There is currently a lot of talk about overseas aid budgets right now. It’s one of those areas of government spending ripe for a bit of exasperation and prime territory for cuts. Many wonder why we would send money overseas at all when we have our own deficient services at home. Wouldn’t the money be better kept and spent on UK taxpayers who have produced the funds?
The view, whilst understandable, labours under a misconception of what overseas aid is doing and how it is an entirely self-interested thing to do in and of itself. Let’s just be real: almost nothing happens in government spending terms that is not self-serving. If there was no benefit to our country in giving overseas aid, we wouldn’t do it. It is as simple as that. Whilst it is often billed in moral and altruistic terms – also for its own political benefits – this is not the primary driver behind sending such funds overseas.
Once we understand this, we might start to wrap our heads around why such overseas aid is often spent on, let’s say, things of questionable value. Likewise, it also explains why we put a lot of overseas aid into certain countries and considerably less into others. It also explains why other wealthy nations pour their overseas aid into different countries to us.
Speaking to broadcasters on Wednesday, Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, said that while it was “devastating” to cut aid, the cabinet was “united that the number one responsibility of any government is to keep its citizens safe”.
The irony here being, we are removing overseas aid in order to bolster our defence spending on the basis that government’s main responsibility if to keep its citizens safe. But the case for overseas spending is specifically related to keeping citizens safe and, moreover, a means of accessing materials that, whilst not necessarily primarily about safety (though, in some cases, also linked directly to defence) are more broadly concerned with the wellbeing and happiness of our citizens, which is a similar government priority.
The Guardian report:
MPs from several wings of the party told the Guardian they were deeply worried at the plans.
“It’s incredibly disappointing,” one said. “Reducing our foreign aid budget reduces our soft power and support for developing countries, which will impact us; it will make migration more likely.”
Another said: “The increase in defence spending is absolutely right but they could have done it another way. The aid programme, if directed, can play a crucial role in future conflict prevention and is also crucial for climate migration in some of the world’s most climate-stressed places which, if not supported, will mean millions will have to leave their homes as they are uninhabitable.”
Here are some of the self-interested reasons for overseas aid. Spending money in foreign nations to improve their infrastructure is seen as part of how we might stop migrants seeking a better life here. If you are concerned about migration, overseas aid exists to make other nations a better prospect for those looking to move.
Further, the little point skipped over, was ‘soft power’. Soft power is the means by which we gain influence in nations. Influence that often open the door to, among other things, being permitted to have army, navy and air force bases in stationed in those countries. This is linked directly to our defence. Similarly, it is influence that helps British businesses access resources from those countries, benefitting both our economy and allowing us access to resources that are the essence of modern life.
On top of all this, when we leave a vacuum, we allow other countries – less helpful and friendly countries e.g. Russia and China, among others – to gain a foothold in these same places. This allows them to access resources that make other sanctions we put on them internationally toothless and gives them access to all the defence benefits of such soft power that we give up by removing aid. As Diane Abbott rightly pointed out, ‘moving money from aid to defence “makes people less safe, not more safe because the desperation and the poverty that so often leads to warfare is what aid and development money is supposed to counter”. It further fails to recognise the problems it directly causes us in relation to our own defence such things occur.
There are other things we could say here. The point is, it may not always be obvious how and why our spending benefits us more broadly. It may not always be obvious how even otherwise apparently useless bits of spending are serving our wider defensive purposes. What needs to be recognised, however, is that as easy as it is to cut overseas aid and suggest it is of no value to British people, our money in that regard is often doing more for us than many might realise – even when it sometimes looks like its funding questionable things. Often the point is the ability to give examples of money committed for education and infrastructure in order to prove commitments to the country and to gain, through soft power and influence, benefits of our own. It is fundamentally how every country operates in its own interests on the world stage.
I think there may be a lesson to learn here in the church. We can be quick to think things ought to be cut or resources spent elsewhere because we can’t necessarily see the cash-value we get out of them. This can sometimes be the detriment of the wider benefit those things bring to the mission or work of the church.
Much soft evangelism can seem like this. What is the fundamental benefit of going to the same café a few times every week? What is the benefit of just going out and having coffee with people? What is the benefit of sitting around chatting? It can all feel very inefficient and often like we aren’t achieving very much at all. Some of these things might even be viewed as the equivalent of funding education on modern art for Afghan peasant women. In many ways, the obvious question seems to be: what’s the point? On the face of it, these things are the easy target of ridicule as they don’t seem especially effective.
However, when we set some of these things in a broader framework, they start to make a degree of sense. Sometimes, we are simply aiming for a bit of presence. It is, in evangelistic terms, the soft power and influence. There might not be any immediate or obvious evangelistic value, certainly not immediately, but that very presence and commitment to a place may be the beginnings of our gaining the real foothold for the gospel that we want.
The same goes for so many things. What’s the point of writing a blog like this for example? For those who have never done it, for those who think it must take up vast amounts of time, for those who (rightly) think preaching the Word and person-focused discipleship are the core tasks of the church, it looks like a vast waste of time. But people don’t always appreciate the wider framework within which it is done. They don’t always see how it can serve our people in less visible ways. They don’t always realise the connections it builds up. They don’t always understand the soft connections, that sometimes become (later on) much more solid connections, that are built because of it. I think pastors writing blogs, if ever there was one, is the equivalent of overseas aid spending. Seemingly valueless to us until you start to see the tangible results and understand the wider method going on. And some people may never see, or fully see, those results. To some degree, you have to trust that those who do recognise it is accomplishing something and it is more valuable than we might credit from our vantage point.
But I think you see this all over bits of ministry. Stuff that seems pointless. Stuff that takes up our time. Stuff that eats up our resources. We shouldn’t be blind to the possibility that some of it really is a waste of time and genuinely won’t produce any real value for the kingdom. We have to accept that may be true, acknowledge its a bit of a dog and – as one pastor friend used to say with troubling frequency – not be afraid to shoot your dogs. At the same time, much like overseas aid budgets, we have to have some room for the possibility that there is more going on. We might not fully grasp the on the face of it value of whatever this ministry or activity is bringing, it isn’t even wrong to ask honest and genuine questions of those making those decisions, but there must be some room (particularly in our church leaders) that these things may have more value for the ministry we’ve been called to do and more legitimate gospel value than we might see at the time.
Of course, the proof of the pudding is when these things cash out. Or, more specifically, when we pull the plug and realise that these things were being far more helpful and effective than we ever credited them for. The problem is, once we pull the plug, it’s not always easy to plug stuff back in again and expect it to pick up where it left off. Whilst we shouldn’t be scared to finish what is no longer seemingly of value, we must be careful that we don’t make somewhat limited value judgements based on the wrong metrics or a worm’s eye view. Being a little circumspect can be helpful because, whilst we can sometimes revive what we should never have stopped, we can’t always resume with the same effect and benefit what we once had.