Financial aid to other countries

[Coldicote]

Frequently in the news and on these pages there are references to money being sent overseas as aid to other countries. Today's news refers to 'the UK's promise' to spend 0.7% of its gross national income to overseas aid. I'm not wanting to be uncharitable, but what is the background to all this? Are we trying to make other countries 'obligated' to us for some reason?

[classylady60]

I have also wondered this and came up with the answer that we are making them reliant on us for whatever reason that is. Would love to know the real answer but in the meantime IMO it's best that we get these countries to help themselves rather than take handouts from others. Nothing is learned if they can't help themselves but then perhaps I'm just being uncharitable...

[sandyRoe]

The aid should go to help the poorest people in the world. The west is an area where obesity is a problem while there are places where people are starving to death.

[anotheoldgit]

On the contrary we are making a rod for our own backs.

It will make us more obligated to them, by law.

[Ric.ror]

Are we allowed to choose in what areas the money is spent and I don't mean geographical
For instance we could support women and childrens health in pakistan or wells in Africa

[classylady60]

I'm a great believer in getting our own country in a good state first, we have many needs here so why are we sending money abroad...it's ludicrous when charity should, IMO begin at home.

[Old_Geezer]

I understood much aid tends to come with strings attached, so the country got some benefit for the charitable contribution. But yes, I guess it never hurts to have good relations, it's just that some of the countries that benefit don't seem to be in that much need, especially when our economy isn't exactly hitting the heights. 0.7% doesn't seem a major commitment though.

[classylady60]

I think helping people is always the best course but one has to judge who needs help and in which way, it doesn't always take money. We seem to give to others who could do better for themselves if shown the way, or where their corrupt governments are got rid of....difficult I know but we have to make harsh decisions in lots of ways.

[sandyRoe]

We could make sure that any money goes to NGO's. People might ask themselves this: If the money went to save the life of a starving child would you object?

[classylady60]

Prevention is better than cure, teach people how to overcome things as best they can and as far as I'm concerned, one big thing to deal with is birth control in this overcrowded planet, that would go a long way to solving/preventing some of the problems in future.

[kinell]

there i was avin a slash in the motorway services on saturday and the eye level advert this time was along the lines of ' a child dies every 45 seconds of malaria - please send £3 for a net'.....

excuse me but surely the responsibility lies with the parents not to keep knocking out kids if you cant even afford a mossy net....

its tough but chucking these types our loot aint going to cure the problem of genetic irresponsibility.....

they need to learn the hard way...if you are unable or unwilling to acquire the means to support offspring.. then leave the old lady alone...

in fact why wouldnt you? obviously cant afford any soap

[R1Geezer]

Overseas aid takes money from poor people in rich countries and gives it to rich people in poor countries, end of!

[Coldicote]

Some interesting answers here. Thank you everyone. However I do feel that our government doesn't tell us as much as it could, and should, about the background to oversea's aid, which has been going on for years. Who actually made the 'promise' referred to in today's news and to whom, and on what basis? I do so agree that countries should be encouraged to help themselves rather than depend on handouts.

[Huderon]

AOG, the commitment to increase the overseas aid budget by that much was made in both the Tory and Liberal manifestos, and was part of the coalition agreement.

As for the why ... one reason could be that providing decent schooling for the poorest kids in in somewhere like Pakistan might stop the parents sending the kids to the madrassas where they get some food along with the inculcation of the stricter forms of Islam, which in turn may mean a lot less extremists (or human bombs) in the future.

Other reasons could simply include our own long term benefit - educated kids grow up and may become business people we can then trade with.

[Huderon]

kinell, it's the poorest people who tend to have the most kids, if only because more kids means there is a greater chance, especially in countries with high infant and child mortality rates, that some of them will live long enough to become adults. In such countries nobody is handing out free contraception on a large scale, nor are there plenty of doctors and drugs available to deal with what, for us, may be relatively minor illnesses. Mostly the poor are doing their level best to keep body and soul together and don't have any spare money for luxuries like mosquito nets, contraception, doctors and drugs.

[rowanwitch]

0.7% ... its not a lot.....of course some goes where we wouldn't want it to Have you thought of writing to your MP asking them to support measures aimed at targetting aid more appropriately If you think there is a problem....be part of the solution

[kinell]

huderon its pretty basic everyday maths...

have one kid and put your resources into that care and the odds move in your favour...

an example..
i can afford only one nice reliable car.......or 5 clapped out bangers

they need to break the cycle for the long term benefit

[rov1100]

Ever since the Tory party was labelled the nasty party they have been bending over backwards to correct the illusion. Trying to impress other countries about our generosity or firepower convinces nobody. We are sliding towards a third world democracy.

The reason for this is simple and put forward by a comment in the mail...

""why do we insist on taking immigrants from third world over populated countries who produce like rabbits when they come here here hoping to emulate the country they have left""

[Huderon]

rov1100, I'm afraid the mail missed something out of that quote - or rather ignored a small but significant bit of reality.

I'll offer you a quote from an article debunking that "Muslim Demographics" video from a few years ago :

"It is certainly true that immigrant communities often have higher fertility rates but over time these usually fall into line with the indigenous population."

Which, in case you missed it, means that over time immigrant populations are going to produce offspring at the same, or close to the same, rate as the locals. That's hardly "like rabbits", unless of course there happens to be a population explosion going on in British populace that nobody has noticed.

And since the immigrant population is around 7 or 8% of the total population, they are not likely to produce enough children to "emulate the country they have left" any time in the foreseeable future

[Gromit]

// The reason for this is simple and put forward by a comment in the mail...

""why do we insist on taking immigrants from third world over populated countries who produce like rabbits when they come here here hoping to emulate the country they have left"" //

That sounded very barmy even for the Daily Mail so I Googled in. Google di not find any results and did not find a Daily Mail comment to that effect. I realise that Google is not infalable, so I would kindly request you post a link to the Mail's comment, or I might think yoy made it up.


http://www.google.co....n&fp=9d71c14d4f0dc04f