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.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/21/overseas-aid-military-cameron

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

Version 0 Version 1
Overseas aid: robbing Peter to pay Paul Overseas aid: robbing Peter to pay Paul
(7 months later)
The prime minister's remarks on aid and security this week were a typically Cameronian mishmash, one part good sense, one part fudge, and one part appeasement. He is absolutely right to say that security and aid are intimately connected in fragile states, and that you can't have one without the other. He is fudging when he suggests that some military costs could reasonably be transferred from the military budget to the aid budget, effectively cutting the aid money he had solemnly promised to preserve while boosting funds for the armed forces. And he is appeasing when he offers these thoughts to the strident constituency in his party's ranks which is indifferent or actively hostile to overseas aid but enthusiastic about military spending.The prime minister's remarks on aid and security this week were a typically Cameronian mishmash, one part good sense, one part fudge, and one part appeasement. He is absolutely right to say that security and aid are intimately connected in fragile states, and that you can't have one without the other. He is fudging when he suggests that some military costs could reasonably be transferred from the military budget to the aid budget, effectively cutting the aid money he had solemnly promised to preserve while boosting funds for the armed forces. And he is appeasing when he offers these thoughts to the strident constituency in his party's ranks which is indifferent or actively hostile to overseas aid but enthusiastic about military spending.
The prime minister is playing politics in the hugely complex area of aid, an area which all the parties had agreed to insulate as far as possible from financial vagaries however they arose. Currencies in the rich countries go up and down, growth rates spurt or falter, but poverty, conflict and underdevelopment need consistent attention. That was the rationale for ringfencing the aid budget as well as for sticking with an international target for overall aid spending that most other countries seem to have quietly abandoned, and, to be fair to David Cameron, he has so far honoured his commitment to both – in the face of considerable pressure.The prime minister is playing politics in the hugely complex area of aid, an area which all the parties had agreed to insulate as far as possible from financial vagaries however they arose. Currencies in the rich countries go up and down, growth rates spurt or falter, but poverty, conflict and underdevelopment need consistent attention. That was the rationale for ringfencing the aid budget as well as for sticking with an international target for overall aid spending that most other countries seem to have quietly abandoned, and, to be fair to David Cameron, he has so far honoured his commitment to both – in the face of considerable pressure.
The trouble with Mr Cameron's new position is that it brings with it the prospect not just of one slippery slope but of a whole vista of slipperiness. Just because things are connected it does not follow that you can take money from one activity and give it to another. The British military on occasion performs services that, when things go right, create the secure and stable conditions in which aid can be effective. No use building a school if it will be blown up the next day, or a road if it will be mortared as soon as it is finished. No argument about that. But why should the military in effect be paid for these duties out of another ministry's budget? It could equally well be argued that aid programmes, again when things go right, sustain the military, helping them to move from combat to containment and finally to go home with a sigh of relief. Should the military therefore hand over chunks of money to the Department for International Development (DfID) or make a really big donation to Oxfam?The trouble with Mr Cameron's new position is that it brings with it the prospect not just of one slippery slope but of a whole vista of slipperiness. Just because things are connected it does not follow that you can take money from one activity and give it to another. The British military on occasion performs services that, when things go right, create the secure and stable conditions in which aid can be effective. No use building a school if it will be blown up the next day, or a road if it will be mortared as soon as it is finished. No argument about that. But why should the military in effect be paid for these duties out of another ministry's budget? It could equally well be argued that aid programmes, again when things go right, sustain the military, helping them to move from combat to containment and finally to go home with a sigh of relief. Should the military therefore hand over chunks of money to the Department for International Development (DfID) or make a really big donation to Oxfam?
Of course not. Equally, you might say that because it is easier to educate children if they are healthy, the Department for Education should pick up some of the Department of Health's budget. Such argument doesn't make sense: it makes for muddle.Of course not. Equally, you might say that because it is easier to educate children if they are healthy, the Department for Education should pick up some of the Department of Health's budget. Such argument doesn't make sense: it makes for muddle.
There are some deeper questions here. Mr Cameron seems to be proposing that this transfer of funds be accomplished by building up what is called the "conflict pool", which is jointly managed and funded by the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and DfID. The pool was set up in 2009 with the admirable intention of achieving better co-ordination on the ground in fragile states. One difficulty has been that the conflict pool has not done that well. A recent Independent Commission for Aid Impact evaluation was very critical of its effectiveness, its ability to monitor results and its value for money. Another is that co-ordination of this kind risks reducing the essential distance which aid agencies and non-governmental organisation need to put between themselves and the military if they are to stay politically neutral and to safeguard their staff.There are some deeper questions here. Mr Cameron seems to be proposing that this transfer of funds be accomplished by building up what is called the "conflict pool", which is jointly managed and funded by the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and DfID. The pool was set up in 2009 with the admirable intention of achieving better co-ordination on the ground in fragile states. One difficulty has been that the conflict pool has not done that well. A recent Independent Commission for Aid Impact evaluation was very critical of its effectiveness, its ability to monitor results and its value for money. Another is that co-ordination of this kind risks reducing the essential distance which aid agencies and non-governmental organisation need to put between themselves and the military if they are to stay politically neutral and to safeguard their staff.
Mr Cameron was off the cuff when he spoke on these matters in India. He may have in mind nothing more than a bit of borrowing at the edges, or he may be thinking of lifting a cool billion off DfID to meet the coming shortfall in the military budget. The record of recent western intervention and aid is at best spotty. It needs rethinking at a more fundamental level than the purely financial. But if resources do need to be reassigned, there are rather more honest ways of opening up a debate than the one Mr Cameron has chosen.Mr Cameron was off the cuff when he spoke on these matters in India. He may have in mind nothing more than a bit of borrowing at the edges, or he may be thinking of lifting a cool billion off DfID to meet the coming shortfall in the military budget. The record of recent western intervention and aid is at best spotty. It needs rethinking at a more fundamental level than the purely financial. But if resources do need to be reassigned, there are rather more honest ways of opening up a debate than the one Mr Cameron has chosen.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.