A couple of recent news stories force me to return to this subject.
India, is a significant recipient of UK overseas aid or 'development aid' as UK Aid minister Alan Duncan chooses to call it.
William Hague has just completed a visit to Somalia and will shortly chair an international summit on that country, in London.
India first!
Consider, the UK is giving aid to India of something like £295 Million a year and Alan Duncan insists that in three Indian states, there is more people in poverty and poor health, than in the whole of Sub Sahara Africa. I won't dispute this 'statistic'.
I do wonder though why, the priorities of the Indian Government include spending money on
Somalia
This is a failed state. They have not had anything resembling a functioning government for many years, following yet more years of civil war. The country has a well funded militant Islamic organisation which wants to create some kind of caliphate and Sharia rule in that country. Additionally, 'pirates' operate as a threat to international shipping lanes.
The UK, working with NATO, patrols offshore waters and is addressing the 'pirate' issue.
My expectation of the upcoming summit is that fine words will be spoken and then more aid promised ( doubt to be spent, if and when paid over, on Presidential palaces and jets) and then the various ministers will head back to their own countries and tell their own people, what wonderful people they are because they think of the poor Somalis!
Summary
Why then is the UK getting involved in this part of Africa? Where is the strategic interest to the UK.? Would we consider sending in troops to bolster the fledgling 'national' government or maybe arming them?
Take note that the USA, which got a very 'bloody nose' when it tried to intervene in Somalia is very much on the sidelines. Maybe they have no stomach to see more US blood and lives lost in a country that doesn't want or like them? Or maybe their view is, we have problems of our own and we will concentrate on those!
Why do we send money to India, when it seems well able, if it were to adjust its priorities, to meet the UK aid value, many times over?
Alan Duncan says that it is right to not link Aid and Trade but doesn't bother to explain why. Why shouldn't we expect some quid pro quo? We help them as a friend, so why wouldn't they do business with us, as a friend? Why wouldn't they look at who helps them MOST and say, these are our better friends?
He goes on to say (on biased BBC Question Time) something to the effect " UK overseas aid represents around 1% of government spending (or GDP, he wasn't clear). (To the audience he says) If you were down to your last £100 surely you would spare a £1 for the poor and starving?
Most people reasonably can see and agree to passing over that £1
However, change the question a little and say
If you were down to your last £100 , would you spare a £1 for the poor and needy in the UK or those Overseas? I would expect that the answer would be heavily in favour of spending it at home.
At a time when the UK is in economic crisis, the major focus of this government should be on increasing growth and employment, in the UK. Not subsidizing French arms exports or India's Space race aspirations nor getting involved in countries where we are not liked and are only tolerated so long as we hand over money!
Focus on the Economy and Growth!
Not worrying about an erroneous knighthood or a bankers bonus
Focus on the Economy and Growth!
India, is a significant recipient of UK overseas aid or 'development aid' as UK Aid minister Alan Duncan chooses to call it.
William Hague has just completed a visit to Somalia and will shortly chair an international summit on that country, in London.
India first!
Consider, the UK is giving aid to India of something like £295 Million a year and Alan Duncan insists that in three Indian states, there is more people in poverty and poor health, than in the whole of Sub Sahara Africa. I won't dispute this 'statistic'.
I do wonder though why, the priorities of the Indian Government include spending money on
- Nuclear arms
- An Indian space programme
- Somewhere between £6- 10 billion on jet fighters (probably from France, who give around £18 million a year in aid!)
- Etc.
Somalia
This is a failed state. They have not had anything resembling a functioning government for many years, following yet more years of civil war. The country has a well funded militant Islamic organisation which wants to create some kind of caliphate and Sharia rule in that country. Additionally, 'pirates' operate as a threat to international shipping lanes.
The UK, working with NATO, patrols offshore waters and is addressing the 'pirate' issue.
My expectation of the upcoming summit is that fine words will be spoken and then more aid promised ( doubt to be spent, if and when paid over, on Presidential palaces and jets) and then the various ministers will head back to their own countries and tell their own people, what wonderful people they are because they think of the poor Somalis!
Summary
Why then is the UK getting involved in this part of Africa? Where is the strategic interest to the UK.? Would we consider sending in troops to bolster the fledgling 'national' government or maybe arming them?
Take note that the USA, which got a very 'bloody nose' when it tried to intervene in Somalia is very much on the sidelines. Maybe they have no stomach to see more US blood and lives lost in a country that doesn't want or like them? Or maybe their view is, we have problems of our own and we will concentrate on those!
Why do we send money to India, when it seems well able, if it were to adjust its priorities, to meet the UK aid value, many times over?
Alan Duncan says that it is right to not link Aid and Trade but doesn't bother to explain why. Why shouldn't we expect some quid pro quo? We help them as a friend, so why wouldn't they do business with us, as a friend? Why wouldn't they look at who helps them MOST and say, these are our better friends?
He goes on to say (on biased BBC Question Time) something to the effect " UK overseas aid represents around 1% of government spending (or GDP, he wasn't clear). (To the audience he says) If you were down to your last £100 surely you would spare a £1 for the poor and starving?
Most people reasonably can see and agree to passing over that £1
However, change the question a little and say
If you were down to your last £100 , would you spare a £1 for the poor and needy in the UK or those Overseas? I would expect that the answer would be heavily in favour of spending it at home.
At a time when the UK is in economic crisis, the major focus of this government should be on increasing growth and employment, in the UK. Not subsidizing French arms exports or India's Space race aspirations nor getting involved in countries where we are not liked and are only tolerated so long as we hand over money!
Focus on the Economy and Growth!
Not worrying about an erroneous knighthood or a bankers bonus
Focus on the Economy and Growth!
No comments:
Post a Comment