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.

Yabu! How can you be so sensationalist.. we give them 60 million they spend 30 mil it must have been half of what we've graciously donated!? They get their money back and extra
30 million regardless is a fraction of what they must make back in tourism revenues which is their main money maker.
The country was ravaged by civil war not long ago I do agree that human rights cases should be looked into. But it's In no different with UK lying in bed with Israel or trying to create trade links with China who have atrocious Human rights records.

Surely Rwanda is only ever going to be a niche destination? Ie will never attract mass amounts of Europeans. Does it have any coastline? What's the climate like?

Heaven is really nice! Kigali's a great city and Lake Kivu is beautiful. The forests in the North West are beautiful, but I've not yet shelled out to see the gorillas. Akagera Park is also very beautiful

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

That is relevant to increasing the wealth of the deeply poor countries, I was talking about the poor. Also of course, Rwanda doesn't have any resources other than ones which are based around service industries which are much harder to have the resource curse.

I certainly don't think sponsoring arsenal is a good idea (on any level) it's just the attitude of using it as an argument to criticise the aid that I deplore.

Wouldn't the money be better spent with an ad and marketing agency withvexperience of tourism in new destinations rather than a football club.

Surely Rwanda is only ever going to be a niche destination? Ie will never attract mass amounts of Europeans

No, but the tourists who do go there will be quite well heeled, and happy to spend $150 to $200 a night in a hotel, or $1500 to visit the gorillas.

GDP per capita is around $750, so you can see the attraction of having wealthy tourists paying that sort of money.

Do people still use the term ' third world countries'? It is a quite demeaning. I thing 'developing' is the acceptable term nowadays.

Foreign aid is a very complex area of international funding. It supports the development of a country's infrastructure so they can eventually become self-sufficient and free of corruption.
But generally speaking, international aid is also a diplomatic tool (just like our royal family), which builds important global relationships.
I don't know the details of this investment in football, but it could be a move to invest in the country's tourist economy, and an attempt to attract more commercial income which may reduce the country's long-term need for foreign support.
If you really want to get to the bottom of this issue, the Red Cross is a great place to start! They're amazing at what they do and are all over the world supporting communities that are vulnerable (i.e. need help and support). Read their website for starters. Like I said, it's a very complicated area and one that can't be argued in such simple terms by the media (which, by the way, loves a sensational story and therefore, don't always reveal the full, less simplistic picture).
Also, alongside this area of international development, there is a global anti-corruption organisation called Transparency International, which works with countries to stamp out illegal/ dodgy behaviour, so this whole issue is nowhere near as straightforward as people think it is!
x

"Surely Rwanda is only ever going to be a niche destination? Ie will never attract mass amounts of Europeans"

Two points. Firstly, there are fashions in European tourism, the same as anything else. Places like Vietnam have seen a huge escalation in tourist numbers in recent years. You'd expect places like Cuba to grow their tourist industry in the next 10 years or so - why not some African nations too?

Secondly, the assumption that most tourists are European is unlikely to hold. Chinese tourists, Indian tourists are travelling to new destinations more and more.

£60m in foreign aid is really not very much. Apparently we give £350m a week to the EU, so that's less than two days' worth of EU membership.

But I agree spending £30m on advertising with Arsenal sounds like an awful lot. Is advertising usually that expensive? What on earth are they getting for their money?

Apparently the team kit will have visit Rwanda on their sleeves.

Rwanda is a great little place. First country in the world to have over fifty percent women in its legislature. The decision seems odd on the face of it but I presume international development wonks will have been all over it.

Foreign aid generally goes via development agencies to local or international NGOs rather than to country governments. I work for a (private) funder in the NGO sector and a lot of our projects in Asia in education and gender equality are supported by DIFD, USAID, the EU etc.

I'm assuming that by spending a whopping 30mil sponsoring arsenal the tourism remit is aimed mostly at uk/Europe?

Or are they also spending tens of millions in India, China, etc.

Given that Rwanda owes $3bn to overseas countries (and I imagine the repayments on that are more than the money we “give” them) and that that debt is mainly a calculated result of western influences the I think they can do what the fuck they want with their money. If anyone in the west actually Gave a shit they would apologise for the fact that colonialism has left Africa with massive debts and write them off.

Arsenal are one of he worlds biggest clubs. Their games are shown worldwide . The fact that Rwanda president is a fan proves that. So this sponsorship gives them exposure across many markets.

Thanks for all your comments - it's been a good and interesting debate so far.

However I do not support giving foreign aid to countries that have space programs, known torture regimes and where the donors (the UK) and recipients cannot fully account for every £ spent. This is because I may be inherently flawed as a person and as someone put it, a bit 'Daily Maily' (though I read the Guardian and the Independent).

But I would prefer this money to be used instead on the following for example:
Decent pay for NHS staff and the Police;
Government policies that help people in need - eg 'JAM' families, and to avoid anyone having to rely on food banks;
Money to be invested in more social housing;
Money to repair our pot-hole blighted roads.

Personally I have no issues with Rwanda investing in tourism; this may aid their growth and independence that must be a good thing. But not at the expense of much-needed charity back at home.

However I do not support giving foreign aid to countries that have space programs, known torture regimes and where the donors (the UK) and recipients cannot fully account for every £ spent

Especially given your last point, you would never give foreign aid at all. "Every pound spent" is a completely unrealistic target.

But I would prefer this money to be used instead on the following for example:
Decent pay for NHS staff and the Police;
Government policies that help people in need - eg 'JAM' families, and to avoid anyone having to rely on food banks;
Money to be invested in more social housing;
Money to repair our pot-hole blighted roads.

This is ultimately a selfish argument (I mean that dispassionately). You are raising the bar to such a standard that aid should only go to foreigners if we are living in a utopia (no potholes on the road).

Personally I have no issues with Rwanda investing in tourism; this may aid their growth and independence that must be a good thing. But not at the expense of much-needed charity back at home.

I think you are also confused about where the money is coming from to sponsor Arsenal. It's not coming from UK tax payer's money. Maybe in a very very indirect way it is, in that the money raised from tourism could go directly to infrastructure, but governments are a bit more complicated than that.

It's also very much in our economic interest to encourage prosperity and stability abroad.

Scrap the 0.7% figure for aid. And stop giving aid as cash so they can waste it on stupid things like a football club. Aid should be given as a form of development.

And stop giving aid as cash so they can waste it on stupid things like a football club. Aid should be given as a form of development.

You're making the mistake of thinking that aid is being used to sponsor Arsenal. It isn't.

You're making the mistake of thinking that aid is being used to sponsor Arsenal. It isn't. No I am not, I am saying if they can afford £30 million to sponsor a premier league football club then they obviously do not need aid money from us.

I am saying if they can afford £30 million to sponsor a premier league football club then they obviously do not need aid money from us

But that doesn't make any sense.

That’s like saying “why are Christian Aid spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of donated money subsidising the fares of wealthy London commuters?” when they buy poster space on the Tube.

Sponsoring Arsenal is an advertising purchase. It may or may not be a wise choice, but since Arsenal have a huge European and Chinese fan base I don’t think it’s obviously a waste of money.

It's a bit of a big number fallacy. Assuming a wealthy tourists comes to Rwanda for a fortnight, they might spend 5000 GBP. If just 6000 wealthy tourists from China, or Europe are convinced to go on holiday to Rwanda and pump that money in to the economy (and it's over a 3 year period, so 2000 tourists a year), than the money will have potentially been worth spending.