Britain has an established reputation as an economic
power. Although in recent years the British economy has experienced an economic
downturn. In light of this, some UK nationals believe Britain ought to withdraw
foreign aid and redirect it to the domestic economy. The G8 Accountability
Report, compiled earlier in 2013, demonstrated that the UK achieved all
Official Development Assistance (ODA) goals for the past decade and that the UK
spends more money on foreign aid, as a percentage of Gross National Income
(GNI), than any other G8 country.
The UK press is saturated in devastating reports and
images of Syrian refugees and Typhoon Haiyan victims making it difficult to distance
oneself from the basic human instinct to help those less fortunate. Economic
disparity between Britain and these distressed nations heightens the importance
of basics, such as healthcare, emergency manpower and technology, food stores,
housing, and evacuation centres which can save millions of lives.
Foreign aid statistics indicate that aid expenditure per
the average household is 16 pence for every £10 spent. A relatively
insignificant amount at home, 16 pence actually makes immensely impacts the
world’s poorest, consequently assisting those in need of humanitarian aid.
Critics against foreign
aid declare it to be misdirected and, particularly during austere times at home.
They imply that aid is administered to corrupt governmental bodies instead of
directly to the victims of these criminal institutions. But in September, David
Cameron stated that: “We’ll help lead the world…and make sure vital aid gets
through”. The government and the Independent Commission for Aid
Impact (ICAI), a body responsible for scrutiny of UK aid, focusing upon
maximizing the impact and effectiveness of the UK aid budget-intended
beneficiaries and delivering value for money for the UK taxpayer, attempt to
direct aid appropriately, but aid is not always perfect.
Syria is a classic case
study for the effectiveness of British foreign aid. Despite international
conferences, an effective resolution for the abominable situation, resulting in
millions of refugee displacement, cannot be settled. In the meantime, aid
workers and capital provided by wealthier nations, has abetted refugees with
food, shelter and medical care.
International
economic development increases has united the global community more than ever
before. Suffering abroad affects Britain. The inundation of Syrian refugees into
its neighbouring countries requires British intervention. Withdrawing aid at
present would mean British nationals face the probability of aiding them at
home in the future. Aid funding provides increased employment opportunities,
tax collection and maintains a sustainable public sector. Aid dependency is
extant; contribution enables a resolution, but without, the problem will flourish.
It
is our human nature to help those less fortunate. Events like Comic Relief and
Children in Need are popular for just that reason. Cutting aid would result in other
nations viewing Britain negatively, degrading Britain’s reputation. Lives are
transformed by aid; those lives would be at risk without Britain. This
generation could abolish extreme poverty but that will never be achieved
without British aid.