Comment at the Foreign Aid Debate

Exeposé Comment’s Debate Correspondent Fiona Potigny reviews Debating Society‘s event with the motion: “This House supports the UK’s foreign aid budget”.

Jonathan, Jonathan, John, Jonno…What do these four have in common? Well, aside from making this reporter’s life particularly hard with regards to note-taking owing to their sinisterly similar names, they had all gathered in Amory Moot on a chilly Friday evening to debate the motion: “This House supports the UK’s foreign aid budget”.

Photo Credit: Julien Harneis via Compfight cc

Fast and forthright, Professor John Maloney of the University of Exeter churned his way through a succession of quick-fire points detailing his support for the motion. With international aid costing the average tax payer just 18p, a minute figure when considered relative to the lives saved through the eradication of polio and smallpox brought about as a result, Professor Maloney hammered (sometimes a little too forcefully – it must be said) home the importance of supporting the budget.

He also made a convincing link between development aid and the resulting economic growth, citing India as a strong example, though this was later disputed by the opposition. Despite recalling a good number of statistics that supplemented his argument well, such as the 80% reduction in yearly cases of Malaria, his altogether incensed delivery, which remained throughout questioning, was somewhat intimidating and perhaps impeded his ability to get the audience onside.

In addition, his implication that those opposing the motion “would rather tsunami victims drown… [because] they’ll only have too many children anyway” was hardly a wise choice.

After Professor Maloney’s rushed discourse, Jonathan Foreman’s speech provided some much-needed room to breathe. In a calm and collected manner, the Founder of Standpoint magazine earnestly recalled his experience with the aid world, punctuating it with welcome pauses offering the audience the opportunity to digest each of his arguments.

He began by lamenting what he catchily branded the “deficit of honesty” within international aid organisations, heavily criticising their unrepresentative marketing strategies; that is to say: showcasing their emergency and medical work through promoting footage displaying inoculations and the installation of mosquito nets, despite only 8% on average of their budget being spent on emergency humanitarian crises, with only 3% of this figure constituting medical aid.

He expanded on his distaste for aid culture by drawing compelling parallels with colonialism and condemning the “one size fits all” principle regarding development aid.

It was then DebSoc’s previous Chairs’ turn to step up: Jonno White. “No pressure, then” joked current Chair Ellie Binks. Despite an excellent start, seemingly winning over the audience from the offset with his jibe to Foreman, “I love your magazine. Still £1 more expensive than The Spectator, though”, his subsequent recourse into reading from the sheet of paper before him was a touch disappointing. Though this did lead to a somewhat unengaging manner of speaking, it must be noted that he constructed a robust argument.

Extremely persuasive were the links he made between the foreign aid budget and its implications for national security. White argued that foreign aid was not only a projection of the UK’s best values abroad, but an essential peace-keeping initiative, citing the UK’s help in increasing the number of children attending school in Afghanistan from one million to seven million in recent years as an example of this.

Finally, he warned that if we are to follow the selfish example of China, who donated less than $100,000 to the recent Philippines disaster (less than Ikea donated!), the poverty-stricken will instead turn to guerrilla groups to receive the vital support they lack.

Photo Credit: United Nations Photo via Compfight cc

Jonathan Isaby of The Tax Payers’ Alliance expressed disapproval over the fact that the proposition had seldom referred to the UK, despite the motion specifying the UK’s budget.

As one might have expected owing to his role, Isaby’s points were naturally economically-inclined. He denounced the lack of cuts to the aid sector, whilst every other area had undergone austerity measures in addition to the “waste” generated through the use of organisations run by “aid barons” (charity executives) with disproportionate six figure salaries and the donation of money to corrupt regimes.

He also questioned why money is still directed to India despite its BRIC status and space program in development, which caused audible gasps from a few audience members, and the lack of prioritisation of aid to Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo, countries accounting for two thirds of Malaria cases.

Finally, he dismissed the figure of 0.7% of GDP spent on aid as “pointless” and concluded that solutions in which “more can be provided for less” should be rigorously researched.

Isaby’s claim that 0.7% constituted an arbitrary amount was later picked up in audience questioning. Isaby postulated that this figure had caused a bidding war between countries, competing to donate the highest proportion of GDP in order to increase their international leverage. White dismissed this, suggesting that in the same way that countries must honour the treaties they have signed, the UK must acknowledge the promise it has made on the international stage.

Foreman then cut in, proposing that the best way to secure aid tends to be threatening its very removal, noting the case of homosexual abuses in Malawi as such an example. When asked about whether the panel envisaged a sustainable future for aid, Isaby maintained that this would be impossible without significant cuts, which was rejected by Professor Maloney who firmly (read: angrily) refuted the notion of cuts – all the better, as Isaby had spoken of little else for quite some time at that point.

Best speaker this week is awarded to Jonathan Foreman. Though his international name-dropping provided a good deal of humour (“When I was in Pakistan/Kenya/<insert developing country here>…” etc), these first-hand experiences totalled an altogether refreshing perspective, which was not reliant on competitively blazing through statistical data, as the other three panellists often did, but on an honest recollection of experience. The result was that the effects of aid felt less distant, and more concrete, which is perhaps that which brought about the ultimate success of the opposition.

Fiona Potigny

Did you attend last Friday’s debate? Is this an accurate version of events? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose

Foreign Aid: Saving The World Or Forgetting England?

Naomi Poltier discusses the state of Britain’s economy, and whether providing foreign aid is a positive move.

Last year I remember busking in the streets of Exeter for one of the university’s campaign groups, when an old man had me pause and asked me why I was raising money for another country, when England was in such a state of need. I politely replied that contrary to what most people believe, the UK only spends about 0.5% of their budget on foreign aid, and the conversation quickly died out.

The exact percentage figure of foreign spending for 2012 is 0.56% (BBC News). It turns out that even with this decimal percentage, the United Kingdom came second to the United States of America in overseas aid spending in 2012, paying out a total of £9 billion. Britain’s overseas aid spending has overtaken Germany’s, despite their GDP being approximately 30% greater than the UK’s.

David Cameron at the G8 Summit.
Photo Credits: Matt Cardy/AP

Whilst for some this is bad news, for others it is an accomplishment of pride. George Osborne commented on the United Kingdom’s second place status in overseas aid spending by saying: “We should all take pride, as I do, in this historic achievement.” It is also very gratifying to look at some of the good the UK has been able to do in the world recently. Some most recent accomplishments include the government’s funding of £10 million to back the fight against Polio in Somalia and Kenya with vaccinations, where the first outbreak since 2007 has occurred.

Thanks to the UK, 285,000 civilians a month who are caught up in the Syrian crisis are also getting food. Moreover, during the G8 conference this summer, David Cameron announced that the UK will pledge a further £175 million for the Syrian crisis which is, according to the International Department of Development, the largest single funding commitment ever made by the UK in response to a humanitarian disaster. The department also claims that: “We know that help is getting through, that it is saving lives. The UK, as a G8 member, has one of the world’s largest economies. The government has a responsibility to aid poorer countries, especially during conflict.

Despite the vast benefits of supplying foreign aid, it has many drawbacks. As the Telegraph points out, the UK is facing a triple dip recession. The plans for the end of 2013 are to have increased the percentage of the budget spent on overseas aid to 0.7% from the previous 0.56%, while European countries often reduce money spent on aid during tough economic times. Douglas Carswell points out the negatives in this by stating that: “politicians hand over billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to subsidise governments, but cut back on local services.”

The main issue of poverty in England is child poverty. In June it was reported that “one out of every six children in the UK lives in relative poverty” (BBC News). Relative poverty is a poverty line that is used in comparison to the UK average income, and approximately 300,000 more children fell below this line compared to the year before. With issues like these arising, it is logical for Carswell to point out that people living in the UK are unfairly paying taxes which are being partially poured to other countries’ governments.

Personally, I am a great supporter of foreign aid. I have travelled to several under-developed countries, and seen countless slums which we could never count as acceptable conditions of living. No matter how cliché it sounds, we are immensely privileged. I think that an extra 0.5% or 0.7% of a budget spent will make less difference to us than it will to the lives it improves and saves around the world.

Living among the world’s richest,  it is our responsibility to give people access to basic human needs: food, health, and if possible, access to stimulating aspects of life like education. However, it is not right for people in the UK to suffer in relative poverty, especially as this number is growing and those people cannot be forgotten due to comparison with extreme poverty.

The solution is not to be found in spending money, but in managing society and how money is spent. The little extra percentage of money the UK would get by eliminating foreign aid will not make much of a difference, and especially not as much as re-thinking social strategies.

Jeffrey Sachs mentioned in his book How to End Poverty that much of feeling ‘poor’ also lies in a man or woman’s dignity. This is why people who are relatively poor in the UK would feel ‘rich’ if they moved to a slum in Lima, Peru. But, this aspect of dignity is one of the rare parts of eradicating poverty which can come free of charge. Jeffrey Sachs argues that this is a crucial part of taking communities out of poverty: to dignify and power the human mind.

I agree, to a certain extent, and do not think that the UK needs to reduce the amount of money spent on foreign aid. Like Osborne, I believe it should be a point of pride. The Coalition has a similar point of view regarding the need for money in helping the UK, as they report they aim to end child poverty in the UK by 2020 by finding the source of the problem with further research rather than by primarily giving aid money.

While the UK has its own poverty problems to fix, it is far ahead of many of the developing countries of the world. When the old man in the street interrupted my street singing I quickly labelled him as narrow-minded. We have much to learn in terms of open-mindedness from providing aid to the rest of the world, as well as in learning to fix problems of poverty within the UK with other means than money. As is widely claimed today, fixing poverty is not a single follow-through recipe, there is rather a different one for every single community that must be investigated. Money can only go so far.

Naomi Poltier

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

The Aid Epidemic

Image credits: frontierofficial

With his sister recently returned from Kenya, Liam Taylor asks if our good intentions actually do more harm to fragile nations around the world.

Where is Bongo Bongo Land? I hadn’t come across the phrase until I saw it plastered across the headlines after the controversial MEP Godfrey Bloom used it in his speech/rant (delete as appropriate) on foreign aid. The use of the phrase sparked controversy apparently everywhere bar his constituency, and led to a situation, then exacerbated by his stubborn defence of his remarks on the BBC, which culminated in an offer to personally apologise to the ambassador of Bongo Bongo Land himself (who unfortunately could not be reached for comment).

I guess he was unable to use the excuse that he was merely referring to the late President Bongo of Gabon, as a former Tory MP claimed when he used the phrase the last time it caused controversy, and figured that was next best option. I leave it up to you dear reader to decide whether the comments were racist or not. This article is concerned with the heart of the issue, not the semantics.

Not long after the media flurry surrounding the controversy died down my sister returned home after a summer of charity work in Kenya, a country I suspect some would consider a province of Bongo Bongo Land. The problems that the media back home deems worthy of making a fuss about, the occasional daft utterance from a politician seemed rather trivial to her, at least compared to the real problems faced in the less fortunate parts of the world. It is no secret that Kenya is by no means a rich country, to put it mildly. It receives over two billion dollars each year in foreign aid and is the second largest recipient of US aid to Africa, behind only Egypt. Like many countries in the region it has also been plagued with corruption.

Kenya can seem like two completely different lands. The westernised boarding school in Nairobi that my sister stayed at on her first night could be indistinguishable from anywhere in England save for the rather nicer weather. Yet other parts conform more to the stereotype of popular culture. A land of mud huts and endless savannah, where basic necessities like running water are luxuries and old plastic bottles are considered a sturdy construction material. In Nairobi itself this difference is perhaps even more glaring, where modern skyscrapers and office blocks stand side by side with hastily built shacks made from salvaged scrap. Indeed that kind of contrast is far from uncommon in the region. When I was in South Africa a few years ago (for the much less noble reason of a holiday) there was a stark difference between the westernised tourist areas and the slums on the outskirts of the city.

 

In a way it helps to put things in perspective. It’s easy to forget how good we have it in the grand scheme of things, how protestors in New York or outside St. Paul’s are part of the wealthiest one per cent in the world and how even the poorest in this country are comfortably in the top ten per cent. Many of the villages rely on subsistence farming, lacking the convenience of modern technology they rely on their own back breaking labour. In one village that my sister spent time helping in, a single mother of five had to single-handedly toil on a maize field all day just to grow enough food to survive. Yet even donations of modern equipment do little help; a tractor is of little use without the parts or know-how to fix it when it breaks, or even how to use it in the first place. Indeed the most advanced piece of technology my sister came across out there was an old toaster. Growth away from subsistence is not done any favours by the western world’s insistent protection of its own farmers from foreign goods.

Image credits: eGuide Travel

When my sister first told me she was going off to do charity work in Kenya a couple of thoughts crossed my mind. The first was the most obvious, that this was a really good thing to do. But I have to admit there was also a cynical part of my brain that thought “how much help can you really be? After all, what do you know about digging wells or building schools? The closest you’ve come to hard labour is helping our parents with the gardening. Surely it would be better to send them the money you’re going to spend on flying out and living there?” While it sounds bad there was some logic behind this thought. After all it is a common problem after natural disasters that lots of well-intentioned volunteers show up unprepared and without any training. The result being that actual charity workers have to waste time babysitting them, instead of helping the victims, and waste precious resources feeding them and patching them up when they hurt themselves.  There was also an element of concern that she might get eaten by a lion when she tries to pet one. Although I’m glad to say that the cynical side of me was wrong.

Empathy, the desire to help others less fortunate than ourselves, is of course very commendable and it is one that nearly every person has no matter their beliefs or where they lie on the political spectrum, if anywhere at all. Of course not everyone can go out to Africa and physically help, so this empathy manifests itself in other ways such as charitable giving. But sometimes that cynical part of us raises its head, “what good can my tenner a month do?” So that same feeling of empathy makes us demand that more be done, that government fixes it. We rely on the ‘wisdom’ of the bureaucrat in Whitehall rather than the experience of the volunteer on the ground. It feels good to be absolved of responsibility, we did our part and if it’s not working it’s not our fault, it’s the government’s fault. It’s the government that isn’t doing enough, isn’t giving enough and can never give enough.

Remember earlier when I talked about the vast divergence between the richest and poorest parts of Kenya? Just why is there the gap? Is it an inevitable part of development? Is it because there still is not enough aid? If so, how is it that Asia has managed to lift millions out of poverty without a penny of aid? $2 billion can a build a lot of schools and hospitals, yet they are conspicuously absent. Perhaps you also remember the rampant corruption I mentioned. Well put the two together and perhaps you start to realise how it’s possible that after decades of receiving billions in aid the average Kenyan hasn’t become any better off. Kenyan corruption may be bad, but it is small comfort that it is not as bad as other parts of Africa. Indeed one prominent Zambian economist argues strongly that the corruption is so bad that the corruption (amongst other things) actually makes aid harmful to African countries. It may be possible that handing over large sums of money no questions asked can create the conditions that fuel corruption, sort of like the way vast natural resources can become a curse for poor countries.

All the arguments for greater aid have at their heart the best of intentions, just like the well intentioned clothing drive that has a minor side effect of putting the indigenous clothing and textile industry out of business and inadvertently costing lots of jobs. There is an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So perhaps it’s time to rethink our approach to help those that need it most. To stop focusing on intentions and start looking at results.

Liam Taylor