This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/feb/02/uk-aid-strategy-national-interest-uneasy-bedfellows

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Aid and national interest needn't be uneasy bedfellows Aid and national interest needn't be uneasy bedfellows
(7 months later)
The UK international development committee is considering the government’s recently published aid strategy, on which I gave evidence last week as policy and research director of Save the Children UK.The UK international development committee is considering the government’s recently published aid strategy, on which I gave evidence last week as policy and research director of Save the Children UK.
A renewed emphasis on using aid in Britain’s interest – the strategy is called “tackling global challenges in the national interest” – has civil society commentators particularly exercised.A renewed emphasis on using aid in Britain’s interest – the strategy is called “tackling global challenges in the national interest” – has civil society commentators particularly exercised.
This return to the old ways was foretold long ago. In a speech to British parliamentarians in 2005, Andrew Natsios, the head of USAid at the time, explicitly rejected what he described as the “European” approach:This return to the old ways was foretold long ago. In a speech to British parliamentarians in 2005, Andrew Natsios, the head of USAid at the time, explicitly rejected what he described as the “European” approach:
The European debate addresses the development challenge largely devoid of foreign policy or national security considerations … ‘Pure’ development – that is, development abstracted from foreign policy concerns in the real world and the challenges it presents – is not likely sustainable over the long term I fear.The European debate addresses the development challenge largely devoid of foreign policy or national security considerations … ‘Pure’ development – that is, development abstracted from foreign policy concerns in the real world and the challenges it presents – is not likely sustainable over the long term I fear.
In the cold war, the dynamics of a bipolar world and competition with the Soviet Union required us to guard and expand our alliance systems. Diplomatically, this meant friendship with some unsavoury leaders and regimes.In the cold war, the dynamics of a bipolar world and competition with the Soviet Union required us to guard and expand our alliance systems. Diplomatically, this meant friendship with some unsavoury leaders and regimes.
Our foreign assistance programming reflected these same imperatives. It was built around stability, not transformative development.Our foreign assistance programming reflected these same imperatives. It was built around stability, not transformative development.
Today this has changed … We are now menaced more by ‘fragile states than by conquering states’, as President Bush’s national security strategy of 2002 declares … Opening the developing world to economic opportunity and expanding the ranks of democratic states are now central to our own national security.Today this has changed … We are now menaced more by ‘fragile states than by conquering states’, as President Bush’s national security strategy of 2002 declares … Opening the developing world to economic opportunity and expanding the ranks of democratic states are now central to our own national security.
Natsios’s prediction finally appears to have come about. The David Cameron government in the UK has caught up with what Natsios called the Bush doctrine.Natsios’s prediction finally appears to have come about. The David Cameron government in the UK has caught up with what Natsios called the Bush doctrine.
Related: The aid pie is growing, but the poorest countries get a smaller slice | Adrian Lovett
While it worries many, this is entirely understandable – and probably sensible. Now that aid is 0.7% of gross national income, at a time when other departments are battening down the hatches, the government needs to defend aid spending like never before to a sometimes sceptical media and public.While it worries many, this is entirely understandable – and probably sensible. Now that aid is 0.7% of gross national income, at a time when other departments are battening down the hatches, the government needs to defend aid spending like never before to a sometimes sceptical media and public.
The creation of the Department for International Development (DfID) by the Labour government in 1997 was a masterstroke. It was an important moment in the history of international development in this country precisely because it gave the UK a powerhouse of poverty-focused spending. But even then, the language of national interest was never far from Tony Blair’s lips.The creation of the Department for International Development (DfID) by the Labour government in 1997 was a masterstroke. It was an important moment in the history of international development in this country precisely because it gave the UK a powerhouse of poverty-focused spending. But even then, the language of national interest was never far from Tony Blair’s lips.
The question is not whether aid and the national interest are related, but how.The question is not whether aid and the national interest are related, but how.
An obvious example of a shift towards aid spending in the national interest is a promise in the new strategy to ramp up spending in fragile states, presumably with a view to responding to increased volatility and security threats. Some commentators are worried that this might mean a reduction in aid going to stable countries.An obvious example of a shift towards aid spending in the national interest is a promise in the new strategy to ramp up spending in fragile states, presumably with a view to responding to increased volatility and security threats. Some commentators are worried that this might mean a reduction in aid going to stable countries.
It would be very surprising if DfID allowed itself to fall into that bear trap, given its hugely expanded aid budget, large-scale commitments in longstanding recipient countries, and commitment to achieving results for the poorest (which is a lot easier in stable situations than conflict).It would be very surprising if DfID allowed itself to fall into that bear trap, given its hugely expanded aid budget, large-scale commitments in longstanding recipient countries, and commitment to achieving results for the poorest (which is a lot easier in stable situations than conflict).
The lessons of Sierra Leone and Liberia in relation to the Ebola outbreak, and of Mali with its unexpected civil uprising, are clear: focusing on systems in apparently stable countries is crucial in helping to keep them clear of crisis, be it conflict, disease or climate-related.The lessons of Sierra Leone and Liberia in relation to the Ebola outbreak, and of Mali with its unexpected civil uprising, are clear: focusing on systems in apparently stable countries is crucial in helping to keep them clear of crisis, be it conflict, disease or climate-related.
The important thing for DfID is to ensure its aid allocation decisions are negotiated with other major donors so that we don’t end up with a large amount of so-called “aid orphans”: countries that receive far less than they should given their poverty levels. Donors also need to guard against flooding countries with aid. Throwing money around is often not the answer in complex development situations, and can do more harm than good, especially when uncoordinated.The important thing for DfID is to ensure its aid allocation decisions are negotiated with other major donors so that we don’t end up with a large amount of so-called “aid orphans”: countries that receive far less than they should given their poverty levels. Donors also need to guard against flooding countries with aid. Throwing money around is often not the answer in complex development situations, and can do more harm than good, especially when uncoordinated.
Related: Are oil interests, not human rights, at the heart of the EU's £145m Eritrean aid? | Vittorio Longhi
Perhaps an even clearer symbol of the realignment between development and national interest is the decision to increase substantially the share of aid spent by government departments other than DfID. This is both an opportunity and risk.Perhaps an even clearer symbol of the realignment between development and national interest is the decision to increase substantially the share of aid spent by government departments other than DfID. This is both an opportunity and risk.
There is a great line in the strategy that says: “We want to meet our promises to the world’s poor and also put international development at the heart of our national security and foreign policy.”There is a great line in the strategy that says: “We want to meet our promises to the world’s poor and also put international development at the heart of our national security and foreign policy.”
The opportunity here is a step towards more policy coherence across government, so that anti-poverty considerations are at the heart of trade negotiations, business investments, international environmental summits, and military spending, with development and poverty experts invited into all the relevant Whitehall departments to advise.The opportunity here is a step towards more policy coherence across government, so that anti-poverty considerations are at the heart of trade negotiations, business investments, international environmental summits, and military spending, with development and poverty experts invited into all the relevant Whitehall departments to advise.
The risk is the flipside of that: national security and foreign policy at the heart of international development.The risk is the flipside of that: national security and foreign policy at the heart of international development.
It will be hard to get the balance right. Aid spending is difficult to get right at the best of times, simply in terms of effectiveness and value for money. Adding more complex motives and incentives to the mix won’t make it any easier.It will be hard to get the balance right. Aid spending is difficult to get right at the best of times, simply in terms of effectiveness and value for money. Adding more complex motives and incentives to the mix won’t make it any easier.
Civil society now has a platform on which to campaign for policy coherence, but also needs to keep a very watchful eye on how things evolve.Civil society now has a platform on which to campaign for policy coherence, but also needs to keep a very watchful eye on how things evolve.
One final thought. Polling evidence suggests the public is still largely charitable towards much poorer countries, and is more likely to support aid for poverty reduction. So while the language of national interest may excite some wings of the Tory party and the media, demonstrating that aid has been effective is the name of the game when it comes to winning over the public.One final thought. Polling evidence suggests the public is still largely charitable towards much poorer countries, and is more likely to support aid for poverty reduction. So while the language of national interest may excite some wings of the Tory party and the media, demonstrating that aid has been effective is the name of the game when it comes to winning over the public.