Foreign aid is a disaster. It often acts against the interest of the British people, while also doing little to help the intended recipients. I will outline why we should discontinue our foreign aid budget, and instead pledge the money to ensuring the welfare and protection of the British people.
As the result of a 1970 UN resolution, the United Kingdom, amongst many other developed nations, pledged to spend 0.7% of its gross national product on official development assistance, which is usually referred to as foreign aid. The goal of 0.7% was supposed to have been achieved by the middle of the decade. However, almost 50 years after the resolution was officially recognised, the UK is one of just six countries that are currently observing the resolution; the other five are Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands.
This means that, in 2017, the UK gave over £14 billion in economic aid to other nations. In contrast, France, which has a similarly sized economy to the UK, gave less than half the British figure. Japan, which has an economy nearly twice the size of Britain's, gave just over half of Britain's figure in aid. To better contextualise the potential impact of this money, note that in the same year, the Government spent £102 billion on education, and £149 billion on health. If the foreign aid budget had been directed to serving the interests of the British people, either of these departments could have seen funding increases of approximately 10%.
Moreover, many of the countries that Britain gives aid to either do not need the money, or are countries actively operating against our interests. An example of the latter is Britain's aid to Syria; the Middle Eastern country received £314 million from the UK in 2017. However at the same time, the West is conducting military action against Assad's Syrian regime -- we are essentially funding the destruction of our own troops. Additionally, much of the aid is spent developing non-essential services. For example, in 2016/17, the UK spent over £300,000 funding the development of Chinese museums and cultural heritage. This is especially ironic in the context of current attitudes towards Western cultures. While the cultural left tells us that Western culture is shameful and suboptimal, we concurrently fund the promotion of foreign cultures.
Is it fair that taxpayer money is used to fund foreign film industries? Is it just that billions are being spent on economic development abroad, while we struggle domestically? Is it fair that we fund armies hostile to us?
It is likely that many deem this approach selfish. It might be argued that Britain has a duty, as one of the world's industrialised nations, to help the rest of the world develop. While I disagree (a government should serve its people first) there is a strong case to state that foreign aid hurts developing nations.
For a country to have long-term economic prosperity, it is not enough for a foreign nation to have spent billions on infrastructure and handouts. While such an investment might solve short-term issues, it prevents businesses in that country from creating jobs. If a Western nations floods an undeveloped nation with free resources, the people become indefinitely dependent on it for those services. In summary, no one benefits. The donor country loses hundreds of billions in taxpayer money over the course of a few years, and the country receiving aid becomes incapable of sustaining development. If we are to help other countries at all, it would be much more productive to offer tariff reductions to companies that create high-paying jobs in those nations. Even the countries receiving aid acknowledge this. Last year, Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo released his plan "Ghana Beyond Aid". In his plan, he acknowledged that dependence upon another country for assistance isn't desired. Given this, wouldn't it make far more sense to discontinue our aid budget?
The taxpayers of the industrialised world are being held hostage by a resolution that they didn't vote for. And now that money is being used to help nations alien to them, all while their hometowns are at brink of extinction. End foreign aid.
As the result of a 1970 UN resolution, the United Kingdom, amongst many other developed nations, pledged to spend 0.7% of its gross national product on official development assistance, which is usually referred to as foreign aid. The goal of 0.7% was supposed to have been achieved by the middle of the decade. However, almost 50 years after the resolution was officially recognised, the UK is one of just six countries that are currently observing the resolution; the other five are Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands.
This means that, in 2017, the UK gave over £14 billion in economic aid to other nations. In contrast, France, which has a similarly sized economy to the UK, gave less than half the British figure. Japan, which has an economy nearly twice the size of Britain's, gave just over half of Britain's figure in aid. To better contextualise the potential impact of this money, note that in the same year, the Government spent £102 billion on education, and £149 billion on health. If the foreign aid budget had been directed to serving the interests of the British people, either of these departments could have seen funding increases of approximately 10%.
Moreover, many of the countries that Britain gives aid to either do not need the money, or are countries actively operating against our interests. An example of the latter is Britain's aid to Syria; the Middle Eastern country received £314 million from the UK in 2017. However at the same time, the West is conducting military action against Assad's Syrian regime -- we are essentially funding the destruction of our own troops. Additionally, much of the aid is spent developing non-essential services. For example, in 2016/17, the UK spent over £300,000 funding the development of Chinese museums and cultural heritage. This is especially ironic in the context of current attitudes towards Western cultures. While the cultural left tells us that Western culture is shameful and suboptimal, we concurrently fund the promotion of foreign cultures.
Is it fair that taxpayer money is used to fund foreign film industries? Is it just that billions are being spent on economic development abroad, while we struggle domestically? Is it fair that we fund armies hostile to us?
It is likely that many deem this approach selfish. It might be argued that Britain has a duty, as one of the world's industrialised nations, to help the rest of the world develop. While I disagree (a government should serve its people first) there is a strong case to state that foreign aid hurts developing nations.
For a country to have long-term economic prosperity, it is not enough for a foreign nation to have spent billions on infrastructure and handouts. While such an investment might solve short-term issues, it prevents businesses in that country from creating jobs. If a Western nations floods an undeveloped nation with free resources, the people become indefinitely dependent on it for those services. In summary, no one benefits. The donor country loses hundreds of billions in taxpayer money over the course of a few years, and the country receiving aid becomes incapable of sustaining development. If we are to help other countries at all, it would be much more productive to offer tariff reductions to companies that create high-paying jobs in those nations. Even the countries receiving aid acknowledge this. Last year, Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo released his plan "Ghana Beyond Aid". In his plan, he acknowledged that dependence upon another country for assistance isn't desired. Given this, wouldn't it make far more sense to discontinue our aid budget?
The taxpayers of the industrialised world are being held hostage by a resolution that they didn't vote for. And now that money is being used to help nations alien to them, all while their hometowns are at brink of extinction. End foreign aid.
Comments
Post a Comment