 |
| Clare Short MP |
Clare Short gave a very interesting lecture, last night, which kicked off the 2012 St Wilfrid Lecture Series Questions of Right and Wrong at Ripon cathedral. The gist of her argument was that giving development aid alone is not enough, to be both effective and morally pure, it has to go hand in hand with foreign policy and a development policy which puts the needs of the country to which aid is given before the gains of the country giving aid. She gave us many examples of aid which is tied to trade and aid which is less effective than it could be because each donor country imposes conditions of their own which may look nonsensical on the ground. (For example where three separate countries give ambulances and spare parts from their own country, making it difficult to run the ambulance service coherently.)
A foreign policy which creates markets in which developing countries find it difficult to participate or which promotes the sale of arms to unstable governments negates the positive effect of aid. Aid which simply provides a service and then withdraws is not really going to solve a country's problems - much better to work with local projects to educate and empower local populations. Where governments are corrupt, it may be better to give aid to local leaders who will ensure that it is used to transform their own community. These were some of the many challenges to change our approach to aid about which she spoke. There has, she stressed, to be a coherence between policy and, local strategy and action, 'You can’t be doing the wrong thing over here and the right thing over there.'
She used Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats to reflect on the moral imperative to give aid but said that she would understand the threat of hell, about which the parable so graphically speaks, as continuing to see a conflict ridden world of suffering in which we draw a protective circle around ourselves and what we have in order to protect ourselves from the turbulance, trouble and terrorism that will undoubtedly overtake us if we do not learn to share resources and live in sustainable ways. Moral imperative and intelligent self interest are thus brought together; she gave lots of examples of how governments fail to grasp this.
The lecture was peppered with insights from her years as Secretary of State for International Development and from her struggles with both the Blair government and the Cameron government to get them to adopt consistent approaches to foreign policy and aid. She is certainly a politician who 'walks the talk', often to her own cost - a thinker who knows the subtleties of her own field and is therefore able to speak with authority.
I look forward to the rest of the series. menawhile, if your conscience or interest has been aroused by any of this, you might like to look on the Africa Humanitarian Action website http://www.africahumanitarian.org/ whose whole approach to aid is based on sound scholarship and a holistic approach to what are usually complex situations.
What is an MDG? The United Nations adopted a Millennium Declaration at its summit in 2000 at which it set 8 Millennium Development Goals. The then General Secretary, Kofi Annan, stressed, in his speech, the 'remarkable convergence of views on the challenge that faces us.' The goals are striking in their similarity to the principles underlying the Beatitudes and the 'Last Judgement' teachings of Jesus, particularly the parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 and parables like Lazarus and Dives. Jesus teaches that the way to enter God's kingdom is through transformation. Unlike the kingdoms of this world whose authority is characterized by wealth and power, the kingdom of God is characterized by compassion, generosity and a strenuous activity that shows concern for justice and social responsibility. I have always been struck by the fact that, though Jesus seldom mentions judgement or hell, when He does, it is in the context of the parables that tell the story of people who walk by when others are in obvious need.
So, the goals themselves?
- Eradicate extreme poverty
- Achieve universal primary education
- Promote gender equality and empower women
- Reduce child mortality
- Improve maternal health
- Combat HIV/AIDs, malaria and other diseases
- Ensure environmental sustainability
- Develop a global partnership for development
Much of the work of NGOs, charities like Christian Aid and Cafod and movements like the Transition Movement (which I have previously blogged about) is bound up with these goals. The aim was to achieve them by 2015 but, although significant progress has been made, the world will fall far short of this good intention. Nevertheless the setting of these goals has provided a very positive starting point for changing attitudes and for bringing governments together to try to work on ways to preserve the environment. Perhaps the most important thing is for more and more people to understand what is meant by poverty. It is a lack of opportunity, a lack of power over one's own life and prospects, a lack of human dignity, a lack of flourishing, a degrading of the natural world. Ending such poverty means enabling individuals, families and communities to make fundamental choices about economic, political, social and personal aspects of their own lives. Simply treating the symptoms of poverty such as hunger and homelessness, while important, will not end true poverty or provide a long term solution to the balances of power that cause extreme poverty. The systemic and structural causes of poverty need to be understood and removed.
Did you know that in 2008, if you had any money at all in a bank account, you were probably among the 8% of the world's richest people? As we prepare for Lent, you might like to consider ordering and working through Christian Aid's Ten Bible Studies inspired by the Millennium Goals. Called Working Together, they are short and pithy and provide excellent material for groups or indeed for you to use on your own to help you understand what your priorities might be in getting involved with the fight against extreme poverty. I think we often feel overwhelmed, helpless and guilty when faced by the scale of problems but these studies help us to have more insight and to choose simple but effective ways that we can all get involved to help and, indeed, to work together to combat poverty. Do not be put off doing anything by the fact that what you can do seems so little.
Contributors include Rowan Williams, Janet Morley, and Kathy Galloway (Head of Christian Aid in Scotland) as well as bishops from around the Anglican communion.
You can order copies from churches@christian-aid.org
In this diocese every member of the clergy has been sent a copy in the Resources for Mission mialing for Winter 2012.
- supply water by providing water tanks in villages
- construct additional water points
- get food to families who are not already on food programmes
- provide extra nutrition for infants and pregnant mothers
- distribute animal feed
- help communities to become more resilient to face further droughts
If your church would like to hold a collection, you can obtain envelopes from orders@christian-aid.org (ref. no. F1952E) or you can gift aid contributions through the Disasters Emergency Committee at most high street banks.
For more information go to http://http://www.riponleeds.anglican.org// and click on the Horn of Africa appeal on the home page.
Are you, like me, very confused about the UK's involvement in Libya? David Cameron and his cabinet have been careful to observe the legalities and to obtain UN authorization. It is not a repeat of Iraq. Nevertheless, I find myself asking why it is that UK forces are now involved in military action which, at best, the Arab world blows hot and cold about and which Russia, China and Turkey did not lend their support to. In fact, it seems that Italy is threatening to curtail the use of their air bases and the United States are wanting to pass command back to the UN as quickly as possible. All this adds up to a picture of great uncertainty which has been heightened by the public disagreement of government ministers and military commentators about whether a regime change is the object in view or merely a restraining of attacks against the civilian population. This raises the question of whether attacks by Gadafi's militia or the UN bombing itself will, in the end, kill and wound more people and deprive more of the population of the basics for human life and dignity.
Although the situation is not a re-run of the last war in Iraq, it has produced an unsettling feeling that, once again, we are leaping into a political situation we do not understand and have no end-game plan for. And why take action over Libya but not other Middle Eatsern countries? The stated aim is humanitarian but it seems that the UN is very selective in where, when and by what means it intervenes and there are already voices in the surrounding Arab nations suggesting that the use of force over Tripoli, Sebha and Benghazi is disproportionate. Clearly the Middle East does not trust the motivation of, particularly, America and the UK. Does this display of force have more to do with oil and with the way Gadafi is viewed by the Americans? Barak Obama has stated that he wishes to see the end of the regime though by economic sanction rather than force. I seem to recall George W. indicating that he would finish the job his father had failed to complete in Iraq by bringing down Saddam Hussein and it is statements like this that throw into question the objectivity of the Western leaders and governments. I would be a great deal more persuaded that this is the right course of action if it was under UN command and nations other than the USA, the UK and France were lending greater active support and involvement.
Our thoughts are with the people of Libya and the service men and women involved in the strikes.
