[2cool]

I Need reasons why Britain SHOULDN'T give aid to the third world
Some reasons / case studies ive thought of so far:

a) India turned around and said they dont need britains aid

b) we are in a recession

c) Some of our own soldiers end up living on the streets

d) money may go to corrupt governments

e) Britain is only giving aid to make friends with other countries / for self gain


need lots more though, can anyone think of any?

[Nick526]

I'm assuming this is for some kind of counter argument in an essay.
You could argue that Britain needs to sort its own problems of childhood poverty and starvation, the homeless etc. before it can help other countries

[JackieL]

We have no money to give.

[The Rainbow Man]

Britain has just as many problems, if not more, that could be sorted out instead.

[MathematicsKiller]

(Original post by 2cool)
I Need reasons why Britain SHOULDN'T give aid to the third world
Some reasons / case studies ive thought of so far:

a) India turned around and said they dont need britains aid

b) we are in a recession

c) Some of our own soldiers end up living on the streets

d) money may go to corrupt governments

e) Britain is only giving aid to make friends with other countries / for self gain


need lots more though, can anyone think of any?

I believe the EU still operates a protectionist policy through the CAP. If so, they make it hard for such poorer countries to compete.
Therefore, it would seem more patronising than anything to give these countries charity since they are keeping them from earning their money legitimately.


EDIT: Furthermore, charity given to India is misused. They themselves donate to other countries and have major problems which they seem to be ignoring. India is a ****hole with a massive gap between the rich and the poor - and they could be fixing that.

[Acqua]

Aid only seems to be a short term solution, countries may start to depend on them. (well unless it's long term aid designed to improve a country in the long run)

[Mr Einstein]

Indeed selfish use of a selfless ideal. Highlighted recently in the media.

[internet tough guy]

your point b) and c) are essentially the same - i.e we should use it for ourselves instead


you can also put how some of the aid can be used by corrupt governments/authorties for negative uses, like arming up their militias, selling it off to their people to make money to fund their cars/palaces

[Historophilia]

I'll give you an example.

Food aid can destroy the market for local producers, if, for example, lots of very cheap rice is shipped to an African country with good intentions, there is no reason for people to buy rice grown by local farmers, who lose their business and slip into poverty.

So large amounts of international aid sent to countries can prevent them from developing economically, keeping people in poverty and reliant on aid to survive.

[PinkyPurply]

These are not my opinion, but some examples.
1.) Britain is currently struggling and needs to concentrate on fixing it's own economy.
2.) Aid will not reach those who need it, instead going to corrupt governments.
3.) Aid may not be useful to those we're giving it to.
4.) Recipient countries receiving aid may become dependent and lose motivation to better their own situation.

Hope this helps.

[AAJ]

I read a statistic that around 90% of foreign aid to Africa goes unaccounted for, therefore one does not really know where the money that we give is going.

[burning-ape]

This is probably a terrible point, but the general public have nothing to do with third world countries and we, for the most part, haven't had any part in why they're behind other better developed countries. Why should we aid them, when we owe them nothing? The money to help them should either come from charity or from the pockets of those responsible. It's very possible that those directly responsible are no longer alive, but should the burden be taken up by their ancestors?

[MathematicsKiller]

(Original post by burning-ape)
This is probably a terrible point, but the general public have nothing to do with third world countries and we, for the most part, haven't had any part in why they're behind other better developed countries. Why should we aid them, when we owe them nothing? The money to help them should either come from charity or from the pockets of those responsible. It's very possible that those directly responsible are no longer alive, but should the burden be taken up by their ancestors?

It wasn't so long ago that the African colonies were decolonised. In fact, there are many, many people living now who were alive back then and during the time many of these places were colonies.

Then again, I agree that there is no obligation to aid these countries. None of us are guilty for causing what they are going through. Nevertheless, it is sick and wrong to just let people die because you want the government to tax you less so that you can afford a yacht.

[burning-ape]

(Original post by MathematicsKiller)
Nevertheless, it is sick and wrong to just let people die because you want the government to tax you less so that you can afford a yacht.

Well, TIL about the colonization of Africa. Now I feel ignorant :P

However, the point ties in nicely with a point made above about sorting out our own issues first. We won't get out of our recession by giving money to other countries, if you were lying there and bleeding to death next to somebody else who was in a similar situation as you, do you save yourself and leave him to die, or give him a little more time to live (while he'll still die, a lot of the aid we give to other countries is painfully temporary) and let yourself die? As we can't really afford to do the latter anyway, the only choice left, realisatically, is the former.

[notastampcollector]

(Original post by 2cool)
I Need reasons why Britain SHOULDN'T give aid to the third world
Some reasons / case studies ive thought of so far:

a) India turned around and said they dont need britains aid

b) we are in a recession

c) Some of our own soldiers end up living on the streets

d) money may go to corrupt governments

e) Britain is only giving aid to make friends with other countries / for self gain


need lots more though, can anyone think of any?

You could say that taxpayer's money should primarily go towards things which benefit Britain and British society, rather than charitable causes elsewhere in the world. If the taxpayers want to give their money to these other causes then they can themselves independent of government.

Sometimes bilateral aid just goes to propping up violent and oppressive puppet regimes. Certainly historically this has been the case.

[2cool]

thanks guys does anyone know where I can get any statistics to support the argument?

[Clare~Bear]

Giving money helps symptoms of poverty but doesn't usually tackle the root problems. it's the same with charities.

We give them money to give them more food or clothes or water or medicine, but they wouldn't need these resources in such quantities if we gave them stuff like contraception first, so then the population can be slowly lowered (not like how china did it) in a stable way to a manageable level, then we could deal with issues like giving them money for the aforementioned needs. BUT getting the contraception to them is ahrd enough, let along ensuring that they use them properly and that's if their religion/ beliefs allows them to use it in the first place . . .

[de_monies]

Aid can destroy countries

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc9X8QyEd3I

It can be used as a bargaining chip ie: the case in Pakistan, where the US said that they'd take away their aid if they don't comply

It allows richer countries to manipulate poorer countries, and it's not that accountable. Lots just goes in to government, and hardly any of it goes to the population

[2cool]

(Original post by de_monies)
Aid can destroy countries

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc9X8QyEd3I

It can be used as a bargaining chip ie: the case in Pakistan, where the US said that they'd take away their aid if they don't comply

It allows richer countries to manipulate poorer countries, and it's not that accountable. Lots just goes in to government, and hardly any of it goes to the population

thanks watching it now, does anyone know a country they can name that has seeminly 'lost ' our aid, by that I mean we gave aid and havnt seen anything from it? maybe the government kept it?