So the UK government want to stop giving foreign aid to countries who persecute gay people for being gay people. I admit that when I first heard the news my reaction was a sort of knee-jerk "hooray! pro-gay stuff!" But it turns out the issue is more complicated than that (naturally).
This decision raises all sorts of questions about whether it is right to stop giving money to nations if their government makes a law we don't approve of, and whether politics should get in the way of third world development. Ultimately, I'm not comfortable taking an action which will (presumably) make 32 million Ugandans' lives worse because of the actions of a government consisting of no more than 100 people. I know that's simplistic, but as someone who doesn't support the Conservative party, I would be consider it unjust if the entire country, including me and my determinedly socialist family, were punished because of the policies of the current government.
There are, ultimately, a lot of problems with delivering aid money into the hands of the governments of those countries we want to help. There's the matter of politics getting in the way, which has been highlighted by the issue at hand. There's the authoritarian and selfish nature of many of the Third World's political elite. There's the imperialistic aspect of it, the whole "we gave you money now you must do what we say" thing which sometimes happens. And above all, there's the fact that all the governments we aid to are in heavily debt to Britain and all the other nations of the West anyway, so most if not all of our generous contributions flies straight back into the UK treasury anyway.
However, helping developing countries to develop is, I believe, a good idea. Firstly, I'm anti-nationalist and believe we should use what we can afford of our resources to help those beyond our borders. Secondly, we would ultimately benefit from the development from the third world anyway, in the same way that all of a national society benefits when the rich-poor gap is narrowed.
I think a better way to do foreign aid would be for the government to redirect whatever money it currently gives to third world governments to NGOs which are committed to the economic development of the same countries. That way, politics cannot get in the way (or would be harder to and the money isn't going on anyone's secret nuclear-weapons programme. Also, NGOs are not in debt to Western governments.
(The end.)
This decision raises all sorts of questions about whether it is right to stop giving money to nations if their government makes a law we don't approve of, and whether politics should get in the way of third world development. Ultimately, I'm not comfortable taking an action which will (presumably) make 32 million Ugandans' lives worse because of the actions of a government consisting of no more than 100 people. I know that's simplistic, but as someone who doesn't support the Conservative party, I would be consider it unjust if the entire country, including me and my determinedly socialist family, were punished because of the policies of the current government.
There are, ultimately, a lot of problems with delivering aid money into the hands of the governments of those countries we want to help. There's the matter of politics getting in the way, which has been highlighted by the issue at hand. There's the authoritarian and selfish nature of many of the Third World's political elite. There's the imperialistic aspect of it, the whole "we gave you money now you must do what we say" thing which sometimes happens. And above all, there's the fact that all the governments we aid to are in heavily debt to Britain and all the other nations of the West anyway, so most if not all of our generous contributions flies straight back into the UK treasury anyway.
However, helping developing countries to develop is, I believe, a good idea. Firstly, I'm anti-nationalist and believe we should use what we can afford of our resources to help those beyond our borders. Secondly, we would ultimately benefit from the development from the third world anyway, in the same way that all of a national society benefits when the rich-poor gap is narrowed.
I think a better way to do foreign aid would be for the government to redirect whatever money it currently gives to third world governments to NGOs which are committed to the economic development of the same countries. That way, politics cannot get in the way (or would be harder to and the money isn't going on anyone's secret nuclear-weapons programme. Also, NGOs are not in debt to Western governments.
(The end.)
No comments:
Post a Comment