Britain's £12bn Overseas Aid Programme

[Halton Brat]

I think I must have fallen out of bed last night & sustained a serious head injury; I find that I am suddenly unable to understand relatively simple events.

Could the more enlightened & able PPrune community please explain to me why UK Government is increasing Foreign Aid by 34%, to £12bn?

Furthermore, how & why are nations such as India (space programme, nuclear weapons, jolly good curry houses etc) on the list for £300 million?

International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, claims that this philanthropy will propel Britain to become a "Development Superpower". How do I interpret this?

How am I to view all this against the backdrop of defence cuts, surely the most awful military massacre since General George Armstrong Custer had a difference of opinion with the locals on the Little Bighorn River.

I thank the esteemed PPrune community, in advance, for any illumination they may provide to this unfortunate eejit.

HB

[November4]

It's the right thing to do as the PM watched Live Aid and that nice Mr Gandolf bloke said "Give us your .....money" so Dave is doing just that. Nothing else matters as long as "we" are liked by the rest of the world because we give them lots of money.

The corrosive legacy of Live Aid (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1394154/Live-Aids-corrosive-legacy-David-Cameron-UKs-overseas-aid-budget.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

[Muffin Themule]

Foreign Aid: see Danegeld

[Halton Brat]

Self-deleted.

[ShyTorque]

And don't forget, courtesy of Gordon Brown, much of this is being funded out of our old-age pensions.

[Art of flight]

I guess if we give away to India what we're borrowing from China we make some friends abroad, eventually we make friends of everyone and don't need defence, until the Chinese wan't the loan repaid!

[bingofuel]

Charity begins at home, so lets look after our 'home' first!

[John Blakeley]

I don't object to aid being given where it really is needed, but this item from yesterday's Def pro makes it clear that India doesn't need our help! I have written on this and the Indian P8 purchase to my (Tory) MP but so far with no answers.

Indian Air Force to receive 10 Boeing-built C-17 heavy transport aircraft

09:25 GMT, June 7, 2011 defpro.com | Following India’s recent decision to eliminate all US contestants from its future fighter competition, some observers expressed concerns that India might be dissatisfied with the United States’ reliability as an arms supplier or might even try to distance itself from the United States. Rumours of such a trend, however, are not likely to fall on fertile ground, in particular, when considering India’s plans to purchase 10 C-17 Globemaster III heavy transport aircraft in the country’s largest-ever procurement of US-built defence technology, with an estimated value of more than $4.1 billion.

According to AFP, citing an unnamed government official, the procurement plan was recently approved at a meeting of the government’s cabinet committee on security affairs. This clears the path for Washington and New Delhi to formally sign the government-to-government sale, which will be carried out within the framework of the US foreign military sale (FMS) programme. The press agency’s source further explained that the terms of the contract would require Boeing “to invest 30 per cent of the contract amount to set up defence-related facilities in the country.”

With regard to the progress being made in the planned purchase, the US company today stated: “With the sale approved we are excited about the opportunity to work with India on this great program and look forward to official notification of a signed letter of agreement (LOA).”

Other news sources reported last month that this initial contract for 10 aircraft could be added by a follow-on order for another six of these heavy transport aircraft, intended to significantly boost India’s military airlift capabilities. The country’s Air Force, the world’s fourth largest, seeks to replace its ageing fleet of Russian-built Ilyushin-76 aircraft, which increasingly often experienced technical problems and had to remain on the ground for extended periods.

AN INVALUABLE ASSET FOR THE INDIAN AIR FORCE

According to 8ak, retired Indian Wing Commander Raghu Rajan said that the introduction of the C-17 would enhance India’s capability to mobilise more troops in a shorter span of time, since they are larger than the IL-76 aircraft. As the swift mobilisation of resources remains one of the key capabilities in winning wars, according to Raghu Rajan, this aircraft would prove to be an invaluable asset for the IAF and India.

It is especially the aircraft’s performance and flexibility that reportedly convinced the Indian government to proceed with the purchase. This includes its ability to operate from runways as short as 3,500 feet and only 90 feet in width. Additionally, the C-17 has been equipped with thrust reversers that can be used to back the aircraft and reverse direction on narrow taxiways using a three-point turn manoeuvre, according to Boeing.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) had an opportunity to take a close look at the US airlift giant during a joint airlift exercise in India in late October 2009, as well as at the Aero India trade show in February 2009. Since then, the Indian government has acknowledged that it considered buying a specific number of C-17s.

A SIGNIFICANT ORDER FOR US DEFENCE INDUSTRY

As defpro.com reported, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced that India requested the purchase of 10 C-17s in late April 2010.[4] As the DSCA outlined last year, the contract would also include 45 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 engines (40 installed and 5 spare engines), 10 AN/ALE-47 counter-measures dispensing systems, 10 AN/AAR-47 missile warning systems, as well as further associated equipment and services.

[Heathrow Harry]

sometimes people on here prove they are still stuck in the Dark Ages

[Halton Brat]

Heathrow Harry, could I please invite you to expand on your last post?

HB

[Halton Brat]

Tourist, thank you for your considered & most intelligent post, a veritable micro-tutorial in the field of international politics, in which you are clearly a Don.

I'm a bit pushed for time here, but briefly:

1. The primary duty of HMG is the defence of the Realm; without this, all else stands for nought.

2. I spent almost half my life in pursuit of the above; this gives me a vote on this subject.

3. If you don't understand/are not aware of the decimation of UK Armed Forces & the commitments they now face, I can't be bothered to explain it to you.

4. At such times as this, I am grieved to see UK taxpayer funding directed to nations such as India, for reasons already mentioned. The level of corruption in many recipient nations is such that much of this money is syphoned off before it reaches those in need.

5. Until UK PLC is in better financial shape, & is able to adequately maintain its' prime responsibilities, I advocate a policy of 'disaster relief' only.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain if & why you would 'sign-off' the planned £300m grant to India, for example?

HB

[VinRouge]

I do wonder how much of the foreign aid budget gets spent on FCO "Activities" shall we say.

[Grimweasel]

Basic Macro-Economics really. Have a look at GDP and it's make up!

C+I+G+(X-M)=AD=Y

If the consumer is not spending (cause he's broke) and there is little investment and the Government has already spent too much then we need to boost eXports to boost GDP. It's all about sustaining future growth. The Foreign investment would have no doubt has an Investment Appraisal completed which points to spend now and reap the benefits later in increased X-M.

That's the theory anyway - depends how much debt the looming leg 2 of the recession saddles us with!!

[newt]

If we want to support third world countries, then spend it all on Scotland!!:\

[Halton Brat]

Grimweasel, I am truly impressed (no joke) by your obvious grasp of this complex field; respect, as our modern youth would say.

However, I am an afficionado of my Grandmother's kitchen table economics, the central pillar of which is that in times of economic hardship, cuts in expenditure must be made in order of priority.

I would be interested to hear arguments in support of increasing Foreign Aid by 34%, at the expense of the defence of the Realm, in time of war (if you don't think we are at war, watch last night's BBC3 documentary from Afghanistan on BBC iPlayer).

HB

[glojo]

If I give a third World country £1billion of aid for food, medication and new buildings.

Then that country can instead of spending its own money on Food, medication and new buildings have the choice of:


a) Sneak LOADS of money under the table and put it into my Swiss Bank account

B) Buy lots of guns, tanks and aeroplanes from me to kill their own people or sadly my soldiers, sailors and airmen!

I can look all my critics in the eyes and state how I have very kindly done the humanitarian thing and it was all for the greater good. They will never know about options a) or b) (Unless they subscribe to this thread) :\:eek:

John the cynic

[Bill Macgillivray]

There are some countries that need aid, this I must agree. I have no wish to even think about which ones they are as that is the task of our elected leaders (who know about these things !). What I do know, however, is that once the aid arrives in-country (most, not all) it has a habit of diminishing or vanishing before it reaches the people/places most needed or intended ! How our "leaders" can justify this increase is beyond me ! Why can we not have some logical/common-sense from Whitehall?
:confused::confused::confused:

[glad rag]

Oxfam investigating embezzlement of donations to Pakistan flood disaster - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/Pakistan/8559847/Oxfam-investigating-embezzlement-of-donations-to-Pakistan-flood-disaster.html)

well it's in the telegraph so must be true....

[jamesdevice]

we need to carry on paying the Indians at least to keep them "on side". In fifteen years (or so) time, when we're down to our last frigate and squadron we'll need India to protect us when the Chinese finally decide to rule the waves.
China are not far from becoming a net importer of food. With that, and their insatiable demand for oil and minerals they'll need to project power around the world to protect their supply lines. Only people who can possibly stop them is India. 21st century equivalent of England vs Spain.
Militarily India is going to become the inheritor of the Royal Navy's global power role - and we need to be nice to them. To hell with Pakistan and the other Muslim states - we need to suck up to India, and if that means pissing off the Islamiics, so be it. They don't like us anyway. At least some of the Indians speak English. In fact the future development of the English language will be decided in India: more speak it there than in the rest of the world combined

[Red Line Entry]

The issue of how much we spend on overseas aid is an important and contentious one. However, we should not kid ourselves that were such aid to be reduced, Defence would be the beneficiary.

Looking at the pressures he is under at the moment, if David Cameron did decided to divert $6Bn from the aid budget into other Departments, do you really think he would choose the money pit that is Defence?

[Halton Brat]

Red Line, I accept your valid point regarding Defence not necessarily being the beneficiary of a revision of UK Foreign Aid.

What has really blown my pressure relief valve in all this is UK Gov's increase in this budget of 34%, in this time of all-round hardship. To concurrently slash Defence, at a time of multiple conflicts for HM Forces, amounts to nothing less than an insult to those serving, and a source of considerable vexation to those who are a) retired from HM Forces, but b) still care about these issues.

When will UK Goverments, past & present, realise that UK is a post-colonial power in decline? We clearly cannot strut on the world stage any more, nor should we try, unless we are prepared to make the required investments. I do not view Mr Andrew Mitchell's (International Development Minister) vision of UK becoming a "Development Superpower" as anything other than the pipe-dream of a reallity-starved politico, whose main focus is undoubtedly on his portfolio/profile/career advancement.

UK PLC needs to stop trying to 'punch above its' weight' in many areas. How on earth have we ended up with a) nuclear weapons, but b) conventional forces that are/will be so depleted that we will have little 'option buffer' regarding the doomsday scenario? Answer: we have the nuclear arsenal in order to guarantee entree to the UN Security Council, where our political intelligentsia can delude themselves of their own significance.

The incongruity of this whole issue regarding the Foreign Aid budget is a direct parallel of Nero/Rome/fire/fiddle.

HB

[cazatou]

I live Overseas - how do I apply?:ok:

[Red Line Entry]

Lend us your carrier first!

[Aeronut]

I live Overseas .......deserter!

[Dengue_Dude]

Halton Brat:

Agree just about 100%.

Well said.

[cazatou]

mgd

Could you find a slightly larger Tank that could accommodate "R a" as well?

I'll be willing to contribute - and I suspect so will many others. How did he get through OASC?

[Halton Brat]

I'm musing at the moment, taking in the view from my office window, somewhere in the vineyard country of NW Europe.

Two thoughts:

1. Are we trying to curry favour with India with our planned GBP300m Aid grant? (Sorry about that, had to be done).

2. I intend to write to Mr Mitchell (Overseas Development Secretary) regarding his vision for UK to become a "Development Superpower". I shall propose that HMS Belfast be re-commissioned, in order that she may undertake a cruise along the coasts of impoverished nations, firing Star-shells from her main battery stuffed with banknotes of the local currency which would then cascade cash over the eternally grateful populace. Perhaps a RN gunnery expert (if we still have any) could advise me of the viability of this project.

Back to my musing (don't you just love Fridays?).

HB

[pr00ne]

Time for you all to clamber back on the outrage bus as David Cameron commits an extra £814m funding to immunisation of children in the Third World on top of the £680m already committed.


Personally I think every pound spent on Overseas aid, and moves such as the one above, do more for our long term security and stability than any similar amount spent on the defence budget could ever achieve.

[jindabyne]

prOOne

Don't altogether disagree with you, but having watched a couple of Mitchell's recent public performances and his very weak responses to aid for India and Pakistan questions, I'm far from comvinced that our monies are being well-targetted (even acknowledging that it's in our National interest to maintain good relations with both).

[papajuliet]

The wretched people at the bottom of the pile are, no doubt, grateful but just how much do they see of aid? Those higher up,siphon it off and just laugh at us - they regard us as a soft touch and naive to the point of imbecility - why do you think so many foreigners flock to this country?
The only aid which can be justified is the help given to a country that suffers a totally out of the ordinary natural disaster.

[Peter-RB]

My feelings are that most of this gang current Ministers, would "wet themselves" if something really big, bad, and nasty hit the fan, the School boy leader would not have the gumption to understand why he could not enter yet another conflict, and would be looking to the Libs to give him some moral support, well sadly they like waving pieces of paper in the air stating that "peace in our time would happen,"

Yeah, get real, will a third world country explain in 20 years to a child who we pump full of anti viral drugs now, .....that we the BRITs really are nice people,

will he listen or will he press the loud button, perhaps the School boy Head Prefect could let us have that answer after he speaks with his girlfriend "Cleggers" :ugh:

Peter R-B

[jamesdevice]

"extra £814m funding to immunisation of children in the Third World"

how many extra Muslim radicals will that money produce?

[glojo]

Time for you all to clamber back on the outrage bus as David Cameron commits an extra £814m funding to immunisation of children in the Third World on top of the £680m already committed.


Personally I think every pound spent on Overseas aid, and moves such as the one above, do more for our long term security and stability than any similar amount spent on the defence budget could ever achieve.

I would love to see how our monies have been spent over the last five years... Not bland reports given by MP's that have been 'shown' locations specially selected but show me how this money has improved the quality of life or altered lifestyles in a better way for the poor souls that are worthy of this aid.

Many, many Moons ago I saw a Red Cross Cargo enter the main port for Eritrea, the cargo was 'ceased' by the customs, sold to the Army and the army sold it to black marketeers that then sold it in local markets,still in the red cross sacks. Those starving Eritreans in the outback or villages never got to see this free aid!

Is there an answer??

[aviate1138]

I feel sure that David Cameron [+ cronies] demonstrate clearly that they have completely lost the plot......

If we are going to give aid let us give aid in terms of supplying UK sourced hardware - trucks, mechanical devices/ aircraft etc / expertise educated in this country but definitely NOT money paid into foreign Government accounts. It will go straight to Swiss banks and we will look even bigger mugs than we are presently perceived to be. :rolleyes:

Scrap Wind Power, develop Thorium based Nuclear plants and end all Bio fuel production and return the stolen land to food production.

Get some real Scientists to advise the Government not the sad old farts we have at present.

[Helen49]

I share the concern that foreign aid is so massive at a time of severe financial constraint for many in the UK. Equally I am yet to be convinced about the long term effects of not providing any such aid.

However if we are to continue being so benevolent I would love to know what, if any, checks are made to establish how this aid is actually used.

How do we [the Govt.] ensure that it isn't used merely for the trappings of power, executive aeroplanes and boats, limousines, palaces, etc etc? Is it used to pay for specific economic development projects or is it just handed out in bundles of cash.....rather similar to our domestic social payments, which recipients can then use entirely as they wish rather? Do we provide the aid after these countries have made the investment or is it always up front?

Is the system 'transparent'? Do we provide aid in the form of goods and services so that at least UK residents derive some benefit in the form of employment?

Lots of questions, I know! Not many answers. Just my two penneth......all I can afford!

[manccowboy]

Proone wrote:

Personally I think every pound spent on Overseas aid, and moves such as the one above, do more for our long term security and stability than any similar amount spent on the defence budget could ever achieve.

Tell me just how big are these bubbles you people live in?
Can you get them at Ikea or are they only available on prescription?

:ugh:

[Tankertrashnav]

"extra £814m funding to immunisation of children in the Third World"


If, and I agree it's a big if, every penny of that goes to immunisation programmes then it's got my vote. Should be matched pound for pound by recipient countries though and deducted from their space programmes, and the like.

how many extra Muslim radicals will that money produce?

Some, probably, so your answer to Muslim fundamentalism is to see as many Muslims as possible die in infancy?

[Harley Quinn]

The overseas aid budget should, perhaps, be seen as an insurance policy, less tangible than Trident and its replacement, but aimed at the same outcome. If you get on the outrage bus about aid, I think logically you must do the same for a weapons system that only the insane would wish to use.

[Thelma Viaduct]

However if we are to continue being so benevolent I would love to know what, if any, checks are made to establish how this aid is actually used. Most of them can't be trusted to do their expenses, what makes you think they have any idea or even care about where foreign aid ends up?

[Finningley Boy]

Time for you all to clamber back on the outrage bus as David Cameron commits an extra £814m funding to immunisation of children in the Third World on top of the £680m already committed.


Personally I think every pound spent on Overseas aid, and moves such as the one above, do more for our long term security and stability than any similar amount spent on the defence budget could ever achieve.


Ah, the old spot of good will goes a hell of a long way ploy eh!:ok:

All very well until there is a clash of interests somewhere along the line, but I should imagine the state of HM Forces at present, not to mention that of other western countries, may increasingly prompt less benign observers to feel unduely emboldened.:E

FB:)

[500N]

"Time for you all to clamber back on the outrage bus as David Cameron commits an extra £814m funding to immunisation of children in the Third World on top of the £680m already committed.

Personally I think every pound spent on Overseas aid, and moves such as the one above, do more for our long term security and stability than any similar amount spent on the defence budget could ever achieve."


The UN / UNHCR / UNICEF hasn't exactly got a good track record of achieving immunization of children (or adults) or of wiping out the deseases. Throwing more money at it doesn't improve the system.

$ for $, Bill and Melinda Gates have had a huge effect on immunization.

[SPIT]

Hi
When we are really in the s**t (as if we are not yet) will India and others * HELP US OUT !!!*. I DON'T THINK SO.: :mad::mad:

[jamesdevice]

"Some, probably, so your answer to Muslim fundamentalism is to see as many Muslims as possible die in infancy? "

I certainly don't see the point in us spending money on potential terrorists
The oil states have plenty of cash - let them spend their money
We need all our cash for ourselves

[Willard Whyte]

Meanwhile, whilst we give India cash...

India announces $5 billion aid for Africa, seeks support for UN reforms - Economic Times (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-05-24/news/29577710_1_african-union-pan-african-institutions-and-training-programmes)

Shirley shomething wrong?

[Tankertrashnav]

Hi
When we are really in the s**t (as if we are not yet) will India and others * HELP US OUT !!!*. I DON'T THINK SO.: http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif


Spit

Indian casualty figures

World War 1 (KIA only) - >74,000 (highest figure among British Empire/Commonwealth forces).

World War 2 (KIA only) - >32,000 (second only to Canadian figure).

[November4]

Ethiopia drought: UK pledges £38m in food aid (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14007181)

The UK has pledged £38m ($61m) in food aid to drought-hit Ethiopia - enough to feed 1.3m people for three months.

It really is the Live Aid effect (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1394154/Live-Aids-corrosive-legacy-David-Cameron-UKs-overseas-aid-budget.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)!

[Samuel]

Just imagine how generous the UK would be if they gave even a fraction of a percentage of that 12 Billion to help rebuild shattered Christchurch, New Zealand. :D For many who haven't visited the stricken area the urban damage is unprecedented in New Zealand history, and the ability of a small country to make it all new will be sorely tested.

Unlike India, however, we don't have millionairs making their millions out of child labour in sweatshops, nor have we bought 10 C17s and 45 engines, so we will just have to do what we've always done and help ourselves.

[ghostnav]

Saving the lives of young kids from simple diseases with basic inoculations is no way a waste of money. What is a waste of money is giving it to countries that have space programmes, nuclear weapon programmes or who just couldn't give a damn about their own people starving. So China, India, Pakistan etc should just go whistle!

[Caspian237]

What really gets my goat is that the Indian Government was quite prepared to pre-empt a UK decision to cut aid in 2010 by taking a vote in their own Parliament to effectively say they no longer needed it. Of course this vote was dependent on the UK Government actually making a decision to cut aid, which they didn't. To me this seems like infantile behaviour and the equivalent of a 'who dumped who?' scenario in International Foreign Relations.

In India Foreign Aid is a sensative subject as they balance (poorly, IMHO) their future ambitions with hard reality. Aid from the UK in particular has implications for Indian National Pride due to its colonial history. Never the less the UK tax payer donations will continue to be accepted by India until our Government decides to stop it, which by happy coincidence :rolleyes: will be the same time that the Indian Government decides it no longer needs it.

[minigundiplomat]

Just imagine how generous the UK would be if they gave even a fraction of a percentage of that 12 Billion to help rebuild shattered Christchurch, New Zealand. For many who haven't visited the stricken area the urban damage is unprecedented in New Zealand history, and the ability of a small country to make it all new will be sorely tested.

Unlike India, however, we don't have millionairs making their millions out of child labour in sweatshops, nor have we bought 10 C17s and 45 engines, so we will just have to do what we've always done and help ourselves.


As a Kiwi [albeit long term absent], I couldn't agree more. NZ is always ready to help the UK in times of trouble, yet has been treated pretty badly since the UK joined the EEC in the 70's.

[Jabba_TG12]

Theres nowhere near as much white post-colonial guilt about Britains history with NZ though...

:}

[Tankertrashnav]

Reports about the value of the treasure uncovered in a Hindu temple in Kerala State vary, but there is no doubt that it runs into billions.

$20 billion! Temple's secret vaults yield treasure - World news - South and Central Asia - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43629294/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/)

Any chance that this will be used for the benefit of India's poor and destitute?

[Samuel]

As a Kiwi [albeit long term absent], I couldn't agree more. NZ is always ready to help the UK in times of trouble, yet has been treated pretty badly since the UK joined the EEC in the 70's.

Perfidious Albion indeed!

[Pontius Navigator]

Samuel, you forebore to mention that the centre of Christchurch is still sealed off as quakes and liquifaction still occur and that over 5000 homes cannot be rebuilt thus completely abandoning some suburbs where services cannot be provided anymore.

Of a population of about 375,000 that probably accounts for 4% of the housing stock.

Dire need indeed.

[Samuel]

Nope PN, I didn't forget it, all the information is there for anyone wanting to see it, I just thought it was too much of a thread drift.

New Zealand hasn't asked anyone for aid, let alone the UK.

[500N]

Interesting article re aid

Ten great myths about foreign aid: After Cameron described critics as 'hard-hearted', how your money is squandered

David Cameron's foreign aid: How your money is squandered | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012074/David-Camerons-foreign-aid-How-money-squandered.html)

As he pledged to pour hundreds of millions more into propping up Afghanistan, David Cameron this week accused critics of his foreign aid policy of being ‘possibly hard-hearted’. The fact is we’ll soon be spending more on the Third World than on the Home Office and, while other budgets face cuts, overseas aid is being increased by billions. Here, IAN BIRRELL reveals what really happens to all that money . . .
Aid mission: Prime Minister David Cameron holds a baby as he visits Darfur in Sudan

Aid mission: Prime Minister David Cameron holds a baby as he visits Darfur in Sudan

MYTH 1: We can afford to spend a few billion pounds to help the world’s poor

Defenders of aid say we have a moral duty to help those less fortunate and we are a rich country that can afford it. This argument is put forward by ministers and supporters such as the heiress Jemima Khan, who claims Britain is wealthy enough to spend such trifling sums on aid.

Here are the facts. When Tony Blair established the Department for International Development (DFID) as the political wing of the charity movement in 1997, its budget was £2.6 billion — more than twice the Foreign Office allocation.

Today, we spend £8.1 billion, which will increase to £11.4 billion in 2014 — a 34 per cent rise, despite spending cuts elsewhere.

Unsurprisingly, MPs are getting a growing postbag over this. We are giving more than £300 per household to the world’s poor while public sector jobs are lost and vital services for the elderly and disabled are closed. The head of the Royal Navy has warned there may not be enough money to pursue the war in Libya.

Four out of five voters oppose the cross-party consensus of increasing aid spending, according to a new YouGov@Cam survey. I share the ideals behind foreign aid — and, if it worked, I would say spend more. Unfortunately, the policy is based on old-fashioned concepts, outdated figures and all too often makes life worse, not better, for people in poorer nations.

MYTH 2: We must hit the UN target to give away 0.7 per cent of our GNP in aid

Ah yes, the sacred target. For a government promising to sweep away targets, the Coalition is strangely wedded to this particular one.

We’re handing over 0.56 per cent of national income — far more than our economic rivals. Germany contributes 0.38 per cent of its income, while we donate twice as much as Japan and five times as much as Italy.

But this target is absurd, arbitrary and outdated. It was first calculated more than four decades ago based on theoretical data from the Forties, and was the result of back-of-the-envelope calculations of the needs of poor countries.

Since then, Western economies have soared while many poor nations have stagnated.

Five years ago, the United Nations itself said the amount of aid really needed was 0.44 per cent of national income.

Development economists applying the original calculations to today’s world yielded an aid goal of just 0.01 per cent of rich countries’ gross domestic product (GNP).
Young Iraqi men struggle to get boxes with food: Today Britain spends £8.1 billion on aid, which will increase to £11.4 billion in 2014 - a 34 per cent rise, despite spending cuts elsewhere

Young Iraqi men struggle to get boxes with food: Today Britain spends £8.1 billion on aid, which will increase to £11.4 billion in 2014 - a 34 per cent rise, despite spending cuts elsewhere

MYTH 3: Aid works

The economist Peter Bauer famously said aid transfers cash from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. His words have been underlined by scores of studies that found idealism tempered by harsh reality.

Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo revealed the West had given more than half a trillion pounds to Africa, but over the past three decades the most aid-dependent recipients saw negative annual growth rates.

Haiti is another example. It was given official aid of more than £6 billion — four times as much per person as Europe received under the Marshall plan for post-war reconstruction — in the 50 years before last year’s earthquake.

Private aid poured in as well, with more charities operating in Haiti per capita than any other place on the globe. Despite this, income fell by a third.

It has, of course, endured despotic leaders, dreadful corruption and political unrest.

The same goes for the Dominican Republic, with which it shares an island — but while receiving far less aid, this nation saw incomes and life expectancy soar over this period.

MYTH 4: OK, it hasn’t worked in the past, but it will in the future

Whenever people point out that mountains of money have disappeared into thin air, the aid lobby says it has learned the lessons of the past.

So yes, cash funded dictators, fuelled corruption, fostered a dependency culture and aided genocidal killers, but things are different now. The new buzzword is ‘smart aid’.

To be fair to Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, he has stopped some of Labour’s most outrageous abuses, such as £115,000 spent on stalls at summer music festivals in Britain, and he is right to boost transparency and encourage trade. But the flawed fundamentals remain the same.

And his department’s top civil servant admitted this week the Government still has no idea how much money is being lost to fraud and corruption.
Marines unload aid in Haiti: The country was given £6 billion - four times as much per person as Europe received under the Marshall plan for post-war reconstruction - in the 50 years before last year's earthquake

Marines unload aid in Haiti: The country was given £6 billion - four times as much per person as Europe received under the Marshall plan for post-war reconstruction - in the 50 years before last year's earthquake

MYTH 5: We will ensure 100 pence of value for every £1 spent on aid

This was the message Mr Mitchell gave a sceptical Tory Party conference last year, which he repeated to an equally sceptical looking Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight last month. But it’s not true.

There have been many attempts to quantify how much Western aid really helps intended beneficiaries.

Generally, it is estimated by think-tanks and charities that the real figure is in the region of 40p in every pound, though British aid is seen as more cost-effective than most.

The rest is swallowed up by bureaucracy, corruption, consultants, charity costs and duplication between donors — bear in mind dozens of countries and thousands of charities give aid. Indeed, an African nation must waste precious resources churning out 10,000 action reports for aid donors a year.

One UN adviser looked into a house-building project in Bamiyan, Afghanistan, that began with £92 million in the bank. The job was sub-contracted so many times through agencies in Geneva, Washington and Kabul — each taking administration fees — that by the time the money got to those working on the project, they could afford to buy only some wooden beams from Iran.

They were delivered for five times the normal cost by a company owned by the Bamiyan governor, but turned out to be too heavy for village houses. So they ended up as firewood.

Or take India, which spends £1.5 billion a year on a space programme, but is still one of the biggest recipients of our aid.

The World Bank just carried out the first major evaluation of its aid programmes and found so much corruption that only 40 per cent of grain given to the poor reaches its target.

MYTH 6: Aid changes the world for the better

British aid props up repressive autocrats.

Human Rights Watch issued a devastating report last year that revealed how DFID’s 250-strong staff in Ethiopia failed to monitor annual spending of nearly £300 million.

Worse, British taxpayers’ money was shoring up an autocratic regime, funding indoctrination and with food used as a political weapon.

The same is true in Rwanda, where Britain aided a sham election last year by funding the electoral body that prevented the president’s rivals from standing and the media council that closed independent newspapers.

This tiny nation, a favourite of Mr Mitchell, is being given an average £83 million a year despite last month’s disclosure it had sent a hit squad to assassinate exiles living in Britain.

We have also given substantial sums to Yemen, despite the concerns over the regime’s appalling human rights record that has helped fuel unrest.
Indian floods: Villagers run to get supplies being dropped - but the country spends £1.5 billion a year on a space programme, yet still one of the biggest recipients of our aid

Indian floods: Villagers run to get supplies being dropped - but the country spends £1.5 billion a year on a space programme, yet still one of the biggest recipients of our aid

MYTH 7: The slew of statistics prove that aid is a success

Here is the core argument, repeated by the Prime Minister in a passionate defence of aid last month.

As ever, it was accompanied by a grief-stained tale from a slum and statistics on lives saved and children educated thanks to British generosity. Unfortunately, this is far from the full story.

The Coalition is tackling welfare dependency at home, but encouraging it abroad. When countries are given more than half their income, they have less incentive to respond to citizens’ needs.

Harvard Medical School found local spending on health fell when health-related aid was given in sub-Saharan Africa.

This means we pay for schools and hospitals, enabling politicians to steal vast sums or fritter away revenues on arms and security (usually sold by the West, with bribes involved).

They win elections through bribery or violence rather than improved public services, while innovation is stifled and local entrepreneurs are driven out of business by dumped goods and cheap money.

The result is that aid corrodes, rather than builds, civil society, as senior charity officials have admitted to me.

This was the message from a conference I attended in Pakistan two months ago, where academics from across the political spectrum blamed aid for their nation’s mounting problems, with venal politicians ignoring citizens’ concerns and an over-powerful army grown fat on foreign funding.
Needless to say, Britain plans to double aid to nearly half a billion pounds a year to Pakistan. Compare this with Somaliland, which emerged 20 years ago from the chaos of Somali civil war.

Because this state is not recognised, it depends on local tax revenues rather than huge dollops of aid — and, as a result, it has rapidly developed one of the most inclusive, accountable governments in Africa.

MYTH 8: Britain will no longer tolerate mis-spending of funds

Uganda has historic ties to Britain and is among the most favoured recipients of aid.

When Mr Mitchell was confronted on Newsnight over a Daily Mail report that President Yoweri Museveni had bought a £30 million private jet, he said this happened under Labour and such behaviour would no longer be tolerated.

So here is a conundrum for Mr Mitchell. Put aside Mr Museveni’s use of violence and bribery to win a disputed election this year.

What about the recent revelation that he was bought six Russian fighter jets at twice the market rate and without parliamentary approval?

The sum involved was nearly half a billion pounds — three times annual spending on Uganda’s health service and the same amount, coincidentally, as we plan to give over the next five years.

It’s thought nearly £2 billion has been spirited out of Afghanistan since 2007, some to Gulf tax havens, with the family and associates of President Hamid Karzai linked to a £90 million Dubai property empire.

Much of this cash is from aid donations, with £25 million disappearing from one donation to a hospital alone. Despite this, last year Britain announced that aid was rising by 40 per cent to £178 million a year.
Turkish help for Syria: Aid corrodes, rather than builds, civil society, as senior charity officials have admitted to me

Turkish help for Syria: Aid corrodes, rather than builds, civil society, as senior charity officials have admitted to me

MYTH 9: Aid is in our interest to prevent immigration

When all else fails to persuade voters on aid, politicians appeal to self-interest. It makes sense, they say, because developing the poorest countries means less immigration here.

This sounds logical. But it is wrong. Dr Hein de Haas from the International Migration Institute at Oxford University has shown that social and economic development leads to more migration because it increases people’s ability to move and raises aspirations.

Travelling across continents is costly, while education lifts expectations and technology such as TV and computers offers a glimpse of wealthier lifestyles.

As Dr de Haas points out, this is why the heaviest immigration come from countries such as Mexico, Morocco and the Philippines — hardly the world’s poorest places.

MYTH 10: Developing nations are desperate to be saved

Overseas aid began as a political stunt and remains a political stunt, used to prove politicians have a heart.

But the more I travel around Africa and Asia, the more criticism I hear of how the constant emphasis on aid and endless negative imagery demeans developing nations.

This is worsened by the associated boom in the highly competitive charity sector — as one British official said: ‘If you don’t have starving babies, you don’t get the money.’

It is noticeable the most passionate saviours of the world are Western pop stars and politicians, while the most trenchant critics come from developing nations.

‘The premise is that Africans lack the capacity to save themselves and must rely on the kindness of strangers,’ said Thabo Mbeki, former president of South Africa.

Last month saw the first steps taken in the creation of an African free trade area that will stretch from Cape Town to Cairo and straddle 26 countries.

It also saw the largest amount raised yet for a private equity fund targeting the continent, a reflection of the fast pace of growth in much of the region.

This is the future, not our outmoded obsession with aid.

[RomeoAlphaMike]

Yeah, forgive me if I don't trust the Daily Mail on issues like this. A scummy tabloid for wannabe middle class white folk.

[dagama]

Sources (possibly unconfirmed) suggest that the Indian Air Force has chosen the Dassault Rafale - 126 ac to be purchased over 10 years at a cost of US$ 10.6 bn - as its fighter.

[Wander00]

That's good - give squillions to a foreign country who then spend it in France - so Sarkozy sticks two fingers up behind Cameron's back - FANTASTIC!

[pr00ne]

France spends about the same on foreign aid as the UK does, India now gives more in foreign aid than it receives.

Seeing as we left India as an impoverished continent with almost 2 centuries of zero growth, I for one do not begrudge £295m per year to some of the poorest people on the planet.

[Finningley Boy]

pr00ne,

Seeing as we rescued India from the anarchy into which it had descended post our becoming trading partners with same, the same problem faced the French and Portugese, we all did our best to return some semblence of order and civilised behaviour despite the worst efforts of the Thuggees and all, and indeed it worked. But in a country that size and what was at stake, it soon boiled down to a conflict of interest between ourselves and the French, each leading our own Indians to supplement our own troops for ultimate governance. We won, at the Battle of Assaye, 1803!

Snce then, we built a rail network Villas to die for and put in place a realistic administration, which compared quite favourably with the best of whatever else was there to compare with at the time. I honestly do not know what you mean about two centuries of zero growth, the only growth industry in India, before British rule was Death, Disease, Anarchic Crime and Wildlife!

Not that there weren't good times, when we first started trading in the Far East, but the Mogul Dynasty like all good things, had to come to an end sometime!:(

FB:)

[jindabyne]

Seeing as we left India as an impoverished continent with almost 2 centuries of zero growth

What utter tosh.

And France does not spend as much as the UK on foreign aid; with that gap due to widen over the next couple of years thanks to present Government policy.

[500N]

"France spends about the same on foreign aid as the UK does, India now gives more in foreign aid than it receives."


If the UK are giving foreign aid to India, why is India giving foreign aid to others ?

Probably deals within deals within deals !

[brakedwell]

A lot of good it did in India :ugh:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c32/sedgwickjames/General%20Pics/ScreenShot2012-01-31at164713.png

[paull]

Some time ago I know, but I worked on a project in India in early eighties for a UK company, we were paid from the UK foreign aid budget so it never really left the country.

Similarly, when working for a US company I was told to fund some projects in Israel because 'It won't cost us anything' .

I suspect that foreign aid is merely tax efficient foreign Trade!

[NutLoose]

Now that Sir Fred has become plain old Fred for his disasterous handling of RBS, perhaps it is time Lord Prescott becomes just Prescott again over his equally disasterous part in the handling of the UK economy.

I am still trying to figure out how the UK so far in debt are being "steered" to lending more to the European monetary fund... How does that work?

Hello UK, we need more funds, so, can you borrow more money and run up more debt, so we can lend it to others..

[Rosevidney1]

Certainly we can, my dear friend. How much do you want?

[Neptunus Rex]

NutLoose

Unfortunately, I think you'll find that whilst knights can be stripped of their titles, Lords and other Peers cannot.

[Archimedes]

NR - they can, but it requires an Act of Parliament (with Royal Assent, of course) to do it.

[Lonewolf_50]

Enjoyed the article on the Live Aid corrosive effect idea, for all that it may be a bit slanted.

I hadn't appreciated how African musical artists had been left out of the mix so often. What a shame, and FFS, how despicable of the Geldorf and crew to be so callous. :p

Friend of mine in the US Army ended up in Somalia in 1992-1993, and then in Rwanda in 1994, as part of US military humanitarian missions. By the time he got to Bosnia in 1997, his cynicism leaked out of his pores.

He defended the hard work various people did, but pointed out to the macro economic problem that he saw in the works:

The creation of foreign aid junkies. ( This was particularly evident to him in the Western zones of Rwanda ... )

The altruism and desire to serve others, a sentiment found in so many decent people who work for and with NGO's, isn't centrally controlled nor planned, which is probably a good thing.

The problem is, in terms of getting the bulk of assets applied to actual assistance (versus all of the filters that slow the trickle down from donation to application), this sort of dispersion renders some of their efforts moot. But it sure does increase the dependence upon "foreign" aid at the expense of generating ans sustaining organic or home grown aid. While this is great for making a lot of foreigners feel good about themselves, it does little long term good for the society in question.

The aid is far too often a Band Aide slapped onto a symptom. The Live Aid sort is a low quality plaster. (Yes, there's a put snuck in there, I confess). That doesn't mean that No help ever arrives, but considering what's put in, the amount that arrives is unfortunately low.

As with the Ethopian structural problem, in article criticizing the Live Aid and such, it is far, far harder to fix the cause than to patch a symptom.

See Somalia 2012, trace back to 1992 and American/UN intervention; what's been going on in the Sudan for the last ten years, and Haiti since Aristide was chucked out the first time, as spectacular examples of how it plays out in the long term.

You can't cure the ailment if you do not find the root cause and address that.

[Wrathmonk]

Sorry to drag up an old thread but I suspect some will be pleased by this:

BBC News - UK to end financial aid to India by 2015 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20265583)

Perhaps aid might come back in the other direction .....;)

[5aday]

It's probably peanuts - VJ Mallya in the Force India GP team spends that and more every fiscal. Tata Industries legal bill would exceed that amount as well. But - I agree, we should not have been paying it for a long time now and it makes the UK look more stupid than it actually is.
Dave M
.

[Jumping_Jack]

Makes cock all difference to the desperate state of our finances though. The recovered funds will simply be put back into the aid pot to be given to some other 3rd world Despot to buy gold taps with. The Government hasn't said it will reduce the aid budget, just that India won't get a share. :*

[billboard]

Oh please! Please stop giving us "aid," if you can call it that. The Indian Government has a yearly expenditure in the range of $350bn. The amount of whining that the Brits do for a little bit of money, that is just about 0.1% of our government expenditure, is shameful. What is a billion or two when compared to the massive wealth looted by the British from India?

So please ask the British government to end the aid before some Indians, irritated by the constant British whining, lodge a Public Interest Litigation with the Supreme Court of India asking for a judicial inquiry into the intent behind such "aid" and the leverage that the "aid" giver is trying to construct in our country to the detriment of Indian interests.

Anyways, it is going to take a lot more than just "aid" to right the wrongs committed by the British. No sooner does the aid end than we can start reminding Indian kids at school about what the British did to their country. Reminding them about why they do not have access to the fruits of prosperity that their fore-fathers once had.:E

[Wensleydale]

No sooner does the aid end than we can start reminding Indian kids at school
about what the British did to their country.


..like introduce cricket?

[Just This Once...]

- They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had. And not just from us! From our fathers and from our fathers' fathers.
- And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
- Yeah.
- And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.

[Just This Once...]

- The aqueduct?
- What?
- The aqueduct.
- Oh. Yeah, they did give us that. That's true, yeah.
- And the sanitation.
- Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
- I'll grant you the aqueduct and sanitation.
- And the roads.
- Yeah, obviously the roads. I mean the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitaion, the aqueduct and the roads...
- Irrigation.
- Medicine.
- Education.
- Yeah, yeah, all right, fair enough.
- And the wine.
- That's something we'd really miss, Reg..
- Public baths.
- And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.
- They certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.
- All right, but apart from sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system and public health, what have they ever done for us?
- Brought peace?
- Oh, peace. Shut up!

[mlc]

You forget the Post Office :)

[brakedwell]

Don't forget railways!

[billboard]

I thought there was a "no child left behind" policy in U.K., isn't there? Oh, that must be the Americans because there seem to be some Britishers who seem to have never taken history lessons. Or maybe some people are confusing between pre-colonial Africa and India.

The British came to India when the world had just started to industrialize. To say that the British brought with them significant upgrades of technology is a lie. One of the reasons why the Indian rulers had allowed the British to trade in India was to better connect India with Europe. Had the British not interfered, India would have industrialized by her own self.
In any case, transfer of know-how is no excuse for looting a country.

It is not that the British brought resources from their motherland to build infrastructure in India. Things were built by Indians with Indian tax-payers' money. And the British got only those things built which were required for their own purpose. Telegraph lines were laid for the purpose of administration of The Raj(rule). Railways were built for transporting troops to exert The Raj(rule) and carry out the trade that benefited them.

As far as sanitation and town-planning sense in pre-colonial India is concerned, please read a little about Indus(from where the word "India" comes) Valley Civilization, the largest and perhaps the oldest ancient civilization. After you have finished reading about the sophisticated(for those times) town planning discovered in the excavations, do let me know how "civilized" the British were back then.

Not to write a school essay on the impact of British rule on India, i would like to squeeze it all in the following words:

"An estimate by Cambridge University historian Angus Maddison reveals that India's share of the world income fell from 22.6% in 1700, comparable to Europe's share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952."

Economy of India under the British Raj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj)

[Heathrow Harry]

"The recovered funds will simply be put back into the aid pot to be given to some other 3rd world Despot to buy gold taps with"

or air traffic systems... or Hawk trainers... or second hand naval vessels........