Lynne Featherstone MP writes…the Aid budget and the Ministry of Defence

Despite extensive media coverage this morning, the aid budget is not about to be slashed to fund the Ministry of Defence.

All aid spending from the Department of International Development (DFID) is in line with internationally agreed guidelines. There is a strict definition of what can count as Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), which was established by the OECD. For example, aid cannot be spent on combat operations nor on military equipment.

It can be (and is) used to train another country’s security forces in human rights awareness, including gender-based violence issues – something I’m sure all Liberal Democrats support.

What the Prime Minister actually said was that fragile and conflict-affect states have not met a single Millennium Development Goal between them. He also said “if you can help deliver security and help provide stability, and help with stabilisation, that is the base from which all development can proceed”.

I absolutely agree.

As part of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, the Coalition Government publicly pledged to invest 30% of our bilateral aid in fragile and conflict-affected countries by 2014/15 and DFID works closely with the FCO and the MoD to make sure our approach is joined up, including through the Conflict Pool which provides funding for conflict prevention.

So the Prime Minister’s comments simply confirmed our shared commitment to upstream conflict prevention and our shared agenda of joining up the work MoD, FCO and DFID carry out.

And don’t forget – joining up these departments to promote stability and peace is a policy Liberal Democrats have long advocated.

* Lynne Featherstone is a minister at the Department for International Development and blogs at www.lynnefeatherstone.org.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/33334 for Twitter and emails.

8 Comments

  • John Vincent 21st Feb '13 - 6:24pm

    Clarification much appreciated

  • We don’t yet know the full remit of Cameron’s proposals, but I don’t believe that what he is reported to have said today takes account of the bigger picture:

    Leaving aside the ambiguity around the OECD guidance and peacekeeping, blurring the line between development, diplomacy and defence is dangerous and risks undermining DfID’s reputation. Further, pouring more cash into the ‘Conflict Pool’ is a highly dubious idea owing to its lack of strategic foresight and incapacity to measure results.

    Also, rape is rarely ‘a weapon of war’ and target states don’t need us to ship a British Army Training Team overseas to teach combatants that rape is bad. What we need to do is help address the political and economic factors that give rise to the impunity that permits rape to occur on such a pervasive scale, in some regions of some countries.

    Although I wait with much anticipation to see what the combined DfID/MoD/FCO strategy will be for tackling these issues, I believe that it is a job best led by DfID and where possible their in-country partners.

  • Clarification much appreciated, the elephant cosily tucked in the room seems to be whether the military are sufficiently resourced to conduct operations in fragile states. Envious eyes cast at DFID’s resources can’t distract from the original issue.

    Mark Pack’s example of rape being used as a weapon of war is an incredibly striking example. The issue is also whether the UK can prevent money which is allocated for international aid or could potentially be used for aid to being diverted for military purposes in conflict states.

    Finally, does it also count as aid where you have entities like the British Council providing and offering language support (mainly english) to serving military officers in conflict countries?

  • Surely a prime example of gender-based violence in wartime would be for example when soldiers from a Balkan ethnicity enter a village and take away all the men and boys over 15 to be shot? So presumably the training is going to say they should take away the women too? Or is “gender-based” another of these terms which only works one way?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJoshua Dixon 30th Jul - 1:58pm
    Simon - The thinking behind the loan sell off was to plug spending black holes in the treasury. The reason using the sell off of...
  • User AvatarSimon McGrath 30th Jul - 1:58pm
    John - no need to rely on US assessment of the safety of fracking. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering carried out...
  • User AvatarJoshua Dixon 30th Jul - 1:55pm
    Hello all! I'm looking to hopefully write a follow up piece to this in future regarding some of the "solutions" to the problem that is...
  • User AvatarDavid Evershed 30th Jul - 1:54pm
    The biggest injustice for today's young gereration is that the older generation (via the government) is borrowing at an unsustainable level to avoid cut backs...
  • User AvatarMalcolm Todd 30th Jul - 1:53pm
    Glenn The idea that "we" would react with "the full force [of] our navies, air forces, ground troupes and armoured divisions" to the sort of...
  • User AvatarSimon McGrath 30th Jul - 1:52pm
    ". Thankfully, campaigners have managed to fight off the latest quick-fix funding solution, the privatisation of student loans" can you explain why this is good...