On Monday David Cameron pledged £814 million of British money to vaccinate over 80 million children in poverty stricken countries. The Prime Minister’s promise came at the GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation) fundraising conference in London. Cameron stated that Britain ‘will play its full part’ in ensuring that children in the world’s poorest countries no longer die from easily preventable diseases such as diarrhoea and pneumonia.
Britain’s donation, which exceeded GAVI’s expectations, was the largest of the conference. It was followed in size by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, whose billionaire founders pledged £800 million after months of intense campaigning for the cause. Norway was the second most altruistic country as it agreed to £415 million of aid.
This controversial commitment by the Coalition government is an integral part of their efforts to establish Britain as a ‘development superpower’. This term was recently introduced by Sir John Major, in a Sunday Telegraph article, and has been swiftly adopted by Cameron and Andrew Mitchell’s Department for International Development. Mitchell has said that he hopes the British people will become as proud of Britain’s aid work as they are of the monarchy and the Armed Forces.
The Department for International Development is one of only two Whitehall departments to have escaped the budget cuts of the coming years. Through this, and under Mitchell’s ‘development superpower’ aspirations, the UK is leading developed countries in terms of foreign aid. By 2013 the aid budget will meet 0.7% of GDP, the only G8 country forecast to reach this international target.
Yet Cameron’s flagship policy on aid has been viciously attacked, not least from the right-wing of his own party. The Prime Minister’s greatest critics argue that ringfencing the aid budget in times of an economic recession is dangerous and portrays Britain as a ‘soft touch’. When there are such great numbers of people struggling to survive in our own country, shouldn’t charity start and stay at home? Furthermore, isn’t charity at home the principle behind Cameron’s Big Society?
This is certainly the view of the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, who has voiced anger at the increase in the aid budget whilst the Armed Forces face drastic cuts. Fox, in a leaked letter to The Times, expressed his concerns over creating a statutory requirement to spend 0.7% of GDP on aid. Fox claimed that enshrining the aid budget promise in law could put the government at risk of a legal challenge in the future.
His scepticism is undoubtedly held by other Tories who object to tax payers’ money being directed away from domestic concerns. The general public also seem to be distinctly dubious about the idea of foreign aid. The campaigning organisation One conducted an on street survey which suggested that the majority of people believed the UK gave ‘too much’ aid and that it should be reduced, especially in the current climate. Such interviewees seemed perplexed that on the one hand the government could be justifying cuts due to the country’s lack of money, whilst on the other donating huge sums abroad.
Cynicism aside, Cameron’s remarkable pledge represents Britain taking a clear moral lead, an approach which ought to be praised rather than condemned. The UK, though undeniably struggling in an ‘age of austerity’, remains the sixth wealthiest country in the world. Its economic position should and must carry with it a duty to support those significantly less fortunate. No British citizen would stand to see their child, or one they knew, die of an illness which could be easily prevented by one vaccination.
In a recent article in The Independent, Jemima Khan put the issue in to perspective by citing the cost of a life saving vaccine as less than a cup of coffee in the UK. Behind access to clean drinking water, vaccines have saved more lives internationally than any other form of aid. They annually already prevent the death of 2.5 million children. Yet, there are still 2 million children who die each year because they have no access to vaccines. It is astounding to think that drugs which are taken for granted in countries such as the UK have the ability to save millions of lives, and cost just a few pounds. In the meantime we are lobbying the NHS for cancer drugs which can cost over £70,000 for a single course of treatment, and can extend a life by only a few months. The comparison, although perhaps rather callous, ought to be considered.
The charity CAFOD has campaigned heavily in favour of the government’s commitment to ringfencing 0.7% of GDP for foreign aid. In support of CAFOD’s work Bishop Rudolf Deng Majak, of Wau in southern Sudan, recently responded to Liam Fox’s objections to the government’s pledge. Bishop Wau wrote, in a Guardian article, that aid ‘is a moral issue, not political football’. As Chairman of Sudanaid the Bishop has personal experience of the overwhelming poverty of this country and its desperate reliance on money from developed nations. In his diocese for every ten babies born, one will die before its fifth Birthday. It is exactly these types of communities which GAVI, with the UK’s support, hopes to help.
Foreign aid is undoubtedly a politically divisive issue and a worthy subject of debate especially in the context of the government’s drastic cuts. However, it must remain a part of government policy regardless of the economic situation at home. Moreover it must be something in which we are proud to be leading the rest of the world.
Anna Connell-Smith has recently completed a degree in Modern History and Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London.
