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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?