UK government announces its new strategy for international aid: what do you think?

[RowanMumsnet]

As you may know from the news coverage, the Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, made an announcement yesterday about the government's new strategy for international development. The link to the document is here, and the main points include:

• withdrawal of aid from some more highly developed countries (including Vietnam, China, Serbia and Russia);
• concentration of aid resources on a particular group of low-income countries (including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Pakistan, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Zimbabwe);
• a focus on security;
• an emphasis on results-based systems;
• re-commitment to the principles of transparency and openness;
• an emphasis on the wellbeing of women, including education, maternal healthcare and reproductive rights.

After meeting Mumsnetters last week, DFID has asked us if we could open a thread to get your responses and thoughts. (This isn't a consultation, as the policies are already decided upon, and it isn't an endorsement.) In the light of MNHQ's previous engagement with international development issues (via Oxfam's VOICE project, our involvement with the Maternal Mortality Coalition, and our collaboration with the ONE Campaign), we thought some of you would be interested in responding.

Thanks,

MNHQ

It's a step in the right direction; however I think Somalia will be problematic in the extreme, and perhaps counter productive as I understood the EU were involved here too.

I'd like to know that the aid gets where it needs to go and doesn't end up lining pockets, especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I have reservations about Zimbabwe; is it actually helping or supporting Mugabe?

Think it's good that they have maintained the commitment to reach the 0.7 target and think probably good to focus on fewer countries, but concerned that from what Andrew Mitchell said on TV yesterday, our self interest is playing a bigger part in determining what should go where. I think it should be purely driven by need not politics...

i annoys me that we give aid to countries like india which have a space program, if the tories are looking to rehabilitate their slash and burn image perhaps they should have just not slashed and burnt quite so badly at home.

Why should some of the poorest people in the world pay the price for their government's skewed priorities? We have responsibilities beyond our borders, particularly given that we profited from many of these countries. Plus our money, which is a relatively small amount, compared to what is rightly spent on our public services can make a BIG difference to people who are poor in the developing world eg in our country it costs the State about £600 a year to educate a child in primary school and in India it costs about £30.

india is supposedly a democracy, the people should vote the nobs out. why withdraw aid from vietnam and china but not india?

I applaud the focus on results, and hope there will be a simple and intuitive way of deciding what counts as a good result. I also hope this means funding will go directly to the field, and not through further layers of bureaucracy in the recipient country. I hope the staffing of our existing diplomatic missions will be used to ensure there is transparent passage through minimal procedures, so that aid money does reach the intended projects.

step in the right direction, but think that aid should be withdrawn from all highly developed countries not some. And I don't think that it should be increased over the next few years - if anything reduced by similar levels to other gov departments.

A step in the right direction. WHY on earth do they give money to India which has a Space programme? Are we supplementing it with money? If the Indian government can afford a space programme they can afford to pay for there poorest citizens. India also has fighter jets, and aircraft carriers to move them, unlike Britain. India's growth is 8% our is 0!

INDIA'S space programme costs 4.8 billion. They hope to have a space mission by 2016! Vince Cable told a woman on question time it did not "cost much"!. This country is now skint, broke. WE cannot afford to give foreign aid to countries with burgeoning economies.
Why on earth we give money to countries, whose dictators then bank the money for themselves is beyond me and most of the British public!

This country is closing libraries. The Indian's have a 4.8 billion space programme? Perhaps they could send us some new library books! Beggars belief!

Jackstarb posted this link to an article by George Monbiot on another thread.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/07/tax-city-heist-of-century

I think it shows that unless global companies, (especially banks) are reined in, it won't make a blind bit of difference what aid we give or don't give, because it's peanuts compared to what is being drained out of developing economies by the international banking organisations.

And this is Peston's commentary on the Monbiot piece for anyone interested.

www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2011/03/is_cameron_giving_companies_th.html

Indian case is an ethical dilemma. On one hand, Indian government (notoriously corrupt) has space programme, gives aid to other countries etc. On other hand, there are more people in absolute poverty in India that there are in sub-Saharan Africa, and GDP per capita in India is still relatively low. If aid is about tackling poverty then aid to India makes sense, but you're still left with an Indian government that doesn't prioritise poverty at a national level, and you could argue that aid from other countries encourages the Indian government to continue to ignore the needs of its own people. On balance I support DFID's decision (cos I don't think you can stand by and watch people die from poverty) but there's something deeply wrong with the Indian government in my opinion.

I think in some cases international aid could be viewed as a bribe by any other name.

It sounds a very good plan. We certainly should not be aiding Bric economies which are doing better than ours.

However a lot of the countries left are countries which treat women by law and by customer in an appalling fashion and we are supporting those. What % of girls are subjected to female genital mutilatino in Somalia and Yemen? Probably at a guess over 80%. Pakistan is where a lot of british 15 years are shipped back every year for marriage in rural villages. If we are going to support these sexist hell holes then we need to ensure it is support for things like girls' schools (as I am sure we have tried in Afghanistan).

I also agree with concerns about in any way propping up the regime in Zimbabwe.

The emphasis on the well being of women etc is wise.

There is obviously the usual big debate about whether Western aid does more harm than good of course.

Aid not trade is better as is micro loans getting directly to women on the ground (not men) and as charities like the one the FT has often supporting which aid female education have found educating women can often be the most useful aid given.

We also need to be cautious because as we all know a huge amount of aid just lines the pockets of dictators and ends up having to be tracked down by lawyers in Switzerland and because we are not exactly doing very well ourselves at the moment in the UK so I doubt there is a mood for huge spending abroad which just goes to create billions of overseas hidden fortunes for those creaming so much of it off. Even when it's not creamed off in such blatant fashion there are so many peple in the aid industry getting their cut at various stages that yo wonder if whatever little then filters down on the ground was worth it.

So small, well targetted aid at projects which support democracy and give education and support to women might indeed be the best way to go.

we shouldnt give a brass farthing to any other country, and that includes the eu, all the money should be spent here mainly as tax cuts. after all labour made sure that the populations of these sponging thieving 3rd world countries have washed up here were they are a drain on our money. stop aid stop immigration deport all those here.

Can someone remind me how many billionaires India has please? iirc its more than Europe.

also agree with dreamingofsun. The aid increase just proves the lie that we need severe spending cuts.