Foreign Aid?

[LA]

So, Gordon Brown has promised a huge increase in the amount of aid going to Pakistan. Britain currently gives billions upon billions* of pounds in foreign aid.

Should we continue giving huge amounts of aid to foreign countries or; during this time of recession, is it time to look inwards, and use that money to rebuild our own economy?

Discuss!

* I will be posting the figure soon

[TellMeMore]

No, we should not be supplying foreign aid to anyone. Helping countries suffering from disaster should be a priority but aid generally causes more problems than it solves.
I don't think the cost is an issue, we're still a rich country and if we stopped pissing our money up the wall, excuse me, investing in an ever-more-bloated public sector, we could certainly afford lots more than we currently have.

[Midas]

No, we should not be supplying foreign aid to anyone. Helping countries suffering from disaster should be a priority but aid generally causes more problems than it solves.
I don't think the cost is an issue, we're still a rich country and if we stopped pissing our money up the wall, excuse me, investing in an ever-more-bloated public sector, we could certainly afford lots more than we currently have.

I don't think you can be quite as categorical as that. Whilst I agree that foreign aid should be cut back very substantially, it still has to be looked at on a case by case basis from a cost-effectiveness point of view. I know that sounds mercenary, but if by spending two hundred million in country X it can both help that country develop and increase trade back to the UK by three hundred million, it makes good economic sense. Likewise with aid to Pakistan, if the money is specifically designated for say military use in countering terrorism (and I don't know if it is or not) and by doing that we can both calm their interior tensions down and cut back on security in this country, again it makes good economic sense.

These subjects are rarely as black or white as a lot of people tend to think they are, and are often linked with other trade or similar deals which we (the public) often don't hear about.

[TellMeMore]

Can you provide evidence where any country in receipt of aid has then gone on to generate increasing trade with it's benefactor?
If Pakistan can afford a space program they don't need aid.
I'm not sure that the counter-terrorism argument holds up either. If Pakistan wants assistance in fighting terrorism, what are the UN forces for? (Other than raping children, selling goods provided for aid and aiding Hamas, of course).

[Midas]

Can you provide evidence where any country in receipt of aid has then gone on to generate increasing trade with it's benefactor?
If Pakistan can afford a space program they don't need aid.
I'm not sure that the counter-terrorism argument holds up either. If Pakistan wants assistance in fighting terrorism, what are the UN forces for? (Other than raping children, selling goods provided for aid and aiding Hamas, of course).

I wasn't talking about specific cases, I said 'if' a couple of times to qualify my comments about how IMO foreign aid should be administered. But to use the example of Pakistan again, and I will repeat that I haven't read the terms of any aid agreement, I'm merely theorising, the fact that they might be able to afford their own space program doesn't necessarily mean they can either afford or shouldn't go ahead with other programmes. Their space programme could be integral with bringing satellite communications and education programmes to remote areas of the country, just as essential to the development of the country as many other projects such as anti-terrorism work. You can't simply dismiss such projects as being non-essential or say the country doesn't need aid because of them without knowing a great many specific details. Their space programme might have been well under way and all the money committed long before any major anti-terrorist programme became necessary. Do you know that it wasn't (for example)?

As regards the UN, whilst I believe that overall it's a pretty useless, overly bureaucratic and far too interfering an organisation as it stands, I don't think it fair to condemn it based on a few incidents which have been conducted without its specific knowledge. I can think of a number of examples as to why any country wouldn't want UN forces tramping through their country trying to find needles in haystacks to use a metaphor!

There are a great many things in this world which are patently wrong in many respects, but you can't resolve the majority of them in isolation. There are just too many unknown or interlinked factors involved; 'the solution' can only be found by making wide sweeping changes across a great many countries and spheres of activity.

[LA]

Firstly, the aid destined for Pakistan is to be used for infrastructure, to ensure women can go to school etc.

Secondly, I completely agree with Midas. Foreign aid should be substantially cut. NO aid should be given directly to the people or the Government of the country, rather we should directly administer where it goes to ensure its maximum effect.

Midas is correct in his cost analysis, and I agree that there should be a case by case analysis to ensure the money is used to its fullest effect.

However, I do not believe aid should be given to all countries for various reasons. If the aid given to a country, does not directly affect Britain, I do not believe aid should be given.

[TellMeMore]

I wasn't talking about specific cases, I said 'if' a couple of times to qualify my comments about how IMO foreign aid should be administered. But to use the example of Pakistan again, and I will repeat that I haven't read the terms of any aid agreement, I'm merely theorising, the fact that they might be able to afford their own space program doesn't necessarily mean they can either afford or shouldn't go ahead with other programmes. Their space programme could be integral with bringing satellite communications and education programmes to remote areas of the country, just as essential to the development of the country as many other projects such as anti-terrorism work. You can't simply dismiss such projects as being non-essential or say the country doesn't need aid because of them without knowing a great many specific details. Their space programme might have been well under way and all the money committed long before any major anti-terrorist programme became necessary. Do you know that it wasn't (for example)?

Essential or not, if they can afford a space program, they don't need aid. They may want it (FFS I want a big black BMW but I can't afford it, maybe I should ask that nice Foreign office if I can have a bung to buy one), but they don't need it. If they have to change their priorities, that's unfortunate but it's not my problem.


As regards the UN, whilst I believe that overall it's a pretty useless, overly bureaucratic and far too interfering an organisation as it stands, I don't think it fair to condemn it based on a few incidents which have been conducted without its specific knowledge. I can think of a number of examples as to why any country wouldn't want UN forces tramping through their country trying to find needles in haystacks to use a metaphor!

Alright, not the UN, whoever, but it's not up to us to fight terrorism in Pakistan, or to pay for that fight, didn't we try that elsewhere, with, as I recall, not great results.

There are a great many things in this world which are patently wrong in many respects, but you can't resolve the majority of them in isolation. There are just too many unknown or interlinked factors involved; 'the solution' can only be found by making wide sweeping changes across a great many countries and spheres of activity.

But we don't have a world state, we have a number of individual states each with their own agenda/viewpoint. All we can really affect and all we should be interested in, is our own development, it's not as if the UK was a land of milk and honey, is it? We have enough problems within our own borders without offering to solve other people's problems.