Traditionally every Shadow Secretary of International Development has issued the same rallying cry: give them more money. There is general agreement that the government should increase the amount of aid they give to the developing world. Let me say that I would like to be the first to buck that trend. I cannot wait for the day when we give absolutely nothing to developing countries in aid; after all, that will be the day when we finally achieve the development goals we have set ourselves over the last fifty years.

The British government has, for decades now, been pumping resources into international development, with little tangible effect. So what has gone wrong? Why is the developing world still saddled with the same burdens it was carrying twenty and more years ago? Africa remains, as Tony Blair noted with more skill than his actions suggested, “a scar on the conscience of the world”. Clearly then, there must be some major issues undermining and jeopardising our well-intentioned aid programme, and it is these issues, combined with the government’s incompetence in addressing them, that I would like to consider in this article.

There are three main areas which seriously threaten to destabilise development progress: the three Cs of Corruption, Conflict and Climate Change. Whilst, we have cottoned on to some of these problems fairly recently, I will turn first to an issue with a long and not particularly distinguished history in the developing world: corruption.

Like many of these issues, corruption damages both ends of the aid chain: destroying the faith of British taxpayers in the efficacy of their aid contribution, whilst, simultaneously producing no tangible benefit for those who most need it. Simply put: it’s robbing from the rich to give to the rich.

The corrupt ends to which our money is diverted vary greatly: from the superfluous military fixations of unhinged dictators, to the bloated public sector patronage schemes that often reinforce a fragile grip on power. The only two things that remain constant are the immorality of those siphoning our funds, and the inability, or disinclination, of the British government to tackle the problem. The government must, wherever possible, filter money directly to local and regional projects, thus ensuring the money arrives where it was supposed to, and also creating a sense of project ownership amongst the local community, which will aid sustainability. Where it is necessary to deal with a questionable regime, strict laws must be in place and enforced to make sure that what goes in one end, comes out the other!

Even when aid does filter through to the people, there is insufficient direction, with regards to how it is spent. In some cases the international development community is effectively acting as a proxy welfare state. Whilst, this may achieve short-term results, it is certainly not how I would define sustainable growth. The government’s failure to address this problem will lead to a perpetual aid cycle of mutual dependency from which neither the donor nor the recipient country will be able to escape. The governments of developing countries must be encouraged to create their own public infrastructures so that when the NGO’s and the money is gone, the country is in a position to support and administer itself.

However, it is not just the corruption of governments that renders development ineffective. Shadowy figures in the corporate world have also sought to exploit the extreme poverty of a continent for their own financial gain. By purchasing the national debt of impoverished countries at discount rates, and then using British courts to aggressively pursue the full amount, these so called ‘Vulture funds’ have been picking at the carcass of international development, operating in legal ‘grey areas’ and putting progress back by a generation. So what has our government done to halt this immoral practice from taking place in our courts and under our noses? Absolutely nothing, actually that’s not true, they’ve done next to nothing. The idea ofintroducing voluntary codes of practice surrounding ‘vulture funds’ has been muted but is yet to materialise and would be toothless in any case.

The savageries of conflict have perhaps done more to wreck the progress of development than anything else. Civil and regionalised wars have the ability to ravage the livelihoods of whole communities, obliterating a generation of the workforce, and destroying the national infrastructure, almost overnight.Eighty-percent of the world’s twenty poorest countries have endured major conflict in the last fifteen years, and of the others, many will have experienced the spill-over effects of a local conflict, not least the public resource drain of an influx of refugees. The combined result of these factors is not only to destroy our previous attempts at stimulating development, but also ensures we will be pouring aid into this war-torn region for decades to come.

Whilst, I would recognise that we must tread carefully in certain areas of the world, in view of our, not inconsiderable, ‘colonial baggage’, that is no excuse for this government’s policy of procrastination. More than 200,000 Darfuris have died in the struggle between government and rebel forces, and yet still we wait for a combined UN-AU force to be deployed in the region. This is utterly incomprehensible. The people of Darfur need action now, and it is down to Gordon Brown and David Milliband to exert all the diplomatic influence they command to ensure that peacekeepers arrive without further delay, even if this requires targeted and effective sanctions and stopping British companies from indirectly funding the genocide. Instead David and Gordon are threatening action if things get worse, someone should tell them things are already about as bad as they can get.

Finally, I want to consider an issue that, at first glance may not appear as urgent as the other two, but yet has the potential to wreak havoc of apocalyptic proportions, and undermine all other efforts at achieving sustainable development: Climate Change. Of course, the cruel irony of climate change is that those who have done least to contribute to its emergence will be the ones who suffer most, as they lack the resources and coping mechanisms of the developed world. Already, the developing world is witnessing natural disasters of biblical proportions, and this will only get worse, potentially destroying any tentative steps towards prosperity that developing nations have made.

There are several key steps that our government can make to counteract the effects climate change on the developing world. Firstly, I call on Gordon Brown to deliver a Climate Change Bill that meets the needs prescribed to it. If we are to keep the global rise in temperature to a manageable 2˚C we must set a target of an 80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050, not the feeble 60% Labour is proposing. In addition, the government’s proposed exclusion of shipping and aviation emissions from this figure is nonsensical, and simply another case of strong words being matched by pitiful actions.

Paradoxically though, climate change can also present a tremendous opportunity for the developing world. As more and more developed nations face up to the severity of the threat posed by climate change, they will be forced to consider other energy resources, notably renewables. With technological developments marching on relentlessly, there is a real possibility that solar power could achieve for Africa in the 21st Century, what Oil did for the Middle East in the 20th. Yellow could be the new green. The government simply must do more to counteract the effects of climate change or the next generation will not forgive us.

The world of international development can seem like a tough slog. Endless and recurring obstacles mean that despite the vast resources being pumped in, we see minimal effects. However, one thing that never fails to restore my faith in humanity is the swelling undercurrent of compassion the British people show for their fellow
man. From the remarkable generosity shown following the Asian Tsunami, to the unprecedented scale and success of the ‘Make Poverty History’ and G8 campaigns, we have shown that we do care about what happens to people on the other side of the world.

The Labour government has spectacularly wasted the political capital and media profile that these events had accumulated and has managed to return the international development agenda to the dustbin of public affairs. What we want is to see is our money being used effectively, not being poured straight into a leaking bucket. Sustainable development is the key, and this means addressing the underlying, destabilising forces that I have briefly outlined here. Without this all progress will be meaningless and inherently unstable, and then, and only then, can we achieve my dream of giving nothing to the developing world.

This article first appeared in Public Service Review (November 2007).

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007