Foreign aid
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d139b5dfd0af808b62276362d065f623.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 54 Forum Member
✭
Why are we still paying so much abroad in foreign aid, even increasing the amount we give away to other countries when there are families living in poverty here?
We've been fed images of the starving in Ethiopia for years with the celebs popping up every now and then to tell us how much they care. Yes, there are still people starving there and there always will be in those areas that are unable to sustain the population yet we build water and school facilities there keeping the population in place rather than the historical and natural solution of a nomadic people which is to move to another area which can better sustain them.
And yet, whilst we are still pumping millions out there, a brand new multi-million pound aircraft from their national airline has issues at Heathrow. Their capital is a rich and thriving modern city rivaling many in the west. Makes you wonder where all the millions in aid over the years have actually gone...
Then you have India. Another country we still give humanitarian aid to. India, one of the fastest growing economies in the world. India, a country with a well established nuclear programme and a far better funded space program than the UK...
How about we divert a good chunk of that aid we give away every year to these countries and instead help the people of this country? The parents who are living off several cups of tea a day so that their children can eat properly? The families who are living off cheap tins of beans because they can't afford the taxes and prices anymore in this country whilst we boost the economies of others?
We've been fed images of the starving in Ethiopia for years with the celebs popping up every now and then to tell us how much they care. Yes, there are still people starving there and there always will be in those areas that are unable to sustain the population yet we build water and school facilities there keeping the population in place rather than the historical and natural solution of a nomadic people which is to move to another area which can better sustain them.
And yet, whilst we are still pumping millions out there, a brand new multi-million pound aircraft from their national airline has issues at Heathrow. Their capital is a rich and thriving modern city rivaling many in the west. Makes you wonder where all the millions in aid over the years have actually gone...
Then you have India. Another country we still give humanitarian aid to. India, one of the fastest growing economies in the world. India, a country with a well established nuclear programme and a far better funded space program than the UK...
How about we divert a good chunk of that aid we give away every year to these countries and instead help the people of this country? The parents who are living off several cups of tea a day so that their children can eat properly? The families who are living off cheap tins of beans because they can't afford the taxes and prices anymore in this country whilst we boost the economies of others?
0
Comments
The amount we give is under 1% of GDP. In fact we're still under the rather mean-spirited goal of 0.7% we agreed to meet by 2000, so not much and rather later than promised. It does sound a lot if you quote figures in millions but if you diverted the lot to several big-spending Government departments, it wouldn't make the difference some people think it would and I think we'd be morally poorer for it.
We're still a rich country and there's a lot wrong in the world where a bit of money well-spent (yes, of course foreign aid needs to be applied wisely and with checks). I don't think the under 0.7% we give is so much a matter of pride at Britain's generosity as awkwardness at our meanness. (Maybe that's too hard on us - a little tentative pat on the back might be appropriate seeing how much meaner lots of other rich countries are! We're above France at 0.45%, Germany 0.38% and well above the 'generous' USA at 0.19%. Boo!)
It's not all money 'lost' to us from which we recieve no benefit. We may be nurturing a potential trade partner, helping quell possible conflicts which could affect our trade routes, sources for our essential commodities or our allies. Giving helps create relationships, so some giving benefits us directly or indirectly.
The argument that if the government of country X isn't helping support some of their own people then we shouldn't either, is callous. Yes, they should help but if they're not, the suffering continues unless we do something.
So, lots of reasons but the main reason to spend a little to alleviate suffering and for development is not that it helps us, but it's the right thing to do.
We still give millions to India in aid. The same country that is able to spend millions on a nuclear and space program.
They have huge, profitable steel and automotive companies.
Why are we funding the health and well being of their population whilst the rest of the country prospers?
Why are we spending money feeding countries that are more than capable now of feeding their own whilst families in this country go without? How is that the right thing to do?
It's not like that. It is to secure political influence and business contracts for British industry. For example, China receives 2.5 billion USD in foreign aid in total from all countries every year, yet over the last decade it has pumped 75 billion USD into Africa alone under "foreign aid".
Makes no sense?
That's because "foreign aid" is not what you think it is for.
Foreign aid, are nice words, instead candidates spent money greasing the palms of local political bosses.