We need an open, honest debate about where international aid cash is spent - and we should ignore critics of the whole concept
You have to watch what you say about international aid.
The “charity begins at home” mantra really is the most pernicious weapon in the growing UK right’s rank, rotten arsenal.
Mostly the argument goes something like this: “India is using our handouts to put a man on the moon while Our Brave Boys have to use foodbanks.”
At the last general election, more than four million people voted for UKIP, which effectively used this claim in its manifesto.
Millions also consume, daily, a newspaper where this statement could stand as a condensed editorial.
So it’s easy to see why, on the sane side of the political divide, some might be uneasy about starting a debate about where our aid goes and what our priorities are.
But it’s a debate that is needed – and just because the populist right makes an issue of it, doesn’t mean we should ignore it. In fact, it means it’s imperitive we get it correct.
until we see a shift in wealth distribution, aid and charity will be needed to catch those condemned by a capitalism which finds no use for them
One’s new report suggests that too much international aid, paid for through our taxes, is being spent on the wrong countries – with much less than half gojng to what the UN classes as Least Developed Countries (LDCs).
Most of these are in sub-Saharan Africa – and this could be the crux of the problem.
The One report suggests that aid is skewed in favour of those countries to which the west has ties – either as part of a post-colonial legacy or because of more direct economic interests, ie, they have resources we might want to exploit.
A huge proportion of the world’s poor live in LDCs – and are being written off because we have few ties with them.
This phenomena is not just confined to international aid – it also features in charitable giving. The amount raised by the recent Nepal earthquake appeal absolutely dwarfed the sum gathered for the Ebola appeal. No two disasters are equivalent but could it be that picturesque Nepal – the setting for so many middle-class backpacking adventures – was favoured over the ravaged villages and cities of west Africa?
There are good reasons why our aid still goes to nations like India. Even though it is not an LDC, vast swathes of the population are in dire poverty and, until we see a fundamental shift in wealth distribution, government aid and charity will continue to be needed to catch at least some of those.
It’s clear that we need to have a debate about our priorities. Maybe we should be spending more on international aid as opposed to, say, nuclear weapons. Then we could help LDCs and those, like India, classed as middle income. Whatever, we shouldn’t let a fear of reactionaries stop us.
And if India is developing a space programme, maybe we could demand it ringfences some of our cash to create space for rightwing demagogues on a one-way rocket to Pluto. I’d give to that cause.
