International aid - arguments for and against stopping it

[theboyfold]

With my wonderfully simplistic view of politics and everything of the sort I'm trying to work out what the various arguments for not stopping international aid are.

In my (simplistic) view we as a country are skint and can't keep paying out for stuff that we don't need. As you can see I'm applying a simplistic household budgeting point of view on it.

However, is the argument that it's the 'right' thing to do and it will in time benefit us in the long run as those countries we helped will look on us in a good light when it comes to doing business with them. Or are there other reasons for keeping the aid effort up? Does it actually work? Are there cases where it's been proven to be a long term sustainable success and not just a short term band aid to a long term problem that money can't really fix.

[Atomic Gibbon]

Take your business head off for a second.

Roughly 1 million children will die in Pakistan if aid is not given, because there was a massive flood, and now there is no food, clean water, or place to poo in without giving mateyboy next to you dissentry.

Good enough reason?

[Wanta996Gotta]

Atomic Gibbon said:

Take your business head off for a second.

Roughly 1 million children will die in Pakistan if aid is not given, because there was a massive flood, and now there is no food, clean water, or place to poo in without giving mateyboy next to you dissentry.

Good enough reason?

+1

[theboyfold]

Atomic Gibbon said:

Take your business head off for a second.

Roughly 1 million children will die in Pakistan if aid is not given, because there was a massive flood, and now there is no food, clean water, or place to poo in without giving mateyboy next to you dissentry.

Good enough reason?

Yes, but I'm saying that's a special cause is it not? Is that not outside the international aid effort or does it all come from one pot?

My question was more based around the on going aid, prompted more by this article than the issues in Pakistan.

[Frankeh]

Why do people insist on using a 'them and us' mentality.

How about we stop thinking of people as British, American, Iraqi, Iranian, French, Korena, Spanish, etc and start thinking of people as humans. A race of which we are all part of.

So my argument for international aid? It's helping our own.

[theboyfold]

I guess it's also a terminology thing.

For me international aid could be defined as on going help for the likes of the African nations mentioned in the article, where there are questions that can be asked if it's actually effective or not.

Against something such as disaster relief, so issues like Haiti and Pakistan would come under this, it's an exceptional case and one that does deserve help and assistance.

[off_again]

Cutting back on your Sky subscription or increasing the costs of Council Tax are one thing, having no where to sleep or nothing to eat are somewhat different though. But this goes for the UK homeless as it does for anyone in need around the world.

[SystemParanoia]

Atomic Gibbon said:

Take your business head off for a second.

Roughly 1 million children will die in Pakistan if aid is not given, because there was a massive flood, and now there is no food, clean water, or place to poo in without giving mateyboy next to you dissentry.

Good enough reason?

Right now their economy can't support all of those people...

If we let them die, it gives a better chance for those that don't.

Equilibrium will be found.

Suffering will end and life will go on.

[TuxRacer]

Atomic Gibbon said:

Take your business head off for a second.

Roughly 1 million children will die in Pakistan if aid is not given, because there was a massive flood, and now there is no food, clean water, or place to poo in without giving mateyboy next to you dissentry.

Good enough reason?

Yes, but.

If they get bailed out and then go back to building houses on sand, almost literally, where will we be next time? I'm all for aid that resolves the problem, not perpetuates it.

[theboyfold]

off_again said:

Cutting back on your Sky subscription or increasing the costs of Council Tax are one thing, having no where to sleep or nothing to eat are somewhat different though. But this goes for the UK homeless as it does for anyone in need around the world.

That's part of my view, again it's simplistic but I honestly believe that if Britain is in a better position then we will be in a better position to help. The principle of getting your own house in order first.

However, this point is a very very valid one:

Frankeh said:

Why do people insist on using a 'them and us' mentality.

How about we stop thinking of people as British, American, Iraqi, Iranian, French, Korena, Spanish, etc and start thinking of people as humans. A race of which we are all part of.

So my argument for international aid? It's helping our own.

Also at which point do you start to say yes and no to certain causes. This leads me back to my point of disaster relief rather than international aid, if such a distinction could ever be made.

[Stevenj214]

Atomic Gibbon said:

Take your business head off for a second.

Roughly 1 million children will die in Pakistan if aid is not given, because there was a massive flood, and now there is no food, clean water, or place to poo in without giving mateyboy next to you dissentry.

Good enough reason?

Why should we care about 1 million children in Pakistan dying from a natural disaster?

[StevieBee]

theboyfold said:

we as a country are skint and can't keep paying out for stuff that we don't need.

The country isn't "skint". It has debt and liabilities to very high levels but these only become a problem if you can't meet the payment and at the moment the country is meeting these payment - just.

International aid is not about political point scoring, it's about helping out people who are unable to help themselves. Every developed country has reserves of cash ring-fenced for aid and the amount is miniscule compared to the overall GDP.

Money is only part of it. It's what that money does that's key in the same way that giving a homeless bloke half your lunch is better than handing him a quid.

[funkyrobot]

I would agree with international aid if I was sure that all of the aid went to the people who need it.

[TuxRacer]

StevieBee said:

The country isn't "skint". It has debt and liabilities to very high levels but these only become a problem if you can't meet the payment and at the moment the country is meeting these payment - just.

I disagree. If I drop you out at sea with your feet cast in a concrete block, you've got a problem even if you're keeping your head above water for now.

[StevieBee]

Stevenj214 said:

Why should we care about 1 million children in Pakistan dying from a natural disaster?

Firstly, replace "Pakistan" with "Great Britain". Would you post the same question?

(Don't read anything other than geography to that)

Secondly, the issue is that 1 million Children dying when they need not have done, natural disaster or otherwise.

[theboyfold]

funkyrobot said:

I would agree with international aid if I was sure that all of the aid went to the people who need it.

I think that's part of it, much of my distrust of government and the abuse of the position gives me a cynical view on how money is spent on such things.

Are there any reports available in the public domain about how it's all split up?

[Stevenj214]

StevieBee said:

Stevenj214 said:

Why should we care about 1 million children in Pakistan dying from a natural disaster?

Firstly, replace "Pakistan" with "Great Britain". Would you post the same question?

(Don't read anything other than geography to that)

Secondly, the issue is that 1 million Children dying when they need not have done, natural disaster or otherwise.

In that case, my question would be why should a random Pakistani care about 1 million children dying in Great Britain.

Of course the closer things get to you, both physically and psychologically, the more you care; I would care more about a single child in my family dying of any cause than I would (do) about 1 million children dying in Pakistan (and a lot of other places in the world where children die too).

[StevieBee]

theboyfold said:

funkyrobot said:

I would agree with international aid if I was sure that all of the aid went to the people who need it.

I think that's part of it, much of my distrust of government and the abuse of the position gives me a cynical view on how money is spent on such things.

Are there any reports available in the public domain about how it's all split up?

We get involved in a lot of donor-funded programmes in the realm of waste management in developing countries. Unregulated waste and poor sanitation causes huge problems and has to be the first thing addressed as countries set about hauling themselves up the food chain.

In the past, donor agencies would award money to countries or regions for projects that mostly ended up in the pockets of officials in those countries.

What happens now is that organisations like the World Bank will assign money to a project and then project manage it via third party, accredited companies and consultants – who bill the World Bank, not the recipient government. This ensures that development work is undertaken to the required standard and has eliminated corruption.

[HundredthIdiot]

The UK is not "skint". It's a rich country with a debt problem.

[Guybrush]

Reasons not to give aid: the countries concerned should be able to sort things out themselves, giving aid is a bit like benefits dependency, they're too used to it. Pakistan for example is well able to look after itself in this respect. Another reason: corruption; very little if any of the money gets through to the intended people.