Evil Santa Claus Andrew Mitchell is in the process of training the British public to accept international aid as a force that discriminates rather than helps. Can this be reversed before the UK’s aid budget skips Africa altogether?
Mitchell is the UK’s International Development Secretary and insists that the UK’s donation of £64 million to Pakistan — to help with the tragic flooding — had a self-serving element. The theory is that by stabilising a potentially threatening nation today you are saving yourself costly antagonism tomorrow. Mitchell has already claimed that his Department for International Development (DFID) has a central role in upholding the UK’s security. It’s with this ostensible frankness that Mitchell is going to give the British people what they think they want in terms of aid donation.
Despite slashing commitments, including a pledge for free healthcare in some of the world’s poorest countries, DFID has not been affected by the Conservative Party’s breezy cutting. It is ring fenced off from the process that’s tightening other British departments like education. So with each donation Mitchell’s department takes pains to acknowledge that, in these times, they know that the public has its priorities exclusively set on home soil. Mitchell plays the victim, acting as if he’s held hostage to deliver rationalisations for his department’s kindness. But during the Pakistan flooding his incredulity became obvious. Mitchell didn’t have to explain himself with Pakistan. The country needed the aid: 1 500 people have died and 20 million have been affected in what has become the country’s worst natural disaster. The fact that he framed the donation as something necessary for security rather than a humanitarian effort shows that he wanted to take the opportunity to ingrain an image of the British public as calculating when it comes to spending beyond its borders.
So why go to the trouble of constructing these images? Because a humanitarian Tory minister with his hands tied to the mast of an immoral ship is blameless. Even with his recent, potentially inconsequential, promising to charities like Oxfam, Christian Aid and Save the Children he could still turn the department’s £7.3 billion into a pot of money that’s transplantable anywhere. By carefully setting expectations, and capitalising on the public’s temporary mercenary nature from these cuts, it looks like DFID is going to get the everyman’s approval to morph international aid into something entirely different. If the public gets used to this local “added value” when donating aid then the government will be able to manipulate this parameter to spend accordingly. By rejecting obligations to almost a 100 aid projects, but retaining the original budget, international aid could, for example, dip into topping up slashed military budgets in Afghanistan. This is as long as Mitchell can show the British people that his actions have self-serving intentions for the UK.
To put it in perspective: during the month that Pakistan was flooding over, in sub-Saharan Africa — in countries that pose no security risk to the UK — 115 000 people died of HIV/Aids. And that wouldn’t be relevant if the UK government hadn’t suddenly turned aid into something of a competition. Pakistan should get the money, as much as it can, for the rebuilding process it has imminent, but other less ostentatious causes are going to get lost in the fold. The tragedy will be in seeing Mitchell’s strategy neglect global health problems in corrupt countries like West Africa’s Sierra Leone, which he has already singled out as a country unfavourable for aid. It’s a country that’s broke, difficult to handle, doesn’t offer any chance of financial reciprocity and can’t be dressed up for the British public as a threat to national security — exactly the kind of dysfunctional country international aid is intended for. Chances are it’s not going to get a penny.
Not surprisingly, the countries that have their hands stretched out the furthest for aid, are controlled by the most suppressive regimes.
It’s charity. THEY decide who they want to give THEIR own money to. Decades of financial aid has done nothing but fuel civil war in Africa as everyone tries to steal it. With all the money in the world, you would be crazy to give one cent to the murderers and maniacs in government anywhere on the continent.
Africans have been arrogant and “entitled” for decades – it’s time the First World helped someone deserving who will actually spend the money on building and not killing.
“If you were the UK, would you give Africa money?” No, not “sommar”, would you????
Charity?..starts at home! Humanitarian? Do you give to every beggar on the street corner?
Calamities? not necessary, they are too big, too far and any other excuse you can find.
Imagine, you -as civil servant- have been given a budget of 7 billion to spend on behalf of your country for “good purposes” at your choice.
There are “good purposes” to the tune of 700 billion to choose from. What are your criteria?
Throw a dice? or make a more purposeful decision?
You are English so you might prefer to give some to English speaking people who can express their gratitude in a language you can understand??
It is not your money, so you do not want to throw it away in some deep hole. Responsible spending!!
Do you want to be seen “responsible” because it is good for your job prospects? or..or..or
In short: at a higher level there is no charity without a possible return, short term or long term be it country, corporate or any at this level. Even on a personal level the “need to be seen to give” does exist.
Charity donations = buying goodwill, influence or both.
“There is no free lunch”
No.
Why would you want to supply aid to Sierra Leone, for instance?
Supplying aid to dysfunctional countries entrenches dysfunctionality. The population grows beyond what they can sustain by themselves, the dysfunctionality remains and the need for aid increases. More people suffer and more people die.
Be merciful and wise. Unless you propose colonization and the consequent establishment of something less dysfunctional?
Definition of aid: When (gullible) poor people in rich countries send money to rich people in poor countries.
Come on, since when is it the UK’s job to give us aid? I don’t give my child more pocket money when he’s wasted his…
South Africa has made it clear that it doesn’t want interference from abroad. It’s time it got on with things itself.
Take a long look at Zimbabwe, where the one at the top feels free to squander and cheat, hurl insults at the UK, but wants their funding.
Take a long look at SA, where the one at the top feels free to squander and cheat, hurls insults at the taxpayers and allows the public service to murder AIDS victims all on their own.
Why would we need aid? Do we deserve it?
Would you give government extra money to spend?
International Aid has always been a political instrument. Only the politically naive would believe otherwise. That a Tory is admitting to it publicly and using it to appeal the baser instincts of the people of the UK, is a clever ‘in the moment’ political tactic but tides change and public opinion is fickle and he may come to regret his open cynicism sooner rather than later.
It is the independent groups that rely on individual donations that reflect the compassion of citizens in donor countries. However, aid and emergency relief services are only as effective as the competing forces on the ground permit them to be. Pakistan’s temporising on the Taliban and Al Qaeda have made some donor nations reluctant to commit huge amounts of aid (in a time of world recession) to a government that has not consistently supported international efforts to root out the Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds.
The Paksitani military has tilted in the direction of the radical Islamists in such a way that any Aid donor or independent organisation must be cognizant of the possibility that aid intended to rescue civilians may be diverted to military and/or Islamist purposes as in Somalia and Sudan. Ordinary people may want to help Oxfam, the International Red Cross or Red Crescent, Medicins Sans Frontieres, International Friends Rescue Committee, because they trust such groups to act without political bias.
If one’s conscience is pricked by the thought of 20 million suffering people, private donation makes sense.
All well and good but people like Andrew Mitchell are self serving. Like the Apartheid movement kept a lot of so called do gooders alive,so does charity.
The thing that sticks in my craw is that this charity money is demanded as if it is a right. Used unwisely or stolen never really enters discussion. Countries and other donors close their ears to that information. An example is the donor food being sold in the markets in Somalia.
I debunk his theory on the hearts and minds for security of the UK. Because even those who live but hate and plot against the UK with a passion live off their welfare system. Hook and his family are prime examples.
One can say you cannot punish the majority for the bad by a few but is that not what the patriot act, FICA, air passenger, bio passports and many other restrictive laws have done? Punished or restricted the majority because of the few.
It washes both ways. Afica for example is a black hole where no amount of money will make/help it come right. The problem is that African governments see / use AID as something that negates their obligation to look after their own. Western doners should wake up and smell the coffee before drinking.
All the world’s wealthy countries give aid in order to advance their own agendas. Do you know how many UK companies are mining in Africa, stripping the mineral wealth and leaving devastation behind them? any time this occupation is threatened, “aid” will become a necessity. It is that simple.
It is foolish in my opinion to believe that helping a country that poses a national threat wil be favourable to that country.
Afterall the extremists/terrorists do not fall into the majority and their goals will not be hindered if a proposed target throws money at their country.
Robin I imagine that you meant repressive regimes? Would I give money to Africa? I believe that the UK should give money to countries which it colonised because it grew rich from that colonisation and in giving the countries back to the indigents who were cheap labour to the colonisers and much more numerous and less skilled they have been at the root of our problems in South Africa. Our ancestors died and worked hard to create the wealth that the UK lives off, diamonds, gold minerals etc. With the money you can send back all darker hued and skilled Africans and we descendents will actually take their place. Each coloniser should do the same for the country that their people took over in Africa. You might be surprised or African Africans might be surprised to find out that those whites who are left here do not wish to live in UK. It’s a country in decay.
The UK does not give aid solely for the purposes of development. It also gives aid to try to keep people in their home countries. The Developed World has huge problems with people from the Third World flooding to their countries seeking asylum and work, and trying to gain access to their generous benefits systems. It doesn’t really work, though, and the UK, Europe and the US are slowly being swamped by uneducated people. They continue to give in the hopes that something might take seed. In the days of Empire, it was easy to control the peoples of the Third World because they were subject peoples, and their movements could be proscribed. Now that is not possible, and they do the only thing they can do in the face of the insoluble and terrible problems in their home countries: flee. The next source of such migration will be South Africa. As the policies of the government fail, more people will be seeking the green pastures of the First World. It is not for nothing South Africans need visas for virtually every First World country: they are a known risk for illegal migration. It is a strange dance of desperation: Africans are oppressed in their own lands by their own people and their vast numbers threaten the stability of the First World. With a generally left-wing populace, these First World countries feel compassion, and will not simply stand by. Neither side benefits, but neither side knows how to progress.
Good comments,Richard. Throwing money at Africa is useless. It simply goes back to the 1st world, kept in accounts in Switzerland etc. There is no quick solution, its a matter of evolution. Peoples in Europe lived similarly a thousand years ago. A simple look at history at that time will show this.
Imposing a so called “democratic” system in Africa (which is in fact a One-man-one-vote system) will create further disaster, i.e Zimbabwe etc.
It will take a few hundred years…..
Paul, you’re being cynical beyond reason. Yes, Sierra Leone et al aren’t sexy. But DFiD funds are taken from my tax wallet and applied to whomsoever the government of the day wishes, while the UK general public donates quite incredible sums on the streets to a variety of causes and issues – including monies directed to causes and people in Sierra Leone, Niger, Pakistan, ad infinitum, South Africa, ad infinitum, etc etc. And yes, DFiD is a political instrument designed to ensure trade relations. It is self serving for the UK to use it. Your comments slight the efforts of those ordinary publics in the UK and beyond who believe its messages and follow suit to help, despite a rigid middle finger offered in thanks, notably from anglophone countries. Ungrateful upstarts that they are, not one has sent a pound back. Wonder why.
@gail
While it’s true that ancestors of many Africans today worked were exploited to make the European colonialists rich, you must remember that the ancestors of most modern British people were also being exploited by the industrial revolution. During the 18th and 19th centuries conditions in British mines and factories were appalling – badly paid, dangerous, frequently exploiting children. Few people had much choice in life, they were slaves in all but name. It isn’t correct that the UK now entirely owes its wealth to the exploitation of colonial labour, it was also built on native (British) labour as well. Only a small elite benefited at the time.
Ho hum… Do we really care what the poms do?
I noticed recently that CNBC Africa is running an ad in which reference is made to RSA’s 20% contribution to Africa’s economy. I stand to be corrected because for obvious reasons i’m not just sitting around waiting for the ad. Nonetheless some twelve odd years ago we accounted for more than two thirds of the continent’s GDP i understand.
I also read stats that suggest that overall Africa’s growth rate without SA is averaging mote than 5%, while SA seems to have made it to 5% more or less once in 15 years.
Assuming this to be true then this would suggest that some parts of Africa are emerging from their overt gangster years and consolidating gains. And perhaps that is why various offshore banks want to buy our banks.
So in answer o your question: One would imagine that some of the more successful places may get strategic assistance, like for instance the consolidation of the emerging common market in east Africa, which would pander to a popular affection for East Africa in up market Cheltenham style dem’/ tory hangouts.
Those that are regressing would, quite reasonably, be jettisoned to sink or swim. One can’t see the Poms, who have serious financial trouble of their own, entering any pissing competitions soon… Austerity rules. So recumbents parts of Africa may well find themselves slowly being re-colonised by those anti colonialist, Tibet gobbling Chinoise.
@ Richard 2 quite right Sweden for example donates huge sums to the British human rights groups but there is the rub. Ever tried to get into Sweden on human rights grounds. My daughter in law was studying at Upsala Unv. My son wanted to go live with his wife.
After being assured that all would be okay he bought the ticket the whole toot to find that they gave him a one month visa. He appealed. Their answer was that they had done what was required, allowed him a visit to see his wife. The end result was that they instructed my daughter in law to leave Upsala at the end of each semester. Now that is donating money to keep people out of your country and the perfect take on Sweden’s human rights. The money they donate for the rights of people to stay in the UK, France, Spain and such is too keep those people from getting into Sweden.
The bottom line in the life of any individual is measured by the level of their personal integrity. The integrity of a state is as a result of the collective integrity of its citizens . Thus the less integrity possessed by the citizens of a state the more it will fail.
the British robbed,pillaged & raped the world for centuries.
They must pay back their ill gotten gains.
I agree with most of the commentators above:
- Aid to Africa is mostly done for self-serving reasons, i.e. to stop immigration if done by governments, mostly well-meaning when done by individuals.
- Aid has never helped anyone get stronger unless the aid came in the form of education. Teach a man to fish, so as to speak.
So, the bizarre argument that this British politician is being calculating and self-serving is just that, bizarre. Politicians have a boss, the taxpayer, to answer to and really do not have the luxury of making choices for humanitarian reasons.
My own contribution may not be easily understood and goes as follows. When a natural calamity befall someone, it is only human to help but should not be expected. When calamity is due to bad judgement, no amount of aid will make a difference, only good advise, which one can only offer but not force someone to take. The Zimbabweans and those in Sierra Leone are free to suffer their leaders or not, as they choose, as do the the British and any other person in the world.
I like the British approach and hope the Americans will do the same. I found it galling that with as much excoriation of American policy/culture/economy as there is in South African society and media, they still had the nerve to protest in front of the US Embassy last month demanding that money for HIV/AIDS be increased.
Here’s a thought: if you can spend billions of rand on building new stadia and hosting a world-class soccer tournament, we think you’re grown up enough to handle your own public health crisis.
I wouldn’t give Africa a cent.
Financial reciprocity and threat to national security is what guides British policies especially with the underdeveloped world this is most noticeable not just in aid but with immigration policies. The countries which pose the most threat to national security seem to have priority in asylum applications.
By and large Africa could benefit more with less aid but more with the British less willing to help corrupt African government officials hide their stolen monies in British banks