Reducing foreign aid would cost the UK far more in the long run.
JACOB Rees Mogg proudly turned up at the steps of Downing Street brandishing copies of the Daily Express on Thursday (February 8th 2018) to declare that the UK Foreign Aid budget should be slashed. It was following a petition by the paper which garnered 100,00 signatures, a little under a quarter of its circulation. The reality behind what they are asking though is far from simple.
Anti-Foreign Aid budget sentiments tend to be little more than a rallying cry to those whose overall issue is with anyone who may feasibly be perceived as “foreign”, it actually has very little to do with saving money due to the fact that scrapping it would incur far greater costs further down the line. The reality of the Foreign Aid budget is that it is a cost effective measure for maintaining the UK’s soft power and reducing long term costs on a variety of areas, primarily security, while also increasing the potential for trade and beneficial relationships down the line. It’s an investment effectively in safeguarding the UK’s place in the world to ensure that other areas of the economy will also succeed.
At present it accounts for 0.7% of the UK Gross National income (GNI), a little over £13billion based on most recent figures, compared for example to approximately £35.3billion spent on defence. This isn’t an arbitrary amount though. The figure of 0.7% has been used as the exemplar during international summits for the last 40 years. It is also seen as the minimum amount necessary for each country to pay to meet the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, but that is rather aside from the fact in this context.
Its critics often cite community projects such as dance classes and yoga lessons as the reason to scrap it due to what they perceive as wastage which could be spent elsewhere, quite often on increasing defence spending. These projects account for a tiny fraction of the budget, however, £68,000 over a three year period for promoting cultural music and dance in Tanzania for example. What they don’t focus on though is the benefits of these projects though, and the long term savings which they provide to the UK taxpayer.
Using the above example, in 2014 there were warnings that Tanzania would become the next target for Islamic fundamentalists. One of the prime recruiting techniques for such people, indeed any extreme organisation whether religious, political or anything else, is by emphasising a sense of isolation among people in order to give them the idea that they are becoming part of something bigger, effectively giving them an identity which they may feel they have lost. By creating simple community groups which give a sense of inclusion and support it helps to diminish the power of this technique, thereby undermining terrorist recruitment and increasing global security.
Elsewhere the funds are used to help communities set up sustainable businesses, helping to alieviate poverty, which in turn helps create more security in those countries affected and helps the UK by increasing trade and the variety of goods it can import. Some of the funds go to countries which are perceived as already wealthy, such as India or China, and in doing so not only help groups which have been ignored by their own governments but also give the UK additional channels into that country for long term security and trade issues. Some go on local environmental projects, which help to achieve a limited focus such as protecting marine turtles, these in turn play a crucial role in sustaining an overall ecosystem, which provides yet more benefit to the UK, and international community as a whole.
The thing is that if looked at in isolation the foreign aid budget can used as an example of waste, why send money overseas when it can be used in the UK. When placed into the context of the wider aims though, of reducing global poverty, increasing security and ultimately enhancing UK soft power, the return on investment far outweighs what is a relatively small part of the UK’s economy. Could it be improved, of course, any budget can be refined, but reduce it, not if we don’t want to be spending a lot more money elsewhere with less payoff and a reduction in our ability to operate elsewhere in the world.
