The rich world has a "moral obligation" to support poor countries through the recession, a House of Commons committee has said.Or, in other words, the money they haven’t (yet) screwed out of the taxpayer for their own expenses ought to go abroad, to make them feel Righteous.
And since the taxpayer is becoming increasingly less inclined to pour money into a bottomless pit, would a rebranding exercise help?
Well, couldn’t hurt:
The committee also called for the rebranding of the Government's Department for International Development with a new name such as "British Aid" to help maintain public support for its work during the downturn.I must say, I’m not sure how they expect that to work, unless it hooks the stupid people that think it’s aid for Britain…
Oh. That’s probably the plan, isn’t it?
The committee warned that the current financial crisis is testing the depth of support for development aid both among the general public and international donor nations.Yes, odd that, isn’t it? As the recession bites, we get less inclined to throw our money away on Third World dictatorships. How very peculiar…
But the IDC folks want to preserve their role, and their wages, and their perks, so you suckers will just have to pony up the cash:
International Development Committee Chairman Malcolm Bruce said: "Developed countries have a moral obligation to support poorer countries through this crisis. The recession should not be used as an excuse to reduce aid flows.‘Unacceptable’, is it, you little weasel? Where do you think the money comes from, the magic money tree?
"The UK Government has made clear that it will meet its existing aid commitments. However, several countries who made similar promises are cutting their aid budgets. This is unacceptable.
"The UK must use its position as a global leader in development to press other governments to honour the funding pledges they have made, including at the G8 summit in July."
Oh, you probably do. Just like all the other parasites in government, charities and quangos:
The report found evidence of waning enthusiasm among British consumers for action to help poorer countries during the recession, with fewer buying fairtrade goods, opting to pay more for "ethical" products or making donations to Third World charities.So, we need to make sure we steal it from them in the form of tax instead.
I suggested this a few months ago - it can apply equally well elsewhere:
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I think all we’re doing is putting off the inevitable – basically mass deaths from starvation and disease and bloody and multiple civil wars.
It’s totally beyond our control now.
Tell you what…
Let’s write off all African debt so that we have no claim on the countries there and therefore no influence on their governments and their economies, ban the arms dealers from selling any more of their shit there, have one last grand fundraising exercise and then send over plane loads of tools and people to advise on how to use them – no food or money – pull out completely by 2012 and then let them decide their own destinies.
I am quite famous for being just about the only African who points out that sending money to dictators on my continent isn't helping and you might as well just stop it.
ReplyDelete"..developing countries will face a financing gap of $270-700 billion (£170-430 billion) as a result of the drop in global GDP, which could set back progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goal to eradicate hunger and extreme poverty by three years. "
ReplyDelete"..Goal to eradicate hunger and extreme poverty by three years. "
"...to eradicate hunger... "
Dear God.
I've figured out who the government ministers think they are.
At least we can save ourselves a packet on financing their cross-channel flights, ferries and chunnel journeys.
All we need to do is fork out for a stout pair of walking boots for each of them.
If we got rid of the foreign aid budget in Britain we could abolish income tax.
ReplyDeleteThat was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Libertarian party
@steveshark - all that, and drop trade restrictions and forced imports.
ReplyDeleteRead "The Bottom Billion" for further info - written by an ex UN aid advisor.
"Let’s write off all African debt so that we have no claim on the countries..."
ReplyDeleteStrange how the people who cry 'imperialist' at the drop of a hat don't advocate just this, isn't it?
"...sending money to dictators on my continent isn't helping and you might as well just stop it."
I expect it's helping Mercedes-Benz, though ;)
"All we need to do is fork out for a stout pair of walking boots for each of them."
Heh!
"...drop trade restrictions and forced imports."
We'd have to get out of the EU first - not that that's a bas thing....
India and China a both major recipients of our aid. Both are well able to sustain their well develop nuclear weapon systems and major navies.
ReplyDeleteThe countries to which we give aid have remained utterly poverty-stricken for the entire period we have been doing so. The policy has been a total failure.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, one could plausibly argue that the giving of aid keeps them poverty stricken.
Do you know what the IMF did to India in 1991 in return for aid
ReplyDeleteThey asked for 47 tons of gold from the Indian government which was airlifted to Britain to the vaults in Threadneedle street
This is incredible:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/19/britain-aid-to-india-825m
£825m. A colossal sum. Of course, the real reason we are giving it is not to save all those poor people. It is because India has screwed this cash out of us in return for 'co-operation' in combating Pakistani terrorism and other security related issues.
It just sounds more cuddly if you say it is too help poor people.