Merging DFID and the FCO is a bad idea

[Z0rr0]

Apparently it was announced recently that the government plans to merge DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I assume it's part of a plan to dial back on international aid.
But DFID does really amazing work tackling big issues like extreme poverty, gender inequality (including period poverty and girls' education), disaster aid etc. They've been doing vital work around the pandemic.
And their programmes are development based so building infrastructure and capacity to help countries and disadvantaged groups improve their outcomes, so they work in health, agriculture, environment and all sorts.
CARE International UK say: UK Aid must continue to be spent effectively and efficiently to reach those most in need, leaving no one behind. DFID has led the world in tackling the coronavirus pandemic, extreme poverty and gender inequality, and provided life-saving aid following devastating disasters. It is world renowned for delivering value for money and impact, and is one of the most transparent departments in government. It’s a national asset we should all be proud of.
They've launched a petition I thought some people might be interested to support. e-activist.com/page/62929/petition/1

I fully agree, it is an attempt to dial back aid, which has been a long time ambition of the far right. Even if it were a good idea, now is not the time to be doing it. Tackle the corona virus first and then either get a Brexit deal, or deal with the fall out of no deal, and then start tinkering around with various Government departments.

I see it as the next step in Empire mark 2. Aid for influence and advantage

It's such a shame. I've worked with charities who benefit from DFID money and they so often nail the local issues and fund programmes that make a real difference and they do it really low key without looking for big credits or branding.

I was reading letters about this in the Guardian - a predecessor organisation was part of the Foreign Office to the detriment of the aid being given. DFiD
is something which has gained the UK kudos for the way its handled the aid budget, and Johnson despite his wanting to be world beating, has decided that he would prefer to go back to the older version and trash its reputation.

Can the U.K. afford the same level of aid though? Your debt has just exceeded 100% of GDP.

If you took a 40% pay cut and your debt now exceeded your entire annual income, would you not dial back your charitable donations?

@PlanDeRaccordement

Can the U.K. afford the same level of aid though? Your debt has just exceeded 100% of GDP.

If you took a 40% pay cut and your debt now exceeded your entire annual income, would you not dial back your charitable donations?

Sure, dial them back. But dont entwine them with politics and furthering "british interests". Aid should be about helping people, not using them to your own ends.

There are other things they could cancel first - Trident for a starters.

@Peregrina

There are other things they could cancel first - Trident for a starters.

Yes. But unlike foreign aid, cancelling an MoD program means thousands more British workers losing their jobs and income. Any savings would be offset by the increased unemployment benefits and reduced income tax revenues. So you’d have to cut much deeper to save the same net money.

But dont entwine them with politics and furthering "british interests". Aid should be about helping people, not using them to your own ends.

I think all foreign aid is given with strings attached. Some British interests include things like:

• ensuring the aid gets to the target beneficiaries and not to the personal accounts of corrupt government officials in the recipient country
• aid is usually given for a set purpose, food/medical/education and one string is that the money must be used for that agreed on purpose instead of being spent on weapons and arms for a warlord who wants to attack the neighbouring country.

-other strings are usually to do with things like signing up to treaties to prevent human trafficking, terrorism, drugs production/trafficking, women’s rights, etc.

So not all British interest are bad things and it’s not morally wrong to make foreign aid conditional on it being spent on their actual needs and furthering core human rights.

...and yet other strings are that the "aid" will comprise of British companies building x/y/z for you (hospitals that you cant equip or staff used to be a favourite one). Of course Britain isnt alone in this, it isnt even the worst, but I cant help thinking that this merger will promote exactly this sort of abuse. And I cant help thinking that things like rural literacy programs for women are just not glam enough for our new British image .

I agree porcupine. Some of the strings should not ever be attached, your example about favouring British businesses is a good one.

Agreed porcupine - or things like maternity and gynae services for women - still badly needed in many parts won't feature on the glamorous list.

The hit to the economy will automatically reduce DFID's actual budget this year - it will still be 0.7% but that will be calculated based on a smaller amount. The announcement said that 0.7% would be maintained in the new FCDO but there were worrying signals about where it would be used (e.g. the PM's comments about spending less in Tanzania (which has huge poverty challenges) and more in Ukraine (which is relatively prosperous).

So not all British interest are bad things and it’s not morally wrong to make foreign aid conditional on it being spent on their actual needs and furthering core human rights

This is something that DFID already does, as does the FCO. In the national interest can also mean taking action on things which help both the UK and other countries (e.g. green growth, tackling drugs/money laundering and reducing conflict). My worry is that in the name of aid in the national interest the new department will comes under increased pressure to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses when there's a trade deal to be made or arms to be sold. Which may have selfish advantages in the short term but can cause huge damage in the longer term.

That is exactly what I said to my DH last nightabout arms sales. I am cynical, but with good reason to be. We have to judge by actions not words - the UK was promised that a trade deal with the US would not compromise food standards, but that appears to be going out the window, so what promises can we trust?

I also think that as an ex colony and now a Commonwealth country that we still have a moral obligation to Tanzania. Again, this Governement is very keen to big up deals with the Commonwealth, or should I say, some parts of the Commonwealth?

Difd also funds worthless projects and so it needs more control and oversight.

Strings are common everywhere - I worked on building a computer system for an Australian company and one part of the deal was all the flights and hotels booked when we went to Australia on business had to be booked via Qantas.