Blog:Putting Ethics into International Development

From Bolton Interweb

Des Perado, Overseas Development Correspondent, 30th May 2010

My first job, which seems a lifetime ago now, was with the then Ministry of Overseas Development, now known as DFID – Department for International Development. So I have an, albeit dated, insider knowledge of how overseas aid works. Thus it was with some surprise that the General Election highlighted that apparently we have been giving money to China, a country that spends billions on its military, has nuclear weapons, spent more billions on the Beijing Olympics, and has a budget surplus running to over $80 billion.

My first reaction was to dismiss this claim as probably related to earthquake disaster relief which would have been accounted for under the DFID umbrella. The Tory Press making mischief repeated by Tory candidates distorting the truth. But I was wrong. Apparently we have been funding aid projects in China and were going to carry on doing so up to 2015. In 2008/9 we donated £40 million to China of which only £2 million was humanitarian. This is a similar amount to previous years.

Disgraceful. But when you open up this can of worms, what else do you find? How about £1.3 million to Korea (presumably North Korea). What about Singapore, and Brunei, two of the wealthiest nations on this Earth. What about £56 million to the evil Generals in Burma. Did you know we’ve been giving overseas aid to Russia. Yes Russia. And Barbados and the Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean, hardy impoverished states. Tens of millions have been sent annually to Zimbabwe, to Robert Mugabe, prior to the recent power-sharing deal there. These gems are contained in tables quite easily navigated to on the DFID website. But there are some other tables that you have to dig deep for, contained in the “Tables index - Statistics on International Development 2009” specifically tables 14.1 to 14.5. This includes aid from other UK official sources. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia, Oman, Libya, and the UAE have all been recipients. Iran is in there. Chile, Argentina, and Brazil too. And that £40 million to China turns into £118 million.

Enough statistics, the point has been made. When we are all being asked to endure cuts to services, eliminate waste, the overseas aid budget has been ringfenced and deemed sacrosanct. Fine, I can go along with that if that aid is being spent wisely and ethically, directed at those who cannot fend for themselves. But clearly it is not, and this has to stop.

Some rules have to be defined. Some argue that democracy should be a pre-requisite but this fails to acknowledge that democracy is unstable and instability may not be in the interests of the people you are trying to help. Democracy can also be evil. The Nazis were democratically elected. In numerous African and Middle Eastern states homosexuals are persecuted, jailed, even executed by democratic governments with the full support of their peoples. They are no better than Nazis and we should not be supporting them in any way. I heard an argument today that a democracy is entitled to execute homosexuals because the majority of the people want it. It may be the will of the majority but a critical element of a free society is the protection of minorities. Free is different to, a higher standard than, democracy. So if not democracy then what?

• We should not be subsidising countries who spend excessively on their military or that have nuclear weaponry. Certainly not those who have money to spare for space exploration. Sorry China, India, Pakistan, get your priorities straight.

• We should not be donating money to countries that persecute minorities of a racial, ethnic, religious or sexual orientation nature. Democratic or not. Observance of basic human rights in these areas should be a criteria.

• We should not be donating money to relatively wealthy, or industrialised, nations. Chile and Russia are not worthy recipients of my taxes, let alone Saudi Arabia.

• We should not be giving money to evil and/or corrupt regimes such as Burma, North Korea, and Zimbabwe whilst Mugabe is in power.

Does that leave many countries still eligible? Actually yes, countries like Botswana. Botswana has an issue with gay rights but prosecution is rare. It is well governed and relatively free of corruption. What about South Africa. There are plenty of examples of countries that would benefit from much greater assistance diverted from those that simply don’t deserve it. It isn’t arrogant or patronising that UK taxpayers’ money only goes to those countries that are prepared to operate by certain minimum standards or that are making strides towards those standards. Countries that don’t want to are welcome to shape their own destinies, but without our cash. It doesn’t mean we should stop cooperating and stop having good diplomatic relations, but we can’t in all conscience condone those who spend their own money on guns and tanks and expect us to feed their people. Nor can we condone those who persecute sections of their own societies and expect our money to pick up the pieces.

There has always been an argument that aid pays for political friends and stops them falling under the influence of other countries. National interest or bribery? They say money can’t buy you friends, and more than once we’ve given money to a dictator to keep them on our side, only to have their guns, that we paid for, redirected towards us at a later date. Saddam Hussein comes to mind. How many times do we have to make that mistake? There are ways of helping the poorest people in those countries excluded by ethical rules and that is via non-governmental agencies, often charities, where money goes direct to small focused projects and not via corrupt governments that divert the cash to arms purchases and Swiss bank accounts.

New government, new opportunity to put ethics at the heart of international development policy. The Coalition is already committed to stopping aid to China. But it is the tip of an iceberg that has to be tackled. Reward those countries striving for freedom, and decline to reward those countries that are not interested. As the meerkats say, simples.

---

© Evrose, 2010