Foreign Aid, Trade and Aid

Wednesday 14th February 2018 06:16 EST
 

"We're for freedom of speech everywhere. We're for freedom to worship everywhere. We're for freedom to learn... for everybody. And because in our time, you can build a bomb in your country and bring it to my country, what goes on in your country is very much my business. And so we are for freedom from tyranny, everywhere, whether in the guise of political oppression, or economic slavery, or religious fanaticism. That most fundamental idea cannot be met with merely our support. It has to be met with our strength. Diplomatically, economically, materially. And, if Pharaoh still doesn’t free the slaves, then he gets the plagues or my cavalry, whichever gets there first. The Commerce guys will go crazy and say that we're not considering global trade. Other will go crazy and say we haven't consulted enough. And the Arab world will just go indiscriminately crazy. No country has ever had a doctrine of intervention when only humanitarian interests were at stake. That streak's gonna end tonight."
Foreign aid is in the news again, thanks to Oxfam, and whether Britain should give aid at all. I argued with Jeremy Paxman some years ago on Newsnight that one country that should have aid from Britain (Indian pride aside) is India. But the reasons are not which you may think.
The argument that India is a nuclear power and rich country and therefore does not need aid is as simple as it is dangerous as it is against British national interest. In 2011, Chinese troops undertook over 50 incursions into Indian territory ‘at will’ according to the well regarding India Today magazine. These ‘incursions’ include everything from Chinese soldiers setting up camps inside India to encouraging locals to join the Chinese army. There is no reason to suppose these have diminished.
In case you don’t think this has anything to do with Britain, then I remind you, that India is nestled next to Pakistan, a nuclear-armed unreliable Western ally which housed not only Osama Bin Laden, and widely considered a training ground for International terrorism. North of India is Russia – a Western adversary – whether we like it or not. And of course then there is China.
If the United Nations existed before the Second World War, rather than as a consequence of it, who would doubt China and probably Russia would have in 1939 vetoed any military action.
There are two Britons. The isolationist appeasers and those who appreciate, at great national cost, what we stand for, the values we believe in of freedom of speech, tolerance, belief, as far more costly than an aid bill.
If as a result of aid India buys for deterrent armaments, that is in British interests. It is a leveraged investment by Britain, because the £200m in British aid, is far cheaper than Britain thinking it can deploy aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean and South China Seas. Better Indians defend themselves, in our interest, with our help, than we have to do it for them, in our own interests.
And I would prefer the Indians buy these armaments from Britain, not least because British, unlike French ones, do have a stronger reputation for deterrence. A strong India is in the national interests of a Britain because it makes a world closer in our own image, than in the image of a China or Pakistan or Russia.
And if you think what goes on in India is not our concern then I remind you, that it was Indian soldiers, who 70 years ago, made it their business to interfere in the affairs of Britain and Europe – by forming the largest ever volunteer army in history – to defend freedom. And it was British generals, who led Indian troops against Japan at the same time. The lessons of 70 years ago, are dangerously being forgotten. We remember each year not just our glorious dead, but the glorious values for which they stood.
Finally the words at the start of this column were Aaron Sorkins – but I wish they were my Foreign Secretary’s or International Development Secretary’s.


comments powered by Disqus



to the free, weekly Asian Voice email newsletter