Overseas Aid
Alan Cresswell
Admin, 8th Day Host
in Purgatory
In a world of deep inequality within and between nations, disputes over access to vital resources and the pressures of a changing climate our long term security is dependent upon reducing those inequalities. Overseas aid is a vital part of that aim of reducing inequalities and the tensions within and between nations that those inequalities feed. Therefore, to build a stable world in which conflict is reduced, where people are safe to live where they are with access to what they need and hence not forced to migrate, we need to be increasing the amount spent on overseas aid. Cutting aid makes the world less secure, exacerbates issues of migration and is a retrograde step. Cutting aid budgets to increase spending on military power is a particularly bizarre move, a step from working towards being secure to being more likely to be drawn into a foreign war.
I propose that to move towards a world of greater peace and security, overseas aid budgets should be increased to no less than military spending.
I propose that to move towards a world of greater peace and security, overseas aid budgets should be increased to no less than military spending.
Comments
At the moment the answer is clear. The money is coming out of the overseas aid budget - which at the moment is largely supporting .. Ukraine (a significant chunk is going to the Home Office to fund the Ukraine refugees program - and this has kicked off an internal fight, as they were supposed to have this budget for a few more years)
The alternative is to tax wealth - which given the historical levels of inequality would be a better source of productive capacity.
You can raise taxes as fast as you need to spend the money, and if it's that urgent why wouldn't you call on those with the broadest shoulders to contribute more (Especially as they were often the ultimate beneficiaries of QE under Covid).
The flip side of this is which part of the Overseas Aid Budget will you cut? Presumably not the part that's directly helping the Ukranians? Which leaves very little, of which most of the rest is either assisting imports abroad of supporting primary industries that are needed by the arms industry.
Ya know, that statement comes off very different depending on where in the world you're making it from.
Now this I can understand. If your former ally has flat-out said they do not think you are worth defending - which is exactly what Trump and Vance have done - then what useful purpose can the so-called alliance serve?
Citation please, what evidence do you have to back up this sentence?
Foreign aid helps people and it creates real power. Foreign aid was 1.2% of the US federal budget in 2023, and the US was funding 40% of all international aid. (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/06/what-the-data-says-about-us-foreign-aid/). It's wrong and stupid to cut foreign aid.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4301n3771o
I thought it was common knowledge.
And what does investing in energy supplies have to do with overseas aid?
I can actually think of reasons for the latter but I'm interested in yours. The former seems just to be rhetorical.
I have heard that it's not proven and in any case, there are other priorities at the moment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage.
My last comment on this tangent.
So why pick on that one? You realise the government can and does do multiple things at once?
You realise too that energy independence will become more important with rising international tensions and even apart from the environmental impact Britain isn't self-sufficient when it comes to oil and natural gas ?
Or are you just picking up on some talking point you heard on gbnews?