It’s not exactly a secret that us in BULS have our, ahem, tad differences with David Cameron. But I personally like to make a point of mentioning areas and events we can agree on (and that is a rather event) and Cameron’s defence of the safeguarding of the international aid spending against the own right of his party particularly that of Defence Secretary, Liam Fox. Never should we balance the books on the back of the poorest people in the world, it is morally wrong and completely unjustifiable. To say other wise is a completely vile idea particularly when Liam Fox advocates this simply as ‘common sense’ which is nothing less than disgusting.
I also welcome Cameron’s pledge for immunisation 243 million children to keep with the millennium development child mortality goal. Far, far too often are third world deaths completely and utterly preventable and especially by such quick and easy means.
We should not be afraid to accept our similarities when they arise and so on this exceptionally rare occasion (and I mean exceptionally rare), thank you Cameron.
Max
I’m not sure I can agree with all of this. While the commitment to immunise 243 million children is commendable, the commitment to get UK Foreign aid to 0.7% of GNI seems slightly arbitrary. The figure was the result of some rather dry calculations undertaken in the late 1960s, using growth models that had been based on the previous decade. Why not set a target of 1.5% of GNI or 0.4% or 3.0%? Things have changed a lot since the time that 0.7% of GNI was adopted as a lobbying tool in the 1960s. Savings ratios have massively increased in poor countries, reaching 20.3% of GNI by 2003, and some of these nations are now classed as middle income countries.
Targets can be useful as they can give a focus to government efforts, but most targets have the virtue of focusing on outcomes rather than inputs. When improving the police, the NHS and our schools, I believe that we were right to focus on class sizes, hospital beds and police numbers rather than how much was spent on public services as a share of GDP.
I worry that ’0.7% of GNI’ is becoming a descriptor of ‘guilt money’ that is used as political leverage in international forums and as a sincere but slightly bland boast at home; when the discussion should be focused on how it is spent.
While the poverty that we see in India is obviously unacceptable, we have to remember that we are dealing with a country that has more billionaires than Britain (no doubt encouraged by India’s lazy approach to tax enforcement). I don’t find it hard to understand the frustration of someone who pays tax on their minimum wage salary that is then spent on dealing with poverty in a country that fails to properly tax its own millionaires. We also have to look at India’s £36bn defence budget and the £750m space program. That foreign aid is often a pawn in international diplomacy is supported by the fact that India spends around £300 million a year on foreign aid while receiving aid herself.
British money makes up a small percentage of money spent on most of these projects in India (1% if memory serves), so is it unreasonable to place increased pressure on the Indian government to make greater changes? Low-paid British tax payers are forced to contribute to tackling poverty in India, while the billionaires who pass that same poverty every day in the street contribute almost nothing. India finds money to spend on poverty relief abroad while failing to do enough at home. There is only so much that we can achieve while a government is prepared to let its people suffer in that way. Obviously I’m not advocating an Iraqi-style regime change in India or a Peronist uprising; but I believe that only political pressure within India can really make long term changes that she needs. If a future Tory government were to create economic inequality to the extent that we see in India, I would not expect the Chinese or American government to deal with these problems while our own squandered hundreds of millions on vanity projects.
The withdrawal of UK aid to India would leave a relatively small gap in funding in percentage terms that could easily be filled by a government that manages to find £750 million for a space program. That would free up roughly £300m which could be split three ways. We could see £100m used for deficit reduction, another £100m for more deserving Foreign Aid projects and then a further £100m spent on strengthening our armed forces who play a huge role in humanitarian efforts any way.
We know that there is scope for improving the way we spend the money, and I recognise that what Max has written does not suggest otherwise, but we could cut the overall cost while increasing our efforts for those who need it most. Nailing our trousers to the mast with vague promises about share of GNI or GDP distracts attention from the details of what is a very broad area of policy.