Overseas aid should boost British interests
In 2012 Andrew Mitchell, then international development secretary, announced that all future items given by the United Kingdom as overseas aid would come emblazoned with the Union Flag. It was the least the government could do to ensure that the £13 billion it spends on aid each year makes some contribution to our nation’s strategic interests. Many wondered why it had not been done sooner.
In a speech in Cape Town today, Theresa May will commit to going a little further. Visiting Africa for the first time since becoming Prime Minister, she will say that Britain’s development spending must be “fully aligned with our wider national security priorities”. Given that the Government is bound by law to spend 0.7 per cent of UK GDP on foreign aid, if this is to continue it does not seem too much to ask that it does something to bolster the interests of the British taxpayers who are paying for it, often at the expense of projects back home.
The Government rightly sees African nations as important future trading partners. The continent boasts four of the world’s six fastest-growing economies, and its GDP is forecast to double over the next decade. But there is a squeamishness among some in the international development community about giving money for reasons other than pure altruism. Of course, the UK will continue to provide donations for emergency disaster relief, and private British donors are among the most generous in the world for doing exactly that. If certain long-term development projects are more likely to expand trade with the UK, to limit the “push” factors of mass migration, or to increase the UK’S reputation, however, then surely they should be prioritised?
In the past, the UK’S aid law has led to money being spent carelessly, frittered away on girl bands or dumped into World Bank trust funds purely to meet the target. Advocates of the law argue that it is necessary to maintain Britain’s standing in the world; that after Brexit we will need every available method of maintaining our influence. Fine, but if the Government wishes to keep this wasteful target – and so far it has shown no sign of wanting to scrap it – it should take this justification seriously. That means subjecting each grant and project to a simple test: does this enhance or diminish British influence? And what will that influence get us?