Friday debate

EKE_38BPM

This country is skint and our new government has decided to cut back on the amount of aid it gives to other countries (charity begins at home and all that).

Is it right that countries like China (about to become the world's largest economy) and Pakistan (a nuclear power) will still receive aid when a county like Somalia won't?
Is international aid being used as an aid to British business rather than to help the needy around the world?

Discuss.

mudcow007

i think the state the UK is in, is embarrasing. The UK still believes it is still the super power it once was (empire days) now we dont have enough money to pay the Police, nurses etc to do their jobs

i know this sounds harsh but i really think we need to sort ourselves out then we should begin to help others, regardless of what country they are

davmaggs

The amount of aid isn't being cut, the receipients are being changed.

Questions have for example been raised about nations with space programmes and nuclear weapons receiving handouts under the old system.

Cafewanda

I tend to think it's a means of promoting Britishness; whether via trade or politics or a 'my way is better than your way so if you want to eat you'll do was we want'..

Aid to China - keep them sweet as they a superpower now.
Pakistan very volatile. Problems could spread so keep the region 'contained'.
Somalia - http://www.msf.org/msf/articles/2011/03 ... agenda.cfm


Maybe I'm wrong/cynical.

rjsterry

The other issue is to what extent aid is used to improve UK security and whether this a legitimate use of international aid. The issue of aid to countries such as India or China, who could maybe re-prioritise some of their own spending is not as clear cut as it first appears. A large part of the population of India still ives in poverty and the UK withdrawing aid is unlikely to suddenly stir the Indian government into taking better care of its own population.

Also, the British Empire isn't that far back into history and many of the problems that affect some of the areas where aid is spent arise from the break up of the empire, so I think there is some degree of responsibility (at a governmental level, not as individuals) to support what are relatively young countries.

iPete

We shouldn't stop the aid, it might sound a lot but its a very insignificant sum in terms of what the UK spends to operate. If you look back through history many of the issues are probably caused the British empire.

Be thankful of the lifestyle we have compared with some of the regions where this aid is needed.

On a side note, we should probably stay close to China!

deptfordmarmoset

mudcow007 wrote:

i think the state the UK is in, is embarrasing. The UK still believes it is still the super power it once was (empire days) now we dont have enough money to pay the Police, nurses etc to do their jobs

i know this sounds harsh but i really think we need to sort ourselves out then we should begin to help others, regardless of what country they are

I have to agree that the UK is in an embarrassing state at the moment but the last thing we should do is give up on the UK's international perspective - we're an island nation that still relies on international free trade and influence*. It would be suicidal to take our eyes off the globe in an age of globalisation.

*I'm not saying that the UK's international influence has always been positive, far from it. It's a very mixed record but IMO some aspects of Britain's influence continue to have a positive effect.

greg66_tri_v2.0

mudcow007 wrote:

i think the state the UK is in, is embarrasing. The UK still believes it is still the super power it once was (empire days) now we dont have enough money to pay the Police, nurses etc to do their jobs

i know this sounds harsh but i really think we need to sort ourselves out then we should begin to help others, regardless of what country they are

Britain is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - coincidentally the same five countries who form the "legit" nuclear club. In absolute terms we are the third biggest defence spender in the world, after the US and China. The British Empire was the second largest by area of all time, and the largest comfortably by population, of all time. It covered a 1/4 of the globe by area and population. We still have the sixth largest economy in the world.

Now you may say that it is all the more depressing that we have shortages of funds to pay nurses and teachers, and you may be right. But we're not (to take random examples) Sweden, or Peru, or Egypt. We have a legitimate place at the world's top table, and we haven't (yet) fallen so far that we should turn our backs on it.

rjsterry wrote:

Also, the British Empire isn't that far back into history and many of the problems that affect some of the areas where aid is spent arise from the break up of the empire, so I think there is some degree of responsibility (at a governmental level, not as individuals) to support what are relatively young countries.

I rather thought that the Empire broke up because of countries wishing to assert their own independence, rather than us deciding to abandon them. I sort of agree that there is a responsibility to help our "offspring". Some countries plainly don't need that help (eg Australia, Canada). Some didn't want it and now don't need it (eg South Africa). Some nee it, when perhaps they should be standing on their own two feet (eg India).

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

I rather thought that the Empire broke up because of countries wishing to assert their own independence, rather than us deciding to abandon them. I sort of agree that there is a responsibility to help our "offspring". Some countries plainly don't need that help (eg Australia, Canada). Some didn't want it and now don't need it (eg South Africa). Some nee it, when perhaps they should be standing on their own two feet (eg India).

Agreed. My point wasn't that Britain decided to 'jettison' the empire (although I think by the late '40s, it wasn't in a position to stop it happening), more that it had deliberately maintained those countries in a subservient state for our advantage, politically and economically, as empires tend to do. It's a huge 'what if?' but at the time colonisation started, India was relatively richer* than when it gained independence, and had Britain not incorporated it into the empire, it might well be far ahead of where it is now.

*This was the main reason why Britain colonised it in the first place.