EU Neighbourhood Policy and Intl Aid

I expressed to a friend recently that aid should be cut for repressive states, or for states who have violated a three strike rule on corruption, misallocation of funds, or inefficiency. The way aid is given needs to be seriously reevaluated and reformed, which echoes what David Cameron announced a couple of days ago. The EU has a Neighborhood Policy for the middle east region, which gives millions of pounds annually to help countries like Egypt move toward democracy.

I think it is safe to say that none of the money has been allocated appropriately in moving toward systemetic structural reforms in how these nations are governed, and I would never accept that a drop of this money helped/encouraged/influenced/et al the protesters in recent weeks. All the money the EU has given in aid through this Neighborhood Policy programme, which is equal to about 1.4 billion GBP a year for North Africa and Middle East, has largely been an inefficient failure. For the EU to create an agency to evaluate and track down aid money is burdensome, costly, and trifle. Moreover, it takes away from the current purpose of the EU.

The EU is a selective club, with the purpose to boost and strengthen economic activity amongst its members, and ultimately to ensure stability on the continent. The EU is not a replacement, or an arm, of the UN and there is a lot of poverty within our own continental borders. The Baltic states and indeed, many of the former Soviet states, have no welfare system; a seriously inadequate education system, no health care, or any basic provisions beyond some infrastructure. In addition to this, corruption is widespread amongst some officials, and perhaps more needs to be invested to create transparency and cooperation within the EU to create a stronger economic and social union, rather then millions of tax dollars going far abroad to fatten the pockets of horrible leaders.

I am absolutely not against aid, I believe in solidarity and cooperation amongst governments, supranational bodies, charities, and neighbors on the basis that we are all trying to get on, and get by. However, if the EU, or any contributing state, is going to aimlessly give very large sums of money to oppressive regimes, they need to understand they are enabling repression. This is an unintended consequence, an unfortunate side-effect of international aid. The moral dilemma is if all aid is cut, the regimes can resort to other (often dangerous) means of getting money. Exploiting the west’s dependency on oil, gas or whatever natural resource is one example.

The EU Neighborhood Policy is just one example, there are countless programmes with good intention but really bad consequences. I have done some research about Uganda, and there is a lot of provoking evidence to suggest the LRA conflict has been able to continue for so long (it is currently Africa’s longest active civil conflict) because whilst there is a ‘war’, the aid money pours in from the West. Therefore, there are monetary incentives to keep the conflict ongoing. This is a chilling prospect, and a harsh, ugly truth about the evils some leaders are willing to commit for luxury.

I don’t want to see all aid cut, because it will only hurt the little people, but some reform has to come about. This is a really tricky area to even blog about, let alone be the one in charge of deciding who gets what, when and how much. I am keen to see EU Commission discuss David Cameron’s suggestion to cut aid to repressive regimes, and will follow the developments very closely in the next coming weeks.

Re:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/8341458/Middle-East-David-Cameron-calls-for-radical-reform-of-EU-aid.html