British Aid Making a Difference

Image Credit: DFID via Flickr cc

Image Credit: DFID via Flickr cc

     Great Britain is great for many reasons. One may think of its history, culture, people, economic and political clout, among other things. However, there is one thing that tends to get overlooked, and that is Britain’s contributions in the realm of foreign aid.

     Foreign aid is of course controversial in Britain as it is in America, with opponents claiming it to be a waste of taxpayers’ money, a boon for dictatorships, and a cycle of dependency which prevents developing nations from getting on their own two feet. At times, the debate gets boiled down to bean-counting and the critics believing that the money spent overseas should be better spent at home, especially during economically austere times.

     This, I believe, is a zero-sum game which does not take into account the benefits – both short and long-term – of what foreign aid can do when properly and efficiently administered to help people in need across the world in a variety of ways, so that they may have better life outcomes and go on to attain many of the things many of us take for granted – the basic necessities of food, clean drinking water, shelter, clothing, and life-saving medication. However, this is not just about giving things to people; it’s also about economic development through means such as education, aiding the creation of a civil and open society, respecting human rights, and opening people up to the world around them, so that they may become better-informed, well-rounded, and more able to make wise decisions for themselves, their families, and communities.

     Developed countries such as the United Kingdom are well-positioned to lead the effort to assist developing countries and their citizens with humanitarian aid and economic development, and to this end, the UK Government has committed itself to spending 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) per year in this area.

     Again, this is controversial for some people, and several newspapers ran luridly negative articles about UK Aid being wasted and simply given away (as if dumped from a helicopter) to dubious individuals and causes. In response, the Department for International Development (DFID) released a document to rebut such claims and to show how the money is being used effectively where needed on the behalf of the British taxpayer who underwrites it. This report, along with other research I’ve done, ought to be an example of how the UK is a generous country and that the efforts by the government ought to make everyone justifiably proud to be British.

     People ought to take some pride in the fact that their country was at the forefront in the fight against Ebola in Africa. Many of us remember the level of international concern about this deadly virus and how it could have become a massive global health crisis, but it did not advance far and was contained thanks to the efforts of the UK leading the way on the ground against it. The massive response involved 10 governmental departments, four other public bodies, and several non-government organizations (NGO’s) and charities.  In Sierra Leone, this effort resulted in reaching a 42 day target period during which there were no new Ebola cases in the fall of last year, and while there is still work to be done on several fronts, the highly coordinated effort in halting the spread of Ebola undoubtedly saved countless lives throughout the world and – in the UK national interest – was “the single most important way of preventing Ebola from infecting people in the UK.”

     This is good enough in and of itself, but it only marks the end of the five year period during which the United Kingdom made great strides with the use of its foreign aid and international development resources, and can stand tall and proud with what it has accomplished.

     In terms of wealth creation, UK Aid has provided 68.9 million people with access to financial services to help them work their way out of poverty, so that they have the tools to improve their lot and become self-sufficient. This self-sufficiency is aided by efforts to increase access to education, and in this area, the UK has been responsible for supporting 11 million children in primary and lower secondary education, so that they can have better opportunities and life outcomes, and such outcomes are largely dependent on factors like health, water and sanitation, and nutrition.

UK Aid being delivered in Dubai.  Image Credit: UK Department for International Development via Flickr cc

UK Aid being delivered in Dubai.  Image Credit: UK Department for International Development via Flickr cc

      Again, the UK played a significant role as it assisted in alleviating hunger among 28.5 million children under five and pregnant women through nutrition-relevant programs and ensured that those women could give birth (to the tune of 5.1 million births) safely with the help of professional medical staff., which have saved the lives of women in pregnancy and childbirth, as well as newborn babies. Britain also invested in vaccines, drugs, and 47 million insecticide-treated bed nets which have helped to contribute to malaria deaths falling by 60% in the last 15 years, as well as supporting efforts to increase access to clean water, better sanitation, and improved hygiene conditions to 62.9 million people. Thanks in part to Britain, 43.8 million children have been immunized against preventable diseases the Gavi Alliance, 13.2 million people have been given access to vital treatments for tuberculosis through its contibutions to the Global Fund, and it has helped the fight against AIDS – saving lives every day.

     Additionally, there has been the general provision of humanitarian need such as emergency food assistance to 13 million people, helping 15 million people cope with the effects of climate change, and engaging in critical scientific research which helped to eliminate cattle diseases and develop a new disease-resistance crop which has increased food production and security for around 3 million people. UK Aid also helps to build civil societies by enabling better governance and security by supporting free and fair elections in which 162.1 million voted, as well as funding organizations which work to defend freedom of expression and the free flow of information. Among these are BBC Media Action, which encourages the opening of societies by using the power of media, along with ADD International, SightSavers, and other organizations dedicated to the rights of the disabled.

A breakdown of what the UK has done in response to the Syrian crisis. Image Credit: DFID via Flickr cc

A breakdown of what the UK has done in response to the Syrian crisis. Image Credit: DFID via Flickr cc

     Indeed, this is quite a lot that the UK has been doing year after year, and yet it still does more during emergency situations such as dealing with the effects of war and natural disasters. This is seen in its response to the plight of people displaced by the Syrian Civil War, who have been the recipients of nearly 20 million food rations that have been distributed by the United Kingdom, in addition to sanitation needs, water, medical care and other relief items. UK Aid has also been helpful in assisting 200,000 Syrian refugees back into school after being uprooted from their schools back home.

     In the aftermath of a 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Nepal last year, Britain helped in the recovery and relief of that devastated country by delivering shelter kits which have helped to house over 280,000 people, British humanitarian workers were among the first to descend on the Philippines to help out after a typhoon hit, and UK Aid also assisted in the effort to safely remove landmines from places ravaged by war such as Afghanistan, so that farmers can use the land that have without fear.

     With regard to women and girls, the UK has taken action to substantially improve their lives in areas where they are particularly vulnerable to the effects of war, poverty, and cultural traditions. It has worked to help child brides get out of forced/arranged marriages and into school, so that they came be empowered to take control of their lives and go on to become doctors, educators, engineers, lawyers, business professionals, and other professions and occupations. Britain has also taken action to combat against women and girls, as well as female genital mutilation (FGM) by getting various tribes to abandon the awful practice and to campaign against it themselves. More generally, it has worked to increase access to essential medical care, modern methods of family planning, vaccines, food and water, clothing, improved security and justice, and shelter for woman and girls.

     All of these things are important because it makes it more likely that women and girls will marry later, have higher incomes, take part in decision-making, escape poverty, and have fewer but healthier children who end up going to school themselves. As such, they will also be less likely to contract diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, undergo FGM, die in pregnancy and childbirth, or have children who die in infancy. These are significant achievements in the name of the British people.

     In an overall sense, these actions by the UK Government are about getting developing countries on their feet by improving the lives and life outcomes of the people who live there, so that they may go on to help build their communities and improve their countries from within. From global perspective, it is about using the UK’s substantial expertise in science, research, and development to combat scourges such as disease and violence so that they may be contained and eliminated. In the long-term, it seeks end the cycle of poverty, disease, and war which has prevented people and countries from reaching their full potential, and it speaks to working in the UK national interest, because all the aforementioned issues are the root causes of insecurity, lack of development, wide-scale public health risks, and general instability, which is not in the UK national interest.

     To this end, the government has outlined four objectives for foreign aid and international development:

  • Strengthening global peace, security and governance: the government will invest more to tackle the causes of instability, insecurity and conflict, and to tackle crime and corruption. This is fundamental to poverty reduction overseas, and will also strengthen our own national security at home.
  • Strengthening resilience and response to crises: this includes more support for ongoing crises, including that in Syria and other countries in the MENA region; more science and technology spend on global public health risks such as antimicrobial resistance, and support for efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
  • Promoting global prosperity: the government will use ODA to promote economic development and prosperity in the developing world. This will contribute to the reduction of poverty and also strengthen UK trade and investment opportunities around the world.
  • Tackling extreme poverty and helping the world’s most vulnerable: the government will strive to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030, and support the world’s poorest people to ensure that every person has access to basic needs, including prioritizing the rights of girls and women. This will build security, stability and opportunity that will benefit us all.

     In addition, the government has outlined the need for ensuring that there is value for money in all of this for the taxpayer, so there will be a focus on particularly stressed and fragile states, while also driving development in countries and regions where the UK has strong historical, cultural, and diaspora links, such as Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean, Africa, and South Asia, as well as honoring commitments in British Overseas Territories.

A young woman standing outside a UK Aid tent in the Philippines following a Typhoon. Image Credit: DFID via Flickr cc

A young woman standing outside a UK Aid tent in the Philippines following a Typhoon. Image Credit: DFID via Flickr cc

     At the end of the day, all of this is being done with strategic objectives in place to provide help, relief, and development, and not doing it out of a sense of post-imperial guilt, but because it’s the decent, moral, and right thing to do and because it is in the national interest of the United Kingdom. Hence, the phrase at the beginning of the government report: “Tackling global challenges in the national interest.”

     Now, what do the British public think of all this? Well, a recent survey shows that far from the heavily negative and hostile attitude perpetuated by some in the press, the people of the UK actually do believe in the value of helping people in developing countries and 86% believe that the government should keep good on its aid promises. Not only that, but the British people have also expressed their generosity through the donations from their own pockets to the tune of 1.1 billion pounds to the Disasters and Emergency Committee alone, as well as over 20,000 churches coming together for Christian Aid week in May.

     So the British people are a generous people through the actions of themselves as private citizen and through the actions of their government, and even SNP MP Mhairi Black – committed as she is to the break-up of Britain – praised the UK Government for its role in providing critical aid. She said that such assistance has been used to help educate people on the basics of things such as preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and noted that in one case, “drugs British aid has funded” was the reason for an HIV-positive woman named Mary along with her children still being alive after her husband had infected and abandoned her.

     Black further stated:

“It’s very rare to find me praising the Government but Britain is one of the better countries in terms of commitment to foreign aid…and having seen the difference it makes to people’s lives, I think it’s highly important that we maintain that level of support.”

     Indeed, Britain does have one of the largest aid budgets in the world, which fluctuates year-to-year according to how much gross national income (GNI) is generated. What’s interesting is how the Department for International Development (DFID) is one of the smallest among Whitehall departments, spends the second-smallest amount on administrative staff, and spends only 1% of its salary-related costs on consultants and temporary staff, compared to 6-8% in other departments. Together, it has a staff of around 2,000 to conduct such important work, and all of this may be a model of efficiency and value for money which other departments should seek to emulate.

     Again, the money spent and the role of foreign aid is controversial, but in a world where soft power is increasingly important to the building and shaping of international relations, the United Kingdom’s deployment of soft power is second to none in the world and overseas aid is a significant part of that. If done correctly and with a stated strategic purpose, it can result in long-term dividends to make the world a better place for all of us, and can count as one of many things for which Britain is a force for good as a significant world power. Indeed, there should be some satisfaction in seeing people around the world receiving much-needed help in form of a tent or food package with the Union Flag and the words “UK Aid – From the British People”.

     This is the face which Britain would do well to show alongside its military and diplomatic abilities on the world stage as a country what is compassionate, generous, and willing to do its bit to help others with the resources it commands.

A Positive Word About Two Nationalists

     With regard to the SNP and its politicians, there is usually not much good I can say about them, for their quest to break up the United Kingdom puts me at odds with them more so than almost any other significant political party in Britain or America.

     However, I do believe in being respectful to people and parties of all kinds, and there are even some cases when I may feel compelled to occasionally say something good about politicians and parties with whom I viscerally disagree.

     Such is the case for Mhairi Black and Pete Wishart of the SNP, and before some of y’all out there start freaking out, please allow me to elaborate.

     Mhairi Black was elected as the MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South in the SNP’s landslide during the general election of 2015 – defeating Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander and becoming the youngest Member of Parliament in over three centuries.

     The 21-year-old has taken an interest in international issues and in particular, poverty and heath issues in developing countries. She’s also a fan of the band U2 and its lead vocalist Bono (to whom, Alexander is now an adviser), who has been noted for his activism concerning such places, and Africa in particular. One of his anti-poverty organizations, the ONE Campaign, is one that Black has been a member of since she was 14, and earlier this year, she was invited by ONE to see their charity work on display in Kenya.

     While there, she noted the importance of international aid in the effort to combat AIDS and other life-threatening diseases in places such as Kenya, and praised the UK Government for its role in providing critical aid. In one case, she said that the “drugs British aid has funded” is the reason for an HIV-positive woman named Mary along with her children still being alive after her husband had infected and abandoned her.

     Black also said that British aid has been used to help educate people on the basics of things such as the preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and the Daily Record reported that international aid by countries such as Britain has contributed to the significant drops in new infections and disease-related deaths.

     At a time when foreign aid is hotly debated and criticized in the UK – especially with Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to increase aid outlays to 0.7% of GDP, Black said:

“It’s very rare to find me praising the Government but Britain is one of the better countries in terms of commitment to foreign aid…and having seen the difference it makes to people’s lives, I think it’s highly important that we maintain that level of support.”

UK Aid being delivered in Dubai.  Image Credit: UK Department for International Development via Flickr cc

UK Aid being delivered in Dubai.  Image Credit: UK Department for International Development via Flickr cc

     Indeed, while it may be rare for Black to saying anything good about the UK Government, the fact is that she did so as a Scottish nationalist who wishes to see the end of Britain. But her willingness to offer praise for the country in its aid commitments across the world is perhaps a sign of political maturity on her part, and even perhaps a small bit of respect for being British.

     Meanwhile, Black’s veteran Commons colleague Pete Wishart has done his own bit to be engaged as person representing the UK while the Union exists with Scotland firmly part of it.

     The MP for Perth and North Perthshire was first elected in 2001, and with his skills as a keyboard player, he joined with other MP’s in 2004 to form the MP4 Band – the world’s only parliamentary rock band. It consists of Wishart, Labour MP Kevin Brennan (guitar and vocals), former Labour MP Ian Cawsey (bass guitar and vocals), and Conservative MP Sir Greg Knight (drums).

     According to their website, the band has:

“helped to raise over £1 million for charity since their first gig in February of [2004]. When the Parliamentary timetable permits, they perform at charitable events around the country and actively encourage young people to take an interest in music.”

     In 12 years, MP4 have performed at many venues both private and public throughout the United Kingdom, and have the distinction of being the first musicians to perform in the 900 year old Westminster Hall – a place steeped in British political history – when they were in concert before over 1,000 MP’s, Peers, and parliamentary staff as part of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations in May 2012. Most recently, they attended the 2016 Brit Awards and functioned as the house band for a special show in London hosted by comedian Matt Forde.

     They have also produced and released two albums (with a third on the way this year) containing a mix of cover pieces and their own original tracks. Their first single on EMI was downloaded by then Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2005.

     In addition, the cross-party band has received numerous awards and accolades, including the title of “Alternative Parliamentary Entertainers” in 2011 and a commemorative disk in 2014 by the British Phonographic Industry – the trade association for the British music recording industry – in recognition for their fund raising efforts and notable contributions to charitable causes including MacMillan Cancer Support. Their work has been praised by David Cameron and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

     Now, they are trying to position themselves as contenders for representing the UK at this year’s Eurovision Song Contest, and in a BBC news report featuring the band, Wishart stated that MP4 were “ready and willing…available for the call when it comes to represent Great Britain in the Eurovision Song contest.” He further spoke of the need for “hardened, grizzled old Members of Parliament” as opposed to so many young faces in what he referred to as a “political contest, anyway.”

     So imagine that. A Scottish nationalist MP, a person dedicated to breaking up Britain, has voiced his enthusiasm for representing Britain in the Song Contest.

     Whether or not this actually happens, the very fact that he was willing to utter the words “Great Britain” with apparently some element of pride was quite surprising and made me forget some of his more – putting it mildly – eccentric statements on air, in the press, and especially Twitter. In fact, Wishart has indicated that he himself may not be as hostile to Britishness as many are in his party, and said during the referendum that he believed that independence could “actually reverse the decline of Britishness, a concept that…I feared might eventually go in a devolved Scotland.”

     In this belief from him, there is much skepticism to find, for many us on the pro-Union side believe that Britishness can only survive and thrive with the United Kingdom staying together.

     That being said, it is good to see him in some way embracing Britishness – even if only in a loose sense – with his involvement in the MP4 Band and potentially representing the country on an international stage, instead of sulking in a corner and twiddling his fingers awaiting separation. This good-natured and valued mixing of parliamentarians from throughout Britain is a display of the social and cultural value of the Union – something which has tended to get lost in debates going back-and-forth over numbers, figures, GERS, Barnett, oil, powers exercised by Westminster and Holyrood, etc. - and more needs to be done to encourage and deepen social relationships among the British people.

     At the risk of overstating and making more out of this than there actually is, Mhairi Black’s praise of Britain in providing much-need aid to Africa and Pete Wishart’s role in an all-British parliamentary band perhaps does show even among nationalists, there is some level of appreciation for Britain and being British. If nothing else, they have shown that they are capable for speaking about Britain in positive terms outwith all of the political and constitutional considerations. One hopes that they could see this bigger picture all the time and turn away from separatism, for their talents can be used to help keep the country the together and see itself as one.

     That is not likely to happen, just as I am likely not going to change my stripes. However, their positive outlook on Britain in some areas has led me to write this positive post on them, and I hope that they and many others can see that there’s more to the UK than just (big, bad) Westminster.