Britain's £12bn Overseas Aid Programme
 

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

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

Foreign Aid: see Danegeld

Self-deleted.

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

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!

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

Indian C-17s
 

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.

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

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

HB

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

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

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!!

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

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

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

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:

And this is a surprise?
 

Oxfam investigating embezzlement of donations to Pakistan flood disaster - Telegraph

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

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

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?