Editorial: South Africa can build on its strengths
Aid charity should be held to the highest standards but holding back funds will be a moral and strategic mistake
It was in Darfur, a war-torn part of Sudan, that I first saw the work of Oxfam in the field. Hundreds of thousands of people had fled an escalating conflict, clustering in the desert in desperate conditions. I watched Oxfam workers bringing in clean water, emergency latrines, and teaching the basic hygiene essential to preventing the sudden spread of disease. They were hardworking and professional, with the experience of similar crises that helped them act quickly. In more than a decade since I witnessed their work, they and other charities have done a sterling job in helping to cope with catastrophes around the globe. That is why it is so important to deal decisively with the utterly unacceptable behaviour of some of the colleagues of those conscientious aid workers.
The revelations about serious sexual misconduct by Oxfam officials in Haiti, now followed by allegations concerning other aid charities, threaten to undermine public and political support for humanitarian efforts that are of vast importance. The Oxfam scandal will feed the view of many that aid should be cut back. Yet, a reduction in aid would be a strategic blunder, ultimately damaging the United Kingdom’s national interest and its ability to deal with one of the biggest problems heading our way.
This is that over the next 30 years more than half the growth in the world’s population is expected to be on just one continent — Africa. On average, African countries look like doubling their populations very quickly indeed. Some will grow even faster — Nigeria’s 190 million population today is expected to rise to 410 million by 2050. Add to this a similar trend in many Middle Eastern nations, even while birth rates elsewhere in the world have fallen, and the net result is that we are entering an age in which most of the youngest and poorest people in the world will live close to Europe.
When you consider that Germany’s current political paralysis was largely caused by the reaction to the arrival of a million refugees, and that there are about to be 1.5 billion extra people in Africa and the Middle East, you can begin to imagine the implications. If we don’t think ahead, this will be a century of rising nationalism and ethnic tensions across Europe in response to what is potentially the greatest migration humanity has ever known. That would severely affect Britain, even after it leaves the European Union (EU).
Effective development aid is not the whole answer to this coming crisis but it is definitely a crucial part of it. Good education and a strong role for women in work and society can always help. These are all objectives of British overseas aid. To have any chance of averting a population explosion and of giving young people the opportunities they need in their own countries, we need our efforts to promote good health, effective education and women’s rights to be emulated more by the rest of Europe rather than cut back on what we are doing ourselves. There is therefore an overwhelming strategic, as well as moral, imperative to deliver aid to the world’s poorest people.
A completely separate matter
However, the public needs to know the money is being spent properly and carefully. That means being able to show that there is a strategy agreed across government, and that agencies such as Oxfam are held to the highest standards. When I became foreign secretary in 2010, and Andrew Mitchell became the excellent development secretary, we found Labour had left total mistrust and almost no coordination between the two departments. Foreign leaders who enjoyed the support of British aid viewed cooperation with our diplomacy as a completely separate matter, for the understandable reason that it was. We moved a small amount of development spending back into the Foreign Office, and told our officials to work together.
Now our successors are going further, with junior ministers attached to both departments by Prime Minister Theresa May. This makes complete sense. Brexit does not mean Britain retires from trying to solve collective problems and we should show that. Then there is the need to show that NGOs and such agencies as Oxfam spend the money they receive, from both the taxpayer and individual donors, without scandal and misuse.
The new principle should be that charities which spend tens of millions of pounds of aid should be held to the same standards as the public sector and government officials. Serious problems need to be revealed publicly and the police brought in to investigate potential crimes. Trustees should be in serious trouble if there is a persistent problem of culture and behaviour in their organisation. The Charity Commission should bare its teeth. At the same time, there is a good case for tightening up the rules on cold-calling elderly people to solicit donations and those street surveys that turn into requests to sign direct debits. Such tactics do not make the United Kingdom a more charitable nation. The case for the type of work done by Oxfam is too strong to allow it to be undermined by bad behaviour and inadequate standards of disclosure or investigation. The case for an aid budget that tackles the world’s biggest issues will get stronger, not weaker, in the years ahead. The response to this appalling scandal needs to be tough enough to convince the public that their generosity will not be abused.