I love international aid. Seriously, when I heard it was being ring-fenced I (almost) jumped for joy. And it’s not because I believe in the notion of redistributing wealth – far from it!
No, I reacted with delight because I recognise something that too few politicians are prepared to admit: international aid isn’t about doing something noble, it’s about protecting British interests.
For sure, the application of international aid produces noble results. But when you break it down, the strategic objective of DfID is far from some woolly notion of placing our arms around the world in order to give it a great big cuddle: it’s about defence.
Stable and prosperous countries, societies and communities are less likely to descend into violence or produce individuals susceptible to recruitment by terrorists. Victory us!
Too often though, this more pragmatic side of aid is glossed over in preference to a more cuddly interpretation of our agenda. And that’s dangerous. It’s dangerous because it leads to situations where the very fact of providing aid to certain nations is called into question.
India is a case in point, with the following all-too-simple sentiment rolled out by the media at every opportunity: India has a space programme, why are we sending them aid!?
Well, for a start, the money being spent on a space programme isn’t serving our strategic objectives. And when it comes to spending British taxpayer money, that’s the only thing that matters.
No matter how wealthy a country might be, the question we have to ask is whether it is deploying its wealth in a way which is conducive to producing results which serve our strategic interests. If they aren’t then we have some choices:
1. Persuade them to allocate resources in a way we want
2. Provide aid to ensure money is allocated to the achievement of a defence objective we desire
3. Both of the above
It’s high time our political leaders painted it in such stark terms.
Comments
scottspeig / June 15 2011 9:44am
Indeed, but they will have to clearly show why we are doing it
The problem though is that if you told me to spend £100 on clothes yet would pay that £100 if I didn't, why would I buy clothes??
It is a ridiculous situation, especially when they give similar quantities of aid away that we give them. We should be producing the same results by other means. Primarily trade.
Stephen Gash / June 15 2011 1:06pm
Firstly, I can't see the moral justification for the UK giving money to India to loan to other countries.
Secondly, there was a heated exchange today's PMQs about cancer patients in the UK being denied financial benefits. In England many are denied 12 or more cancer drugs that are available in Scotland free on its health service.
Meanwhile, the UK Government has just lauded its policy of foreign aid to fund vaccinations accross the world.
Again, I can't see the moral justification in asking cancer patients in England, or their families at least, to fund healthcare abroad when they are being refused treatment available elsewhere in the UK.
It seems to me that the British Government considers lives in England to be less worthy than not only those in Scotland, but also the rest of the world.
Perhaps I'm missing something.
JK Rawling / June 15 2011 2:32pm
We in the West are lucky. We got here first and, such are the current a likely future limitations of our planetary resources, there is little chance that the billions that follow in aspiration will even get a "look in". Our aid coffers are there to help where help is needed.
But there are worries where a country:
1 - Funds its own space program
2 - Has more billionaires than the UK (yes, I have heard about per capita)
3 - Has its own nuclear warfare capability
4 - Allows huge segments of its population to be systematically discriminated against
Every penny that such a country (who would rather spend money on space projects that on its own disadvantaged population) should be diverted to countries who are really trying to help themselves against the odds. Our contribution does rather seem to be little more than a bribe to "please keep trading with us".
Then, there are the countries (mostly in Africa - not all corrupt) who do not have the grandiose aspirations - they just want a look in. They have my vote every time.
Trevors Den / June 18 2011 3:16pm
Aid to India is being levelled off and cut back. aid to Russia and China stopped. why was labour giving aid to russia and china?
Aid needs to be used to create friends and I believe that is the over arching political motive.
better to spend money that way hopefully avoiding conflicts rather than wait for them to blow up and spend billions on conflict and expend gallons of blood.
We are getting very little for our defence spending. We spend billions but cannot keep the peace in basra. So whats it worth?
john problem / July 26 2011 5:44pm
Cameron's aid fetish will cost each UK taxpayer £441. That's £441 each. With no guarantees it won't - like large chunks of previous aid - end up as fleets of Mercedes, mistresses and Riviera palaces. In the last 50 years the equivalent of 3 trillion pounds sterling has been given to developing countries by the West. Ostensibly to encourage health services and democracy and to feed the poorest. Ah well.