For years, tabloid newspapers and politicians (usually on the right) have been moaning about the amount of money the UK sends overseas to help developing nations, They believe that contributing 0.7% of our GNI towards countries with a lack of investment and little economic growth is costly, unhelpful and should be abolished immediately. Even the International Development Secretary, Priti Patel, once called for the entire department to be scrapped. I couldn't disagree more. As a nation, we should be delighted that a portion of our growth is automatically going to a less well off country, supporting those in need. That is part of what makes me proud to be British.
Those opposed to overseas aid should remember: it is only 0.7% of GNI. This accounts to roughly £12 billion, which can be sent to dozens of countries in need. As a country, we still have 99.3% of our GNI left. To me, that seems like more than enough to invest in quality hospitals, housing, education, welfare, defence and all the other areas a Government is responsible for. The idea that the reason for a lack of money is because of overseas aid is ridiculous. It is instead due to the tax avoidance of large corporations, who should pay their fair share, and the Government not putting money in the right places. Don't blame charity towards other countries; blame those who avoid tax. An apparent issue is money not being spent effectively. I can understand and sympathise with this issue that overseas aid sceptics have. It seems pointless to donate money to areas where it is clearly not being spent properly by being available only to the very rich or not actually helping the poor. That is why I believe there should be far more scrutiny as to where the money goes by ministers to avoid waste. I also think far more should be revealed to the British people on what the aid is spent on and how people have been helped. This should increase support for the 0.7%, as it would be spent wisely and people would be aware about helping those who really need it. From face value, sending money to totalitarian, brutal dictators would appear wrong and immoral. While I find it troubling that a significant portion of aid goes to corrupt regimes, the people that live there surely need our help more than anyone else. Provided that the money is distributed to organisations that help people, and not to governments that hide the money away, I still think the aid sent to those regimes is beneficial. The same people that moan about aid going to regimes don't seem to mind the money that we receive from corrupt regimes by selling arms. At least by donating aid, we are not providing the regime with arms, but with assistance to help the country develop. Some of the areas we donate aid to are the same places we have helped to wreck through our unnecessary wars. Particularly in the Middle East, countries like Iraq have been destroyed because of our worthless intervention, killing hundreds, leaving many as refugees and survivors without a home. Surely, it should be the UK's responsibility to send a portion of aid to help those countries rebuild and the people to live comfortably. Perhaps those who dislike our aid donations should discourage foreign wars, so countries already undeveloped aren't made even poorer. Fairness is part of who we are and what Britain is. As a nation, we should celebrate helping others to climb that ladder of development. We should welcome money going into areas where people are highly affected by things we take for granted, such as putting food on the table and clean water. We should be proud of what our money can do to increase a country's prosperity and close the world inequality gap. International aid, provided the money is wisely spent, is a wonderful, caring, charitable act. It must stay.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|