Comment: A disingenuous aid boost for Afghanistan
Monday, 19 July 2010 12:00 AM
Britain's increased aid spending on Afghanistan is being used for political and military gain.
By Hannah Redmond
Today, international development secretary Andrew Mitchell revealed the coalition government's plan to increase the amount of ring-fenced money Britain spends on aid in Afghanistan by 40%.
It was clear Whitehall feathers would be ruffled when it was confirmed that the Department of International Development (DfID), along with the Department of Health, were the only budgets not facing severe cutbacks. With a majority of coalition MPs opposed to the idea of ring-fencing UK aid, it was only a matter of time before DfID's budget would be up for scrutiny and proposed reallocation.
A pre-election pledge across all main political parties to guarantee DfID's budget meant UK aid was set in stone. Even with the Tories and their shocking record of international development at the coalition helm, the aid budget would be secure for at least a year or two before being quietly cut back.
The idea of cutting the number of UK aid-recipient counties is one that the Tories have been pondering for some time. In their white paper on development they suggested this would make aid more effective. It seems the Lib Dems agree. Although the benefit of limiting the number of aid-recipient countries isn't entirely clear to me, there was some comfort in knowing that at least the shortlist of countries would benefit from increased aid. Unfortunately this won't be the case and probably was never the intention.
Cutting the number of aid-recipient countries from around 90 to 50 will increase the budget of just one recipient country: Afghanistan.
The coalition government wants to see the withdrawal of British troops in Afghanistan by 2014. In order to do this, more money to support a military push will be needed. This is where it seems the boundaries of defence and international development budgets are being blurred. Andrew Mitchell tells us the huge increase of 40% in aid is to support our development work in Afghanistan - such as building schools and introducing livelihoods. Rather conflictingly, defence secretary Liam Fox is very clear in citing reasons of national security as the single reason for the UK deployment in Afghanistan.
If we are in Afghanistan solely for reasons of national security, the huge increase in aid seems questionable. Afghanistan would and should receive aid as a country with great poverty, but the level DfID plan to increase seems disingenuous and linked to military advancement and political goals rather than any humanitarian concern for the Afghan people.
DfID must remain autonomous in its distribution of aid to the poorest countries in the world and not be part of a wider political strategy. Although some level of collaborative thinking around DfID aid and UK foreign policy makes sense, foreign policy in itself is not a means of identifying priority development countries and should not dictate overseas aid spending. It seems the increased spend in Afghanistan to further political goals is being disguised as overseas aid - at a time when the national pot is empty and funding is hard to come by. Whether or not the increase in aid will help the Afghan people remains to be seen, but it doesn't feel as though the funding isn't intended entirely for their benefit anyway.
In a time of national economic uncertainty, members of parliament and public alike may disagree with the ring-fencing of the overseas aid budget. But whether the budget itself is agreeable or not, it should be used for what it is intended: supporting the poorest countries in the world.
Hannah Redmond works for a leading development charity
The views expressed in politics.co.uk's comment pages are not necessarily those of the website or its owners.
Newsletter sign up