Why are we "Ring Fencing" Foreign Aid?

[Digga]

Murph7355 said:

fblm said:

Do you live under a rock? ...

Nope, he just hurls them.

Then disappears for a bit to restock.

Not so much under a rock as round a u-bend.

ETA in other news: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/un-climate-age...

Edited by Digga on Tuesday 1st December 11:50

[R Mutt]

I signed up to LendWithCare which brokers loans between the British public and small business owners in developing nations but opted not to lend anything with funds at risk and no returns however could the government not guaranteed against default instead of just giving out the cash? That would have swayed me.

The idea that we have no control over where the money goes is often disputed, but where this as allocated to a very broad 'development programme' I would say it's a valid concern

[Unknown_User]

JPvanRossem said:

Once again, the internet is a useful resource

http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/4932015...

Since this thread started a few years ago, the Conservatives have been moving closer to taking decisive action on tightening things up. The DFID/FCO merger this year is the biggest shake-up since DFID was established (under Blair, I think) in the late 90s. The merger had a lot of push back from May, Cameron, and several former ministers for international development. But Johnson and Patel have always had very firm views about how to get better value for money, and they have been the driving forces behind this reform. The UK will always provide foreign aid. To bring the discussion up to date, one of the most important questions now is how aid spending and prioritisation will change post-DFID. Because it will.

Thanks for posting the link, it makes for interesting reading.

[StevieBee]

Unknown_User said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Unknown_User said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Since countries such as China are vastly greater, wealthier, and more powerful than the UK, does the UK receive handouts from China? Just asking.

If anyone thinks it's correct that we should base our British ethos of FairPlay and helping others on what we receive, then I'm afraid my views of some of my fellow countrymen and women has been somewhat misguided. Just saying.

It is one thing being charitable towards others, who are in need of assistance, it is quite another being a ridiculously stupid mug / patsy.
Which one do you think the UK should be?

First of all, let’s find out exactly where this aid goes before we start making ludicrous claims.

I can tell you if you're interested.

China is a major investor in Africa and the poorer parts of Asia, mainly geared towards mineral extraction and heavy industry. On the one hand, this is good because it brings investment and jobs to the poorest parts of the world where the UK and others are active in reducing poverty. On the other, China lacks the institutional wherewithal to administer these investments in accordance to international development protocols and without proper scrutiny they could end up making matters worse whilst enriching their own coffers.

It is in the west's best interests that these poor countries become stronger economies. It reduces migration and thus immigration, it reduces the propensity for those countries to enter into conflicts (that we may become embroiled in) and those countries slowly become viable trading partners. So we (and others) work with investing nations to make sure that their investments align with international development norms delivering social gains locally, not just financial gains back at home.

Example: Freetown, Sierra Leone. The Chinese government wanted to invest in a mine (Bauxite, IIRC). DFID who are very active in Sierra Leone as part of a programme linked to Ebola and other economic development activity along with other Donor countries, worked with the Chinese and Sierra Leone government and leveraged into the deal investment in roads, schools and healthcare as well as jobs as conditions linked to the permits offered to the Chinese to mine. DFID and others then oversaw these to make sure they weren't just sticking up a breeze block building and hanging a sign that read 'School' on the wall.

This helps the west's endeavours to help keep Ebola suppressed, improve the economic outlook for Sierra Leone ultimately becoming a nation worth dealing with.

UK Aid money does not go to China. The UK provides expertise to help China deliver on their international development programmes which in turn help the poorest nations which in turn helps the UK. Eventually.

[anonymous-user]

StevieBee said:

I can tell you if you're interested.

China is a major investor in Africa and the poorer parts of Asia, mainly geared towards mineral extraction and heavy industry. On the one hand, this is good because it brings investment and jobs to the poorest parts of the world where the UK and others are active in reducing poverty. On the other, China lacks the institutional wherewithal to administer these investments in accordance to international development protocols and without proper scrutiny they could end up making matters worse whilst enriching their own coffers.

It is in the west's best interests that these poor countries become stronger economies. It reduces migration and thus immigration, it reduces the propensity for those countries to enter into conflicts (that we may become embroiled in) and those countries slowly become viable trading partners. So we (and others) work with investing nations to make sure that their investments align with international development norms delivering social gains locally, not just financial gains back at home.

Example: Freetown, Sierra Leone. The Chinese government wanted to invest in a mine (Bauxite, IIRC). DFID who are very active in Sierra Leone as part of a programme linked to Ebola and other economic development activity along with other Donor countries, worked with the Chinese and Sierra Leone government and leveraged into the deal investment in roads, schools and healthcare as well as jobs as conditions linked to the permits offered to the Chinese to mine. DFID and others then oversaw these to make sure they weren't just sticking up a breeze block building and hanging a sign that read 'School' on the wall.

This helps the west's endeavours to help keep Ebola suppressed, improve the economic outlook for Sierra Leone ultimately becoming a nation worth dealing with.

UK Aid money does not go to China. The UK provides expertise to help China deliver on their international development programmes which in turn help the poorest nations which in turn helps the UK. Eventually.

Whilst I'm in favour of reducing the amount we spend on aid your contribution to these threads is always interesting so thanks. Regarding the bit in bold I'd suggest that profit and strategic dominanace is ALL they are interested in; the Belt and Road Initiative is not philanthropic!

[Tony427]

My experience of Aid to Sierra Leone comes from a guy I met whilst teaching in prison.

He had come over here to buy secondhand HGV's but also decided to do some freelance drug dealing which is why he was in one of our prisons after being caught. This is some eight years ago now.

He needed the HGV's because he ran a haulage business that was contracted to disitribute food aid from the World Food Programme. He paid the local WFP manager $500 per month out of the $6000 per month the WFP paid him for his wagons to deliver the food aid. This meant he kept the contract. Whilst in prison over here his brother managed the lucrative business.

In fact his wagons were actually not used to deliver food aid. They were fully utilsed doing other work. In truth there was no food aid to distribute as the food had already been sold direct from the warehouse to the local warlords who then sold the food in the local markets.

I had no reason to doubt the story as he was so matter of fact about it.

[Ultra Sound Guy]

Tony427 said:

My experience of Aid to Sierra Leone comes from a guy I met whilst teaching in prison.

He had come over here to buy secondhand HGV's but also decided to do some freelance drug dealing which is why he was in one of our prisons after being caught. This is some eight years ago now.

He needed the HGV's because he ran a haulage business that was contracted to disitribute food aid from the World Food Programme. He paid the local WFP manager $500 per month out of the $6000 per month the WFP paid him for his wagons to deliver the food aid. This meant he kept the contract. Whilst in prison over here his brother managed the lucrative business.

In fact his wagons were actually not used to deliver food aid. They were fully utilsed doing other work. In truth there was no food aid to distribute as the food had already been sold direct from the warehouse to the local warlords who then sold the food in the local markets.

I had no reason to doubt the story as he was so matter of fact about it.

From what I have seen, I don’t doubt this at all!
Help third world countries by all means, but there should be more control and inspections to see whose pockets this money is ending up in!

[200bhp]

This is an interesting topic and I thought I'd share a different perspective from here in Australia.

As you may know, Australia is by far the largest (by size) country in the region, surrounded by a number of smaller island nations (no, I dont mean New Zealand!).

historically Australia has supported many of these smaller nations financially through foreign aid and construction projects.

However, because of a similar turning tide to what is being seen in the UK, each government has cut back on foreign aid and become less willing to get involved in their affairs. In simple terms, on the ground in these smaller countries that means the people have less construction, less big projects and and less happy.

Now along come the Chinese government.

They have pockets full of cash to splash and hand it over to the small island nations. Some of it is aid and some is a loan.

The island nations take the money with both hands, spend it and everyone is happy - For a while.

Eventually the Chinese start asking for repayments on their loans, and the interest rate creeps up to a point where the island nation cant afford it.

But, that's OK because the Chinese have a solution to that problem - The island nation no longer has to make repayments on the loan - All they have to do it allow the Chinese to build a port or other large infrastructure project for themselves, on the island.

The island nation government has no option but to agree to this as it writes off most or all of the debt.

The Chinese then have a large naval port or airport they can use however they want, they also have an island nation that they know will comply when required.

This is a strategic nightmare for Australia, the US and our allies, including the UK.

China is expanding its footprint and effectively invading other countries without firing a single shot - All because Australian governments decided to cut back on overseas aid several years ago.

If the UK cuts back on overseas aid, someone else will step in. It is likely to be China. Before we know it they'll be supporting half the world through their "loan" schemes. I'm pretty sure no one on PH wants a Chinese military facility in northern Africa?

[anonymous-user]

200bhp said:

This is an interesting topic and I thought I'd share a different perspective from here in Australia.

As you may know, Australia is by far the largest (by size) country in the region, surrounded by a number of smaller island nations (no, I dont mean New Zealand!).

historically Australia has supported many of these smaller nations financially through foreign aid and construction projects.

However, because of a similar turning tide to what is being seen in the UK, each government has cut back on foreign aid and become less willing to get involved in their affairs. In simple terms, on the ground in these smaller countries that means the people have less construction, less big projects and and less happy.

Now along come the Chinese government.

They have pockets full of cash to splash and hand it over to the small island nations. Some of it is aid and some is a loan.

The island nations take the money with both hands, spend it and everyone is happy - For a while.

Eventually the Chinese start asking for repayments on their loans, and the interest rate creeps up to a point where the island nation cant afford it.

But, that's OK because the Chinese have a solution to that problem - The island nation no longer has to make repayments on the loan - All they have to do it allow the Chinese to build a port or other large infrastructure project for themselves, on the island.

The island nation government has no option but to agree to this as it writes off most or all of the debt.

The Chinese then have a large naval port or airport they can use however they want, they also have an island nation that they know will comply when required.

This is a strategic nightmare for Australia, the US and our allies, including the UK.

China is expanding its footprint and effectively invading other countries without firing a single shot - All because Australian governments decided to cut back on overseas aid several years ago.

If the UK cuts back on overseas aid, someone else will step in. It is likely to be China. Before we know it they'll be supporting half the world through their "loan" schemes. I'm pretty sure no one on PH wants a Chinese military facility in northern Africa?

You’re describing the Belt and Road Initiative. That’s exactly how it works and the CCP fund it to the tune of 1 Trillion $ a year; it would have happened anyway. We’re not going to get in the way of the construction of the Chinese empire with a few billion!

[Digga]

fblm said:

You’re describing the Belt and Road Initiative. That’s exactly how it works and the CCP fund it to the tune of 1 Trillion $ a year; it would have happened anyway. We’re not going to get in the way of the construction of the Chinese empire with a few billion!

Correct, our involvement or not, the Chinese are going to dangle the temptation of new infrastructure or cheap goods in front of naive or corrupt developing economies, to their long term disadvantage.

You only need look at Kenya as an example. A nation with long standing links to the UK, and recipient of huge sums of UK aid (roughly £100m p.a. in recent years), has still fallen into the same trap.

I'm not saying that's no reason to be involved at all, but more that aid is not the panacea and will not in and of itself prevent exploitation by other nations (China, Russia, USA etc. etc. etc.)

Edited by Digga on Wednesday 2nd December 08:33

[Digga]

JPvanRossem said:

Digga said:

I'm not saying that's no reason to be involved at all, but more that aid is not the panacea and will not in and of itself prevent exploitation by other nations (China, Russia, USA etc. etc. etc.)

Edited by Digga on Wednesday 2nd December 08:33

As other posters have said, the dilemma is that if we aren't providing support - and risking the misappropriation of our money - then someone else may well do, and your strategic influence takes a hit. Same with much other foreign policy (described by William Hague, I think, as trying to choose the least worst option in any given situation), or defence. Some people might not like the UK selling arms to Saudi, or object to the iron-clad slush funds that facilitate it, but there are plenty of other countries that would be in there like a shot. Pulling out of our dealings with them would be a commercial and geopolitical disaster. The UK may be being outspent by China in some places, but that doesn't mean our expenditure in those places is meaningless. The UK punches well above its financial weight in such situations.

I agree that this is perhaps the murkiest areas of government policy. There are few, straightforward, 'black & white' scenarios, merely shades of grey.

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

Correct, our involvement or not, the Chinese are going to dangle the temptation of new infrastructure or cheap goods in front of naive or corrupt developing economies, to their long term disadvantage.
...

...with no problem at all with obvious bribery of local officials.