ON Tuesday the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom stood up in Parliament and compared British foreign aid to “a giant cash point in the sky”, made allusions to British ambassadors needing to have the leverage of aid money to stop local leaders from “cutting off the head of their opponents” and at times sounded like he was just two difficult questions away from reprising his deeply racist lines about “cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies” and Africans with “watermelon smiles”.
The Prime Minister was in the Commons to announce that a long-held desire of the Tory right was about to be realised. In the middle of the Covid-19 crisis and with all it entails for the poorest countries in the world, the UK’s highly regarded Department for International Development (DfID) is to be amalgamated into the Foreign Office. This, it seems, is the final nail in the coffin of Britain’s brief foray into what Robin Cook once described as an ethical foreign policy.
What are we to understand by this move? Aid, it seems, is now to be a vehicle of “British interests” not just as an end in itself but rather, in the PM’s words, to be provided with reference “to the diplomatic, political and commercial priorities of the Government of the UK”. In other words, for a quid pro quo, as wider leverage to get what we want. This raises very real concern for future trade and economic development deals with developing countries.
Take, for example, Fairtrade, which has the power to lift millions out of poverty and ensure sustainable development. During Fairtrade Fortnight 2020, the UK was visited by ambassadors from the “She Deserves A Living Income” campaign who are calling for living incomes for female cocoa farmers in West Africa. They attended a reception at Westminster where they listened to fine words of support from Government ministers. What are we to make of that now?
Boris Johnson’s Commons speech seemed to envisage taking aid away from African countries like Zambia and Tanzania and focusing it instead on Ukraine and the Western Balkan states as part of the Government’s security policy. However, the reality is, according Oxfam GB’s CEO Danny Sriskandarajah, that over half of Zambians live in extreme poverty, whereas no-one in Ukraine does.
Contrast the position of Ireland’s President Michael Higgins, who recently delivered a keynote address on Europe and Africa identifying the coronavirus as a global problem which requires a global response and represents an opportunity for the global community to forge a new approach to its relationship with Africa.
It’s a sad indictment of Boris Johnson that the president of Ireland has a better understanding of Europe’s responsibilities towards Africa than the PM of Great Britain. Boris Johnson needs to remember that Britain’s imperial history and the rich benefits derived from the slave trade and exploiting natural resources brings with it certain moral responsibilities.
And what about the lip service paid by the Tories to the Black Lives Matter movement?
We were starkly reminded of the inequalities at home when at the weekend the third anniversary of the Grenfell fire passed with still no justice for the victims and Channel 4 News revealed that the UK Government had suppressed aspects of the report about the true extent of the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities.
Like George Floyd, the last words of many of those who died in the Grenfell Tower were “I can’t breathe”. I have met many of the survivors. A large proportion of the victims were from BAME communities. Theresa May promised that no stone would be left unturned in finding out how such a terrible tragedy could occur in one of the richest boroughs of London, but she went on to make sure that the effects of discrimination on the grounds of class and race were excluded from the inquiry’s terms of reference.
THREE years later, coronavirus has underlined racial disparities as it has been revealed that people from BAME backgrounds in England have up to a 50% higher risk of dying from Covid-19 than white British people.
Undaunted, Boris Johnson emerged from beneath the cover of his favourite safety blanket, The Daily Telegraph, to announce yet another review into race inequality.
The SNP joined forces with Labour to question why another review is needed. David Lammy spoke eloquently of the numerous reviews that have been carried out over recent years and are still gathering dust with many of their recommendations unimplemented. His own review into the treatment of and outcomes for BAME individuals in the English criminal justice system made 35 specific time-limited recommendations – yet to be implemented. Elish Angiolini, Scotland’s former Lord Advocate, carried out a report into deaths in police custody in England which disproportionately involve BAME men. She made 110 recommendations. The Tories are sitting on these too.
There is already plenty of evidence of discrimination against BAME people in British society, so what the British Government needs to do is act on that evidence, not kick it further into the long grass with yet another review. In Scotland, we like to think we have a better tale to tell, but there should be no room for complacency. It is five years since the death of Sheku Bayoh in police custody in circumstances which gave rise to suspicion that the colour of his skin played a part in the treatment he received. Fortunately, there will now be an inquiry into his death which will specifically consider the role race played, but a date has yet to be fixed and the length of time it has taken to get to his stage is simply not acceptable.
On overseas aid, Scotland has a proud tradition of working with Malawi, and the 48 SNP MPs elected last year were elected on a manifesto to support a stand-alone foreign aid department. With Johnson at the helm of what Patrick Grady has so accurately described as Little Britain (as opposed to Global Britain), it seems that without independence, emulating Ireland’s internationalism is for now only a dream.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel