all the more admirable in my eyes.

According to the official Dutch royal family site. Mabel graduated cum laude from the University of Amsterdam in 1993. While still at university she did work experience with the UN Secretariat in New York, Shell in Malaysia, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague and ABN AMRO Bank in Barcelona.

Graduating from university she became a Director of "European Action Council for Peace in the Balkans" in 1994. She co-founded "War Child Netherlands" in 1995 ( a charity that works with children in war zones)

In 1997 she became director of the Open Society Institute in Brussels
In 2003 she became director of EU affairs for the Open Society Institute.

Mabel has spent her entire working life working in the area of Human Rights, it's not something she's started doing since she married in the DRF.

 

[Maxie]

So far, I think relations between the Netherlands and America are still okay. We are not sending in the Marines yet!

LOL! Let's hope not, indeed!
Of course the relations between the Netherlands and the US are still okay. That's what diplomacy is about.

 

[Charlotte1]

The weirdest thing about Mabel's stance is that she resents that Bush advocates abstinence before condom use to prevent AIDS because she claims that in Africa most women's first sexual experience is 'involutary' and worldwide this apparently applies to 20-50% of women. But this seems irrelevant because no amount of policy changes are going to change that - how many rapists are going to use condoms? And how successful can this lawsuit be? Surely a government administration has the right to determine to whom and in what manner its own aid funds will be distributed. A Republican government is obviously going to pursue Republican values. That's the essence of government and democracy.

" (Comment by Charlotte.[I don't know how to break up the quotes])So therefore it’s acceptable that a woman whose first sexual encounter was involuntary and then became infected with HIV/AIDS be denied medical aid and support by an agency who has to follow the Bush Administration policy to receive funding? Or be condemned by that same agency as its funding is dependent on US government aid. As far as the merit of the law suit, until a Judge gives a ruling we don’t know if it has merit or not. The OSI is challenging the Bush Administration’s way of allocating aid as unconstitutional, it’s for the Judges to decide if it is or not."



(Response to Charlotte1): %GNP statistics are unreliable because they completely ignore private donations. Europeans give most of their help through governments, Americans do so privately, eg. in 2000, the U.S. gave $53 billion in foreign aid - $33 billion of that came from the private sector.No other country comes close to this kind of system.
Secondly, it is based on a selective and expedient definition of 'aid', and while you may have read an article by an Australian, the stats you are referring to come from a French study. The U.S. contribution will only appear small if you very carefully exclude the areas I previously referred to. Since these are the areas America contributes to most massively, and most European countries have comparably negligible contributions in these areas, the stats become skewed in favour of European countries.
Most importantly, America's GNP is vastly greater than that of any other nation. This standard contends that a poor man with a net worth of $10 does more good when he donates a dollar, than does a millionaire who donates $9,000, and then claims the millionaire is stingy. Let's not pretend the poor man will provide more food or blankets.

I agree with the standard that a poor man whose net worth is $10 and donates a dollar is more generous that the millionaire who donates a mere $9,000. The millionaire’s donation is not generous at all particularly if he is capable of donating much more. If that same millionaire adds the condition that the village he donates money too must buy the necessary equipment from his company. Now the villagers could get the well parts cheaper from his competitors with the money left over they could be able to reroof the school or provide the school with more educational materials or provide basic health care. But as they are obliged to buy from the millionaire they have to pay more, now the village does get its well but nothing else. The millionaire goes away feeling good, he provided money, his company also made some money, the village got a well but no new roof for the school, no books, no basic health care. The materials for the well weren’t bought locally so local people didn’t benefit and there was no industry set in place to employ locals.
Given the statistics about how much money the US gives that comes from the private sector actually demonstrates how little money compared to other countries the US government actually does give in aid. The US has the largest GNP and I do believe that for it to be considered a generous aid provider a larger amount should be given in aid.
Now you did point out other ways the US provides aid but the value of those ways I would subtract from the fact that the US has strong protectionist tariffs and subsidies ( yes the EU does too! But Australia doesn’t) Poor countries, particularly in Africa can’t compete with countries that have protectionist tariffs and subsidies, poor countries need to trade their way out of poverty. At the G8 summit earlier this year, the lobby group behind Live8 did manage to get the leaders to agree to debt forgiveness but none of the countries there were prepared to even talk about removing tariffs or the subsidies they have. So they will continue to provide aid but no real way of making sure people from aid dependent countries can successfully trade their way to some sort of prosperity.

The US does provide large amounts of money in aid, but it’s not a generous aid provider. The aid also comes with ‘strings attached’ Hence the comments by Mabel were valid. ( Before I’m accused of anti-US bias I’ll point out that Australia is also not a generous aid provider as a low percentage of its GNP goes to provide aid. Much of Australian aid also comes from the private sector. The aid that Japan gives comes totally from the government sector and it does give a high percentage of its GNP in aid. But Japan also stipulates that the money it provides all has to be spent in Japan)

 

[m67345]

'Given the statistics about how much money the US gives that comes from the private sector actually demonstrates how little money compared to other countries the US government actually does give in aid.'

I take your meaning, but the whole point is that that stat (after subtracting private sector) reflects stats used to calculate %GNP, which is misleading. It's not a coincidence that both Australia and the U.S. give lower levels of government aid as %GNP and high levels from the private sector, because those countries have similar economic structures, as opposed to supposedly super-generous Scandinavian countries, which are socialist welfare states. The problem with your analysis is that it assumes that all goverments are created equal. When comparing the amount of aid given by a country, it makes much more sense to generate statistics relative to a countries total budget, rather than its GNP. For instance, Sweden's GNP (from CIA world factbook) is $238.3 billion with total government revenue at $177.7 billion. The United States, on the other hand, has revenues of $1.78 trillion, though its GNP is just under eleven trillion dollars. That means Sweden has *75%* of its country's wealth to work with when doling out aid, while the United States has only 16%. And super-generous Norway? 76%. No suprise then that these goverments are more generous with the total wealth of their respective countries; they control five times as much of it as the United States. Given that, you would be more justified asking why Scandinavia doesn't give more, not the U.S. And the first thing one notices when looking at the big foreign aid contributors is that they all spend very little on national defense, the average probably being aroung 1.5%. By contrast, the U.S. spent 3.4% BEFORE the Iraq war, it is now much higher. It's easy to be generous with foreign aid when another country is essentially providing your defense for free.
One could also claim that the vastly larger amount of private donations from America indicate the true level of compassion from that country compared with EU countries whose 'charity' is coerced from taxpayers and controlled by the government. Europe claims that it wants the U.S. to stay out of other countries' business, until they need its cash, when they will turn around and claim it's not doing enough to help other countries. By the way, many people who are anti-American are also anti-Australian for the same reasons so this isn't the best way to prove you're not anti-American. Not that I assume that you are.
Sorry, I've seriously hijacked this thread.

 

[ysbel]

Any type of aid-even from private corporations-has strings attached. Corporations are told to make sure their contributions eventually help the bottom line. They don't just give the money away. The days of freely giving money away just because its a worthy cause are sadly long dead and gone.

It behooves the agency looking for money to look closely at the strings attached. If the money is not worth the strings, its better to turn it down. Unfortunately some agencies don't have the intestinal fortitude to do that and they accept the money anyway. American public schools come to mind.

I think Mabel may have been in her right to speak out but if her point was important enough to her organization, she may not have been the best person to deliver it. Americans are going to look at the princess title then maybe her past associations and say, What does she know? when in fact, she may know a lot. Her title could hurt the cause rather than help it.