When the armed forces are under such pressure, enduring a high operational tempo, breaching harmony guidelines, suffering redundancies, cuts in capabilities, pay freezes, erosion in terms and conditions of service and even unable to affords the paltry £10m a year to maintain RFA Largs Bay increasing overseas aid and even making that increase law, is a tough sell.
It must be corrosive on morale to see training budgets cut, equipment programmes cancelled and as a thank you for your service a brown envelope with your notice in, all whilst a never ending stream of cash goes out the other door for overseas aid.
The government constantly tells us that defence of the realm is any government’s first duty, that a strong debt free economy will contribute to that defence and therefore, the cuts in the MoD’s budget ultimately contribute to that defence.
That of course is all fair enough, without a sound fiscal foundation, any spending on bullets is ultimately wasted but to then expect the MoD to share the nations burden (despite being engaged in multiple operations) whilst shovelling increasing quantities of cash out of the back door is particularly galling, is this what they call the military covenant?
The intention of the government to raise the budget for overseas aid and development to 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) has been signalled for some time, this is nothing new.
What was new was the letter from Liam Fox to David Cameron, in which he criticised the decision to enshrine the increase and new base level in law.
Putting the commitment on the statute books could limit the Government’s ability to change its mind about the pace at which it reaches the target in order to direct more resources toward other activities or programmes rather than aid
A lot in the media interpreted this as some sort of attack on the concept of aid itself but Liam Fox is a lot cannier than that.
We do not enshrine in law the percentage of our budget we spend on railways, the national art collection, defence of the realm or the nation’s health so why should we do so for overseas development assistance (ODA) as it is now called.
Putting aside the issue of a department with more leaks than a Conservative coherent defence strategy the role of overseas aid and development assistance in our collective security is important.
Level heads realise that money spent on educating those vulnerable to radicalisation so they don’t strap on a PETN filled back pack is a wise investment but there are limits and it is in the practical implementation where high level principals meet the brick wall of reality.
The Conservative government boasted of a new realism in overseas aid, creating a tighter link between it and conflict prevention, aligning DFiD with the National Security Strategy and using the various soft power levers at our disposal in a much more coherent and coordinated manner.
Although disaster response is a relatively small part of DFiD’s budget how difficult would it have been to find the £10m per year running costs of RFA Largs Bay from its multi billion pound yearly settlement. This would have been joined up thinking, using her for disaster response, mentoring recipient nations own security forces or even using her as a floating classroom or hospital. Instead, she is sold to Australia for the knockdown sum of £65million.
There is a wider debate about the value and role of overseas development assistance, how much should be spent on the altruistic goal of ‘helping the poor’ and how much should be spent on insuring the UK against threats from overseas.
I favour a more hard nosed approach, a greater alignment with security and trade and less pouring money from the UK into the various Mercedes dealerships dotted around the worlds most strife torn regions.
Pumping money into poor nations inevitably creates tensions and temptations, the news this week about the huge frauds committed in Kabul should come as no surprise to anyone and it is obvious that when governments receive direct assistance it is often used to displace other spending.
Is it a coincidence that in the few days after the UK announced a massive increase in aid to Pakistan it announced a 12% increase in its defence budget?
I think not.
We need a mature debate on the subject, without the Saint Bono effect and DFiD, the MoD and the FCO need to actually think how they can use their combined budgets to further the interests and security of the UK.
makes the link i sent very interesting
The word you are grasping for TD is xenocentrism.
Our ruling classes hate the idea of Great Britain.
I can agree with some money being used for overseas aid, but I think it should be routed through charities like Save the Children, and not in the quantities being dished out right now.
I think it depends on why we are giving the aid. I suspect if we were all brief in private under the official secrets act we would discover we mostly give aid to secure British interests. Take Pakistan for instance. Seems to me they are more obsessed with India than the Taliban, and only reluctantly engaging the Taliban after the Taliban de facto too over the border regions, with a weak civil Government, a history of military rule, nuclear weapons and a strong pro-Chinese stance and a prickly attitude that does not match in any shape or form their reality. We give them cash to keep the status quo, as the alternatives are: Pakistan becomes a Chinese “protectorate”, skewing the regional power balance, or Pakistan provokes India leading to a new Pakistan-India war or Pakistan collapses into civil war, none of them good.
Still at times it feels like the West are playing the role of the Roman Empire at the end of the Empire where it relied on mercenaries and bribes to local warlords to continue its existence, as it had long been unable to wield decisive force over its enemies (at least that’s my 20 year old memory of the abridged version of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Emprie).
“Level heads realise that money spent on educating those vulnerable to radicalisation so they don’t strap on a PETN filled back pack is a wise investment ”
But alas its not.
Its morale hazard on a biblical scale.
Blow up a the London underground, your homeland gets a major pay day, dont blow up the underground, get fuck all.
Its also a pointless law.
Who exactly is going to enforce it? And how?
Are the MET going to smash down the front door of number 11 and lead Osborne away in chains?
“I favour a more hard nosed approach, a greater alignment with security and trade and less pouring money from the UK into the various Mercedes dealerships dotted around the worlds most strife torn regions”
As do I.
The unspoken core of Fox’s complaint however is that creating a legal definition of what aid is, enshrined in law, will prevent exactly the kind of harmonisation between aid and security that we seek to achieve.
The aid budget is an tool of enormous significance for practising fifth gradient warfare, provided they have the flexibility to apply where needed and without any obvious indicators to the ‘special’ nature of any given program.
Requiring a parliamentary dispensation to approve an economic development program in southern turkey aimed at power generation on the Euphrates might be viewed suspiciously by Syria given the potential for increased unrest among the agriculture dependent in its north.
Especially if there is a similar parliamentary dispensation for a democracy-awareness in Kurdish parts of Northern Iraq, given the potential for political awareness to percolate through culturally homogeneous groups regardless of borders.
Wouldn’t it hilarious if at the same time DfID ran aid programs in Syria that promoted best-practice in sustainable agriculture as well as initiatives that promoted (non-specific) cultural awareness.
These ends can be countered if recognised, thus negating the [real] value of the aid-project in question, and so it is valuable for the true aims to be obfuscated in a cloud of left-wing touchy-feely emotional incontinence that we have all come to expect from DfID.
Fifth Gradient Warfare is destined to become as important a tool of British FP as the coercive effect of expeditionary military force, and that is best served by a large, ill-defined, and poorly managed aid budget.
@Tubby – the same thought occurred to me, though maybe the Byzantine Empire is a closer analogy.
I do not believe that any of us would disagree with the necessity of providing overseas aid. Still fewer, as one would expect on a defence blog, with the notion that a fair proportion of it be devoted to improving our own security and trade prospects.
So, trade and security is how the coalition is selling the DFID budget to us, but just how likely is this to be reflected in the DFID’s actions? We can take as an analogy government (of any colour) pronouncements on law and order.
All governments have a variation on the “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” mantra, and yet we continue to hear routinely of cases of judicial and police timidity. As someone who served as a prison officer for 17 years, I can assure you that despite government crack-downs on our “holiday-camp” prisons, the drift towards lighter discipline and excessive liberality was unstoppable.
A quick look at DFID blogs shows that “the cloud of left-wing touchy-feely” sentiment, mentioned by Jedi, is very much alive and well. You can look for words like security and trade, good luck with that, a moments surfing however throws up great talk of “human rights” and “climate change”. The point is, nobody joined that organisation to concern themselves with security and the government will not change that liberal bias. Even were the government to forcibly transfer Largs Bay to the DFID they would find a way to sideline the big grey product of the military industrial complex, it just does not fit with their view of themselves or the world.
The aid budget is overblown, will not have the effect desired, and robs other departments of more imediately usable funds. Unlike the defence equipment budget now existing on the hope of jam tomorrow, it should be the aid budget that increases as our economy grows. As Thomas Hobbes wrote: “covenants without the sword are but words.”
i remember watching rolf harris trace his roots (bear with me) he was in a school in france that had remember australia and the kids were taught how the aussies in WW1 held the line and saved the town.Now no need for us to go that far! however, build the schools, not pay for them build them and in the brickwork have a chuffing great big union jack and the words built and paid for by the british public so the kids see this and then question when abdul mcnasty tries to scare them about the nasty westerners. Same with other funds don’t send cash go to JCB or similiar and say we are going to buy argricultural equipment off you, caveat being has to be built in britain, doesn’t need sat nav or cd player in the cab and the engine can be fixed with basic tools ie no ECU.
summise is less money goes abroad, but needed equipment does, Dfid money comes back into uk system via coperate tax, income tax etc and if they still have problems can’t say it was for the lack of tools for the job. Do that and i’ll stop bleating about cash been squandered abroad Mr cameron!!!
rant over out to all callsigns
oops remember australia was tiled into the brickwork, and all over the school were aussie flags etc, made old rolfie boy cry as his uncle was killed there, i remember my room being very dusty watching the programme, dust kept getting in my eyes!!
The actual point of the letter that Liam Fox sent has me thinking I’m not sure what side I’m truly on because on one hand a fixed percentage in law is a good idea as it ties in future governments to follow a similar path. Hopefully that helps cut out some of the short term idiocy and allows DfID to plan and support projects over a much longer term with a better idea of their funding than wondering what will in the next budget.However on the other hand as Liam Fox points out making it a law effectively ties the hands of the government and keeps money away from where it would be better spent. What would happen if we have another 1953 flood or other comparable disasters that the climate change alarmists tell us will happen more frequently will we still send billions of tax payers cash abroad.
Paul I completely agree and through doing that we also encourage our own farmers and industrial equipment users to buy British rather than buying cheaper or better equipment from other suppliers. I’ve also just started reading Digby Jones ‘Fixing Britain’ which covers stuff like this only got it a few hours ago and it’s really good even took it with me to read in the waiting room when I went out.
It certainly seems absurd to send aid to countries like India which have their own space program.
No normal person wants to take food from the starving, but I fear £100,000 in London is reduced to £100 by the time it reaches the poor of Africa/Asia. High DfID salaries, expenses, upgraded airfares, 4/5 star hotels, air conned luxury offices, all take a chunk. Reports back to London paint a rosy picture, but no one willing to get their shoes muddy seeing whats going on out in the field. Its an open door to theft, corruption, waste & stupidity.
A smaller budget with ruthless, constant, boots on the ground supervision, might produce better results for the poor.
Use the money saved for UK interests. For example, airports & deep water quays for St Helena, Pitcairn, Tristan da Cunha & South Georgia, means Britain is well positioned to exploit nearby undersea resources. Could be our late 21st C Empire reborn.
Trade not aid with India. Buy UK armed forces Dhruv helicopters & Brahmos missiles with DfID money. Launch Indian space rockets from Ascension island. Gives UK a cheap way back to space, funded by DfID.
Then get DfID to buy transport planes & ships for UK armed forces. Handy in a civil emergency such as earthquakes/volcanoes/hurricanes/tsunamis, etc.
@john, i sent a link to TD yesterday it seems the DFiD are looking to buy A400m.
By the way having done a UN humanitarian post it’s amazing to see wastage on a grand scale, 200 “missing” toyota hi-luxes was one write off i witnessed
PaulG
Hope you are right, re DfID A400M.
@ john H third paragraph, (although 1&2 good news for airbus)!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/airbus-expects-far-east-orders-for-tsunami-rescue-aircraft-2287376.html
Although I can see the benefits of overseas aid to countries that actually need it I have major problems with enshrining it level of GDP in law. The MoD has accepted cut on the basis that it can meet its FF2020 plan if it recieves additioanl funding from 2015 but this is not guaranteed as no Government can commit to spending bejond its 5 year term, unless of course it become law. IF the economy does not recover as forcast by 2015 extra money for defence is going to be hard to find and if Overseas Aid is set in law there will be even less room to maneover.
The SDSR post the 2015 election will call the Governments bluff on defence. If the money is not there the decline of the armed forces could become irreversible.
x, up top,
“Our ruling classes hate the idea of Great Britain.”
Really that’s quite right, although we might disagree a bit about who actually rules and why they hate it. (I’m quite willing to be on board with the sanctimonious, self-flagellating nature of a lot of British left-liberalism, and that’s a huge roadblock to fixing the problem. I just don’t think it’s the root.) They hate it, like most of the other European elites and certainly the modern American elite (Canada’s doing a bit better for now, small numbers and national quirkiness count for something
, for the reasons feudalists have always hated national states. They cost money, set rules that aren’t always privilege and whim, have other economic and strategic priorities than private self-aggrandisement or self-preservation, let snotty little tradesmen and filthy proles have the vote, and generally find dozens of ways to nobble and disprove the notion that the Right Sort of Chaps should run the world as their own family estate(s), a notion that’s held on in Britain with the tenacity of the cockroach since William the Bastard got off his boat and has made a stealthy but roaring comeback since the death of Bretton Woods. And it’s a direct, nonpartisan strategic issue much as institutional corruption was in the Warsaw Pact, or modern China for that matter. It’s strange times when Thomas Paine, Kier Hardie, and Mr. Gradgrind could all be on the same side but there we are.
John Hartley,
I like the plan for actually developing the dependencies as port/resource extraction facilities to make the EEZs around them work for the UK. But that’s just too terribly French and smacks of a working national state and national ambitions, which are a terrible lot of fuss when one’s been smothering them quietly for decades, old boy.
paul g,
I remember, must be ten years or more ago, listening to Desert Island Discs one Friday morning when I didn’t have to be in the salt mine until a little late and heard old Rolf talking about his song “Two Little Boys” and the death of his uncle. Very dusty cup of coffee that was too. Fecking right of the diggers, and good on the rural French — on the whole a much better lot than Parisians.
And I hope you’re right about Airbus ref. A400 orders.
In general,
I think I said this last summer maybe, in a similar thread, but if not the whole DFiD process is a pig’s breakfast. Set up a public corporation — no, **not** yet another quango, a proper public corporation run on business/working nonprofit lines not unlike the Yanks’ Corporation for Public Broadcasting — whose job is to act as a microlending clearing house across parts of the developing world, with particular attention (since these are places of some known strategic value anyway, it’s why they were red on the map) to places that were hard done by under the Empire or have had a hard go of transition beyond it. Doesn’t have to be about the local governments and indeed shouldn’t be. You’ll have do-gooders on side instantly by that path alone. And for more conservative temperaments, really, the argument about bribing Pakistan into stability (it’s one among many examples) has some short-term practicality to it, but really it’s the opposite of a solution. Because in the end, history and entropy being what they are, that status quo (in Af-Pak, or North Africa, or wherever you want to point to on the globe) has so much rot and flaws in it that it will — simply will — go tits up. And you’d be better off preparing for that end and helping it towards a place you can live with, than preserving a mess that will get even worse when you bribe it on to life support. That kind of outfit — kind of a Royal Kiva LLC (Kiva’s a North American microlending outfit, born of US and Canadian west-coast computing entrepreneurs) — could even be a poster child for transparency in government processes and accounts. So of course it must be smothered at birth by the Cabinet Office ….
LJ,
Absolutely right about post-2015. But then there are a whole gang of assumptions, not just about defence, that need shaking up.
Euan,
How’s the Digby Jones going? Don’t always agree with him but he’s a clever bloke.
Euan,
Well, I should probably phrase that in more detail as, he’s got a capacity to say clever things, but with anyone in that position these days how often that’s their own grey cells front and center or a good ghostwriter is up for grabs…
I expect that the reason that a legal responsibility is felt desirable is that it may encourage other nations to do the same and also provides some stability for the budget. As to whether it is generally a worthwhile area for spending I’m not sure, I think there is a difference between the implementation (which one hopes has some benefit in terms of reducing radicalism being directed towards the UK, or anywhere else) and politics (which is about the image of a “wealthy” government abroad).
The most telling thing recently for me is the way that Pakistan is asking China for a new naval port and has described the US as a fair weather friend and China as an all weather friend. Arguably the war in Afghanistan (Helmand) is being won as much through the building of roads and bridges as by any particular weapons system. If that’s the case, maybe we should be thinking along Roman lines (the way they gradually annexed Europe with culture and commerce not just arms), and looking at aid as part of developing an economic life that produces the political conditions we desire.
The use of army vets to mould the human terrain in Helmand suggests to me that the more efficient our aid packages become the earlier we can get troops out and others in, so DFID may not be just an aid activity it could be the development of a genuine (future wars) military capability under another budget and under another identity (which is more acceptable).
So, pre and post conflict aid becoming then more of a during conflict capability, the cost consequences of reducing the timescales for armed intervention could be really important to military budgets and rather than recycling monies through purchases of UK arms we would look to earlier and larger trade to give a UK benefit.
The fact that all we have managed to do economically in Iraq is build up the wealth and influence of Turkey suggest we need to think much more about the big picture of our involvements and the exit strategy seems always locked into non war fighting capabilities (that we have not yet mastered) so give DFID the funds, but make sure they are used in a joined up way.
@ RW with regards to your 3rd paragraph ref pakistan and china and ports etc etc.I’ve just cut and pasted this from defence industy daily,
May 19/11: Shortly after American special forces killed Osama Bin Laden in a unilateral raid 40 miles from Islamabad, Pakistan announces a wide swath of major defense projects with China. The most consequential is that the deep water port of Gwadar in western Pakistan will be run by its paymasters, the Chinese government. Pakistan also wants the Chinese to build a naval base there, and no doubt expects to have its own ships use that facility alongside the Chinese PLAN.
The flashiest aspect of the announcements involve the JF-17, with reports that China will be sending Pakistan 50 improved JF-17 fighters, with upgraded electronics. To date, JF-17s have rolled off of Pakistani manufacturing/finishing lines, but these will reportedly involve more Chinese manufacturing to speed delivery, arriving within 6 months. Reports say that China is financing the deal, though they differ on the terms, and how much of the cost China is absorbing. Some reports paint the fighters as more or less a gift.
methinks the americans won’t be too happy about that!
@paul g
Are we sure that US did not know about the deal’s before the raid? It may be as Pakistan get’s closer and closer to China, the less inclined the US is to play softball with Pakistani sovereignty.
@RW
RE: Roman annexation via commerce and arms.
I thought that is what the US is already doing and why we have the problem as US’s dominant culture threatens the power base of a whole bunch of people who are using radical Islamic rhetoric to defend their powerbase.
@paul g
Americans, very not happy one assumes, and also their aid is government to government so they are not producing much benefit in a political constituency or a good will economic asset.
Going after Bin Laden was an obligation but one wonders how much sooner they might have found him if there was a greater empathy between the US and Pakistan based on shared long term developments i.e. aid. Military aid has importance and problems given the fear of India but other areas are also significant
I wonder what the cost of the new camp bastion airfield would have been if such was also built in Pakistan and how that would have impacted Pakistan’s politics and how might it have improved the southern supply route for the US, and oh yes who will use it when we leave?.
As per Iraq, western forces will quite possibly have spent vast resources in Afghanistan and then find, against their wishes, it does it’s own thing and it reverts to being a sphere of Pakistan which is/becomes a sphere of China.
How long before Chinese mining companies move into Afghanistan? Before ISAF forces even leave? Reckon very likely. They will also repair/install the turbines at the dam we spent such effort delivering and protecting and get credit for bringing electricity to half Afghanistan. If they rewrite history they could even take credit for the Afghan canal the US paid for!!
Neglect the exit/exploitation strategy at your peril, like the rare earth resource problem, the western military are having rings run round them because they want to fight wars when the real task is winning the peace. Not saying they’re not learning fast, but we need improved resource war capabilities not just kinetic war ones ( and that’s a military matter ) as the drive for “low fuel use” warfare being developed by the US marines in Astan proves.
We’re getting into the realms of the old US election paradigm of “it’s the economy, stupid” which is fast becoming one the modern military should use to replace it’s use of KISS (keep it simple stupid).
You may have all heard of a UK consultancy outfit called ‘Intelligence Squared’ :
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/
I have just discovered them, on iTunes, where they have a large archive of podcasts – audio recordings of debates they hold in the UK. I am addicted to them for the commute.
Back on thread, there is an excellent debate from 2006 on the proposition that “Foreign Aid has done more harm than good” – go find it and spend an hour and a half listening to a very intelligent debate from both sides of the argument – BUT – listen very carefully to what the DfID guys says…..
“BUT – listen very carefully to what the DfID guys says”
Hey Jed,
Good catch, but it wants premium membership paid up before it’ll let one watch the videos, what did the DfID fellow say?
Cheers
Hey Jackstaff from what I’ve read of the book so far it very much chimes in with what people here have just been discussing about the people of this country those who run it and those who report the news don’t like the UK that much. One thing did stick out to me and that was the mention that according to what he was told by businesses their best two weeks during the recession was because of the US elections and Swine Flu took them off the top spot. He highlights the failures of Government both Tory and Labour to wake up and even says some warm words about Maggie Thatcher along the lines of she got on with it. He mentions the idiotic lack of support during the recession where we failed to implement similar strategies to the Germans who kept workers on with government help and used the downtime to train. Generally he makes the point that industry is not quite as dead as most people think it is mentioning the motor and aerospace industries and gets JCB in there as well of course.
Overall though I would say he takes a more optimistic view than most because as any sensible person does they read what is on the page and then has a think about it then a look around and things don’t seem so rosy. For example I would note that the major motor manufacturers are foreign owned and most importantly the major research and development is done in their home countries probably with government support. They are here I would guess probably because there is less competition from indigenous companies for government resources when it comes to mass manufacture of mid-range cars. If they were in France, Germany or Italy they would be overlooked in favour of stronger local companies in which the Government could invest their resources and I would argue lack strong local companies. So us building advanced foreign cars like the Prius and Nissan leaf probably has very little to do with UK excellence or know how in motor technology or manufacturing. Although we do of course have a decent technology base thanks to F1 which can cooperate with the wider motor industry and they can all share in advanced materials technology developed.
I’ve not yet read the rest of the comments on this thread so sorry folks just wanted to reply to Jackstaff atm.
Jedi, fifth gradient warfare !
Am impressed, is that like effects based approach to operations, or indulging in a spot of paradigm shifting
No good, the 6th sense will defeat it easily…
- to get the first four total, is it the FO or RM that make it up to four?
Jedi – do you have iTunes ? The Podcasts (audio only) are all free on there ! However actually looking at the web site it’s hard to tell if the iTunes archive is complete (with every single debate). I will let you look for them before I re-listen and try to para-phrase the guy !
TD – nothing wrong with “effects based” – perhaps we should have an effects based approach to aid !!
Exactly what I was thinking earlier today
” perhaps we should have an effects based approach to aid ”
- all we ever hear is about the inputs: so many bn’s spent/ gifted/ wasted(?)
- the World Bank had this problem early on, as it had finite donations , lots of worthy receivers… and it had to show, after the fact, that the allocation choices made were worthy as well
- the text book on this had the copyright 1968!
But in the blinkered national debate, it is all about smaller or lesser amounts/ GDP shares
Here is an example of an overseas aid effect!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8533621/Britain-to-pay-7m-for-Afghan-bank-probe.html
@ Admin – “Am impressed, is that like effects based approach to operations, or indulging in a spot of paradigm shifting”
It’s something i bumped into a while back, so i bought the book. Well worth a read, there is an amazon link on my blog post about it. Or this is a very good blog about the subject by the name of “Dreaming 5GW”.
I started to get very interested in the subject when Libya kicked off and Hague made the bizarre comment about Gaddafi fleeing to Venezuela to kick-back with Chavez over a mojito.
@ Jed – “I will let you look for them before I re-listen and try to para-phrase the guy !”
I don’t use itunes on my main PC, but it is installed on the HTPC downstairs, so i’ll see if i can dig it out.
But if you could give me the gist of the DfID comment that sparked your interest i’d be very grateful.
Some interesting points raised here so far
@ paul g
I like the idea of buy the equipment in the UK and shipping it over to wherever instead of sending money and letting them buy whatever they need. Like you say it prevents money being wasted and provides some money going back to HMT through various taxes.
@ John Hartley
I am also believer in trade not aid. Trade is better for us and better for the other party in question as it provides benefits to both our countries.
On a slight tangent, does anybody think that in these days of more polar relations increased costs of military equipment , that there would be any merit in possibly forming more of a trading block formed from commonwealth countries, possibly with slightly greater military ties/training than we already have?
@ TD
Boss you nicked my idea for an article, never mind you’ll have my mad ramblings very soon