Britain's battle against global poverty risks being twisted into a tool of war

[marmar]

from the Guardian UK:



Britain's battle against global poverty risks being twisted into a tool of war
Our work in Afghanistan suggests a dangerous trend, in which aid is militarised, subsumed to western strategic interests

Madeleine Bunting guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 January 2010


This Wednesday there is a crucial international meeting on Yemen squeezed in ahead of the conference the following day on Afghanistan, and at both, the Department for International Development will play a major role. Key to the discussions on these fragile states will be the task of "state building", or how external actors can build "capacity", as the lingo goes, and help governments to win legitimacy, keep peace, raise taxes and provide the rule of law. Much of this is increasingly seen as DfID's fiefdom; in Afghanistan it is the lead UK department on economic development and governance. It works closely with the Ministry of Defence and, with a budget more than three times that of the Foreign ­Office – and, ring-fenced from cuts, it will soon more than quadruple its former parent department – DfID is a frontline player in foreign policy. Since the primary objective of the latter is counter-terrorism, this now plays an increasing role in what British aid is all about.

That's not quite the public image of a cuddly DfID, an unqualified Labour success story of exemplary altruistic internationalism: all cherubic African children safely immunised and getting an education. That still goes on, but bundled in with this good news story is something very subtle but entirely different, and it's about how aid is being used to secure western strategic interests. Seven major non-governmental aid agencies working in Afghanistan will say in a report published on Wednesday that they are "deeply concerned about the harmful effects of this increasingly militarised aid strategy" in the country.

In the UK, there are vigorous efforts to ensure that DfID's pronounced aims – cost-effective poverty reduction – are not compromised, but the mission drift is already evident, and likely to become even more pronounced under a Conservative government. The pressure from the US is clear; Hillary Clinton in a speech earlier this month was unapologetic: "Development ... today is a strategic, economic and moral imperative – as central to advancing American interests and solving global problems as diplomacy and defence." It is "time to elevate development as a central pillar of all that we do in foreign policy".

The reasoning behind such a statement is at first glance plausible: poverty causes conflict and development brings peace. It is the theme Tony Blair took up in the aftermath of 9/11 when he talked of "draining the swamps", resolving the economic problems which might prove a fertile ground for terrorism. But as Professor Chris Cramer of the School of Oriental and African Studies points out, development itself can cause conflict, creating winners and losers; besides, there is no clear causal link between poverty and extremism. Many of the 9/11 bombers, and the Christmas Day bomber, came from wealthy families. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/24/aid-counterterrorism-afghanistan-ngos

[Meeker Morgan]

1. Am I too cynical?

IMO it was always a tool of war. White Man's Burden redux.