Aid, Arts, Government, Society, United Nations

It is the poor who bear the brunt when calamities strike

SYRIA-TURKEY EARTHQUAKES

Intro: Far too often, “recovery efforts” and international aid do not reach those who need it most

THE massive earthquakes which struck southern Turkey and northern Syria on February 6 inflicted ghastly damage across a geographic region that has already borne a great deal of earthly devastation in recent decades. The ongoing war in Syria has produced millions of refugees, many of whom find themselves victims of seismic activity in the Turkish south.

The death toll from this week’s quakes quickly jumped into the thousands and will no doubt soar to far more. An untold number of people remain buried beneath the rubble. Traumatised survivors contend with frigid temperatures and the aftershocks, and refugees contend with the loss of any semblance of refuge.

The natural disaster has served once again to underscore what should hardly by earth-shattering news: that life for the global poor is extremely precarious and plagued by multiple, simultaneous crises from which recovery is often futile.

The dwellings inhabited by the have-nots are structurally less reliable and potentially more vulnerable to tectonic tumult – as was seen, for example, in the Peruvian earthquake of 2007, when homes collapsed across impoverished neighbourhoods in the province of Ica. But in a world structured upon capitalist foundations, precarity goes much deeper than shoddy construction materials or a blatant disregard for building codes.

For a start, capitalism’s insistence on acute inequality and the tyranny of an elite minority means there are major global fault lines between rich and poor – ones that are becoming ever more pronounced in the era of climate change and ecological calamity. And while aid pledges and donations inevitably pour in after high profile disasters, they often only exasperate the divide by lining the pockets of the aid industry rather than benefiting the disaster-stricken areas themselves.

There is also the stark realisation that, for much of the world’s precarious population, life constitutes more-or-less a continuous disaster, but one that generates no attention. In June last year, The New Humanitarian news agency noted gross disparities in disaster relief, with almost half of all emergency funding for 2022 “going to only five protracted – and largely conflict-driven – crises”. Citing a recent United Nations estimate that the number of annual disasters will increase to 560 by the year 2030, the agency described how victims of under-the-radar disasters are often forced to remain in unsafe locations – thereby setting the scene for new crises.

Let’s take the case of Afghanistan, where an ongoing dependence on aid has done nothing to make the country safe. Last August, floods killed more than 180 people, just two months after an earthquake had killed more than 1,000. Save the Children, an NGO, reported that the country was suffering its “worst hunger crisis on record”, with nearly 50 per cent of the population going hungry on account of a raging drought and continuing economic breakdown.

Such are the toxic legacies of more than two decades of a US-led “war on terror” that devastated the lives, livelihoods and futures of millions of Afghans and sucked in billions of dollars of “recovery funds”.

For a further illustration of how politics, greed and mismanagement overlap with and compound environmental catastrophe, we need look no further than the Caribbean nation of Haiti, where in 2021 a devastating 7.2 magnitude earthquake was followed by a deadly storm and landslides. More than 2,200 people were killed and some 130,000 homes destroyed, in addition to a number of schools and hospitals.

This came just over a decade after a 2010 earthquake killed 220,000 people and rendered 1.5 million homeless. Only a smidgen of the billions of dollars that flowed in to rescue Haiti actually reached poor Haitian earthquake victims. The bulk of the aid went to aid organisations, security forces, and other supposedly competent bodies – like the UN peacekeepers who promptly unleashed a cholera epidemic upon the nation.

During the ensuing years, US support for official corruption in Haiti has made the terrain extra fertile for political crisis, while further eroding the country’s ability to respond to natural disasters.

Things are getting more precarious by the minute, as capitalism breaks new ground in the field of obliterating all aspirations toward a common humanity or planetary wellbeing – and the “disaster relief” industry concerns itself with maintaining its own viability while poor communities lurch from one disaster to the next.

While the rich insulate themselves from the fallout, the poor bear the brunt of military conflict, economic upheaval, climate-related havoc, and the coronavirus pandemic. It has left the have-nots on even shakier ground.

As with all other present earthly afflictions, this week’s quakes in Turkey and Syria will hit the poor the hardest. A total seismic shift in a world where profit for the few means precarity for the many is urgently needed.

Standard
Africa, Aid, Britain, Business, Economic, G7, Government

Britain: Aid cash to be used in boosting trade with Africa

FOREIGN AID BUDGET

THERESA May has pledged to use Britain’s overseas aid budget to boost post-Brexit trade with Africa.

She told an audience in Cape Town that she is “unashamed” of her ambition to ensure the multibillion-pound pot “works for the UK”.

The Prime Minister said that from now on Britain’s foreign aid budget will not only help combat poverty, but support “our own national interest”.

It comes after the bloated aid budget – now standing at almost £14billion a year – has come under fire as officials struggling to spend the money quickly enough have donated to a series of increasingly controversial projects.

Mrs May said funds will be specifically used to “support the private sector to take root and grow”. This means Britain will employ its aid to help create the conditions for UK businesses to have confidence to invest in Africa.

She also said the funds should go towards boosting security and tackling terrorism in the continent – a move to which she insists will make the UK safer.

The money will also be used to encourage potential migrants to stay in Africa so they are not tempted to make the dangerous journey to Europe.

The commitment comes amid the UK’s huge foreign aid budget struggling to maintain public support. Critics have long opposed David Cameron’s controversial policy and target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income on overseas aid.

The target has meant huge increases in aid spending in recent years – and guarantees it will continue to grow.

Public anger has grown given some of the examples of how the money is spent. These include a £5.2million grant to girl band Yegna, nicknamed the “Ethiopian Spice Girls”, whose funding was only halted last year.

Downing Street will now hope that the announcement of a realignment of spending will help convince voters of its worth.

The Department for International Development gives around £2.6billion a year in bilateral aid to Africa. The Prime Minister has also announced a new ambition to make Britain the G7’s largest investor in the continent within four years.

At present the U.S. is the largest contributor to African investment, but Mrs May aims to leapfrog it by 2022.

In Cape Town, the Prime Minister talked about changing the face of the UK’s aid spending in Africa both to reflect the continent’s rapid growth and to benefit Britain. There is a huge opportunity for British trade in a post-Brexit world. Mrs May’s three-day trip to the African continent will also take in visits to Nigeria and Kenya.

The PM said: “It is the private sector that is the key to driving that growth – transforming labour markets… And the UK has the companies that can invest in and trade with Africa to do just this.

“The private sector has not yet managed to deliver the level of job creation and investment that many African nations need.

“So I want to put our development budget and expertise at the centre of our partnership as part of an ambitious new approach – and use this to support the private sector to take root and grow.

“I am unashamed about the need to ensure that our aid programme works for the UK.

“I am committing that our development spending will not only combat extreme poverty, but at the same time tackle global challenges and support our own national interest.

“This will ensure that our investment in aid benefits us all, as is fully aligned with our wider national security priorities.”

The Prime Minister also set out why working with Africa to deliver jobs, investment and long-term stability is in the interests of Britain and the wider world.

Mrs May pointed out that Africa needs to create millions of new jobs every year to keep pace with its rapidly growing population, adding: “The challenges facing Africa are not Africa’s alone.

“It is in the world’s interest to see that those jobs are created, to tackle the causes and symptoms of extremism and instability, to deal with migration flows and to encourage clean growth. If we fail to do so, the economic and environmental impacts will swiftly reach every corner of our networked, connected world.

“And the human impacts . . . will be similarly global.”

Addressing the issue of British trade, Mrs May said: “As Prime Minister of a trading nation whose success depends on global markets, I want to see strong African economies that British companies can do business with in a free and fair fashion.

“Whether through creating new customers for British exporters or opportunities for British investors, our integrated global economy means healthy African economies are good news for British people as well as African people.

“I want the UK to be the G7’s number one investor in Africa, with Britain’s private sector companies taking the lead in investing the billions that will see African economies growing by trillions.”

Standard
Aid, Britain, Government, Politics, Society

Foreign aid spending hits public trust

FOREIGN AID

MINISTERS are undermining trust in foreign aid by failing to ensure it is spent on the world’s poorest, a committee of MP’s have warned.

Projects funded through the £14billion budget include schemes to boost China’s film industry and to improve its museums.

Britain is legally committed to spending 0.7 per cent of gross national income on foreign aid, but the Commons international development committee called for that money to be focused on poverty reduction.

MPs specifically singled out the £600million Prosperity Fund, a cross-Whitehall pot that is still used to pay for foreign aid schemes in countries like India and China.

They raised questions about how it was funding projects in China to reduce tobacco consumption by migrant workers and to lower the salt intake of children.

The MPs said many of the dubious ventures were being run by Boris Johnson’s Foreign Office (FCO).

“Among the FCO-administered Prosperity Fund projects, we found many weaker examples including projects to develop the Chinese film industry, improve the Chinese museum infrastructure and improve the credit bond rating system in China,” they said.

The committee said it was unclear “how these types of interventions will benefit the very poorest people”. It called for a review of existing programmes.

“We are concerned to have uncovered Prosperity Fund projects within middle-income countries which show inadequate, or negligible, targeting at improving the lives of the very poorest and most vulnerable communities in these countries,” the report said.

Whitehall departments were also condemned for not being open about how they are doling out the £14billion budget.

Although most of the foreign aid budget is used by the Department for International Development (Dfid), other Government departments are increasingly having to help to get the money out the door.

More than a quarter (27.5 per cent) of the £14billion aid budget was spent by departments other than Dfid last year.

The report said while Dfid was “respected worldwide as an accountable deliverer of aid”, there was a lack of transparency elsewhere in Whitehall.

The committee warned that other Government departments were being given aid money to spend without having to explain how they would make sure it was used properly.

The MPs said: “Given the level of spending involved, we are concerned that departments are not publishing fuller details of their… spending as this lack of clarity clouds the public’s ability to see good and bad spending.”

They highlighted the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF), which redacts information and refuses to publish how it uses much of its money. The MPs added: “This lack of clarity undermines trust in the fund.”

A spokesperson for the Government said: “We have been clear, we must ensure that the aid budget is not just spent well but could not be spent better and standards are raised across Government to achieve value for taxpayers’ money.”

Standard