Foreign Aid ... why, why, why?

[Toogoodtobeforgotten]

On R4 this morning. JH asking a representative from Rwanda why they have made the decision to sponsor Arsenal FC £30m to advertise the country as a tourist destination. JH explained the UK gave Rwanda £60m in aid last year. (This is the gist of the context here).

JH also asserted in the interview that Rwanda has a poor human rights record and refused inspections that would ascertain if the country had dedicated torture facilities.

The spokeswoman was unrepentant for both the decision to lodge £30m with Arsenal and for Rwanda's human rights record.

So why is this country knowingly giving aid to a country with human rights issues and who has decided they can afford to sponsor a football club? Makes me want to puke in righteous indignation.

Why would Rwanda be a tourist destination?

Foreign aid is not cash given to the government to do what they want with, it's given to DFID / British Council etc. It is almost certainly more important to aid people under a poor regime, than a good one.

How does 30 million to arsenal football club aid the poor in Rwanda?

It's like India who have a space program

There is no more reason why Rwanda should not be a tourist destination than any other African state. It has amazing national parks, volcanoes, and is one of the best places to see gorillas and other primates.

RunMummy - it has lots of jungle and a large gorilla population which people are keen to see in their natural habitat.

Problem is that foreign aid targets those who need it. In a way that dubious politicians do not.

So should the poor and vulnerable who get supported by aid be punished because of the actions of the corrupt few.

Seems a little harsh and very Daily Mailish

Exactly. So shouldn't the money be spent on resorts/facilities/gorillas rather than arsenal?

I understand the attraction as a tourist destination but is a football club receiving half of all British foreign aid the right way to promote that?

We're planning to go to Rwanda next year on holiday

Perhaps the logic is that by investing £30m in advertising, it will bring more than £30m to the Rwandan economy in the form of tourism and jobs etc

My first question is why on earth arsenal are accepting it...?!

£27,000,000 went to the government so they are basically spending everything we gave them on sponsoring Arsenal...

I am not defending this as a decision - I think it's absolutely crackers to spend so much money on advertising that could be better spent helping some very poor and still very traumatized communities. But I do think that tourism to Africa will probably be an increasing revenue stream for several countries, and that it could potentially be worth much more than £30m (a relatively small amount) in a few years. Bear in mind that tourism to Britain is worth over £250 billion. Spending it with Arsenal is madness, though.

I'm pretty sure foreign aid all comes with strings attached and we make more out of it than we ever donate.

Rwanda is a beautiful amazing country, I've visited many times and highly recommend it as a holiday destination! Foreign aid is given to lots of countries, Rwanda was treated shockingly by the west in the past and abandoned when a small amount of help would have saved nearly a million lives. Rwanda's government is stable and is progressive with over half being female. Its a really safe African country with fantastic wildlife. The population seem to love football so perhaps using £30million on advertising via football seems like a sensible investment for them? I know nothing about tourism revenue but I imagine it could be massive.

@Coffeeisnecessary I would love to go, and to hear more about your trip - where would you recommend staying/visiting?

The 30 million given to arsenal is not in any way related to the aid which is given to DFID / Britsh Council who spend it themselves in Rwanda.

Tourism is the largest industry in Rwanda (ignoring subsistence agriculture, as that's not something that can help a country bring in money) and there are few other opportunities really, whilst you can certainly argue that sponsoring a football club (and it's only 10million a year if you're comparing it to the 60) is an odd way to increase tourist numbers, especially without any direct flights from london. Right now, increasing tourist numbers is a probably sensible approach to development.

And as always, increasing the wealth of a deeply poor country is one of the best things to improve all of their lot, and spending money ensuring that the countries organisations and individuals, not just their leaders are capable is a good investment for overseas aid.

Painting the suggestion that the UK gives Rwanda 60 million and they choose to give 30million to arsenal is extremely misleading. The 30million actually comes from taxes levied on the hundreds of millions brought in every year already by foreign tourists.

It's just another example of neoliberal economics. Not really different or more absurd than govt funding for the NHS being put into sending people to private hospitals and paying private companies to carry out services - the core idea being that public funds are put to best use by funding a decentralised outsourced structure of private companies because that's supposed to create a vibrant market economy which, allegedly, will trickle down to improve the life of the ordinary person.

The aid money as someone has said before will have come from a range of agencies and be closely earmarked for specific projects but the idea is that eventually, Rwanda will have built enough capacity in certain areas to function more self sufficiently than it does now. There will have been research into what industries to develop in terms of what can create most jobs, bring in most foreign private investment, etc etc. Tourism is clearly one of those industries so the Rwandan govt is investing in the promoting the tourism industry in the way it thinks best by throwing money at a billionaire owned football club....

It is absurd but not stand alone.

And as always, increasing the wealth of a deeply poor country is one of the best things to improve all of their lot

The concepts of "resource curse" or the "paradox of plenty", sirfredfredgeorge show that this is not really straightforward.

I suppose third world countries like Rwanda have to think of bold new strategies to try and kick start or diversity their economies and attract both awareness and visitors. I agree this kind of doesn't sit well vis a vis the U.K. aid money .....but who knows maybe it's all wrapped up together and some marketeer guru economist person is convinced that the arsenal sponsorship will in fact bring footfall and spend to that country?

Humphries by the way ...such a bloody shit stirrer. Can't bear the man.

I'll also chime in on Rwanda as a tourist destination. It's a very beautiful country with a huge potential.

As someone else explained, foreign aid will target very different things, so it won't be the same money that is being recycled back. It's a decision that the government has taken to promote the country. Maybe it will pay off, maybe it won't. But it's not a completely out-of-this-world crazy decision.

We stayed in a beautiful place called cormoran lodge in kibuye on Lake kivu, it's beautiful and so peaceful. And a fantastic hotel called heaven in Kigali. The genocide memorial in Kigali is harrowing but worth visiting. Haven't been to see the gorilla's yet but really want to, its expensive to go see them though.

As for the question of Foreign aId on the whole.....why why why?.....because we are a largely fortunate society that shouldn't turn the other cheek to other countries natural misfortune and peoples suffering.