That doesn’t mean
that there are no problems with the way some of the money is used. It doesn’t
always have the effect it should, it sometimes ends up in the wrong hands, it
can enable some regimes to divert their ‘own’ resources to armaments, and when
it’s used to support the purchase of goods and services from the UK it can look
more like a subsidy to UK capitalists than aid to developing nations.
Those things, important
though they are, and as much as they need to be acted on, are detail; the headline is that the UK is standing
by its promise to aid those underdeveloped countries. In that context, his announcement this week
that money from the aid budget could possibly be used to pay for some of the UK’s military
activities overseas was astonishing, and a significant step backwards.
He has a point, of
course, when he says that economic development is difficult in strife-torn
countries and regions (although those are often the places most in need of aid). Peace and stability are important
determinants of economic success. But
paying for troops and military hardware for use by UK forces doesn’t look a lot like
economic aid to me. And if those forces
ever get into killing people, it’s hard to see how that would look a lot like ‘aid’
to those on the wrong end of any military action.
It’s true, of
course, that ‘peace-keeping’ doesn’t necessarily lead to actual military action,
but if that was never even a remote possibility of the role, it wouldn’t need
military personnel to undertake it. If using
military personnel to enforce the peace doesn’t at least include the threat of
lethal force, why are they needed?
There isn’t a
simple black and white cut-off point between peace-keeping and intervention,
however different the words sound. After
all, wasn’t the intervention in Afghanistan
supposed to be about bringing peace and stability to that country? I hardly think that particular intervention could ever
be classed as ‘overseas aid for development’, though.
Paying for any part of the UK’s military
out of overseas aid would be a travesty; it would make a complete nonsense of
what was, at the time it was made, an honorouble and brave decision to maintain
the economic aid programme at a time of domestic financial hardship.
Posts
3 comments:
Well politicians are always very good at spending other people's money - whether it is on aid or military hardware.
I guess you could argue that where fanatics kill schoolgirls for seeking an education, then a few weapons to protect them.
My own view is that military intervention and a good deal of humanitarian aid both tend to do more harm than good.
It's a view shared by some in Africa and places like Haiti, but then is aid really about wealthy westerners feeling good about themselves?
John
There is a chronic need to review the whole rational behind the British military.
From a Welsh perspective I believe that we should move our forces to a position of purely national defence.
To have a much greater integration with the full range of Emergency services
To have a greater role in Civil Engineering and other projects ie road. rail. bridge construction
To create an environment where an individual can expect to play different roles in the wider public services during his or her lifetime
In the final analysis government aid is an instrument of influence and I have seen in many countries that the actual money goes “walk-about”, no matter what the BBC calls “spent under strict rules,” but as it is government sanctioned money it does expose those that distribute it as targets. Most money the US spends comes from private sources and arm’s length from government, but still does not ensure safety of the distributors.
I suspect Little “Spliff” Cameron came up with this idea late one night in a smoked filled room – so to speak, what happens when the aid triggers off confrontation ,but the other budget has no money in it ?- NURSE!!!!
Post a Comment