Aid and Development: corporate drivel

By Richard North - November 21, 2023

Yesterday was supposed to be David Cameron’s big moment as he delivered his first major initiative as foreign secretary – a White Paper on international development.

With the wordy title “International development in a contested world: ending extreme poverty and tackling climate change”, it has scarcely made a ripple on yesterday’s legacy media, with the Telegraph not actually bothering to review the 149-page document thereby giving us some clue as to the defining aspects of what is supposed to be a comprehensive policy update.

One can hardly complain about this, though. The document is essentially unreadable – not that the prose is challenging in the sense of its readability. Rather, its stilted corporate-speak freezes the brain and drives comprehension to the edge as one struggles to extract meaning.

We are told, for instance that this new White Paper stems from the UN’s 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which – if we didn’t know already – present a development framework for people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership for development, all to be to be achieved by 2030.

Since then, of course, we’ve had a few minor perturbations in the peace department, most notably Ukraine. But, scanning the global situation, the top ten, including Ukraine, takes in Armenia and Azerbaijan, Iran with its massive anti-regime protests and Yemen, where the long-standing conflict between the government and the Huthi rebels looks ripe for another kick-off.

Then, there’s Ethiopia – a perennial area of conflict, where the deadly war in and around the Tigray region has ground to a halt for the moment, but the calm is illusory and fragile. You can add to that the instability in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where tens of thousands of people have been driven from their homes, plus the entire Sahel belt, taking in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, riven by coups and murderous Jihadist insurgencies.

Somewhat less than prominent in our daily news is the situation in Haiti, which seems on the brink of civil war, with the government barely in control, where hundreds of gangs control more than half of the country, suffocate the capital, Port-au-Prince, by blocking roads and imposing a reign of terror.

Pakistan also makes the list, dogged by perennial political instability, with the country falling apart economically and struggling with Islamic terrorist groups, as the unresolved issue of Kashmir continues to exert its malign influence – poised, as it is, to erupt without warning at any time. But number ten on this list is Taiwan, the potential flash-point between the US and the PRC, with no clues as to how this will pan out.

Not included is the conflict in Sudan and the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and nor has Gaza and the Hamas-Israel conflict made the cut, coming too later in the year for the soothsayers to predict – yet spreading instability throughout the entire Middle East, with the distinct risk that separate local conflicts merge into a larger regional war.

Neither is there any mention of the ongoing civil war in Myanmar, where government forces have suffered serious reverses, and the country may be on close to falling apart – spreading instability across the Indian border and into Bangladesh, another country that is on the brink.

The point of all this, if it isn’t already obvious, is that the world seems to be going through a worrying bout of instability which some analysts are suggesting has its parallels to the situation in the 1930s, just before the outbreak of the Second World War.

And yet, Cameron’s great masterpiece dribbles on about the “universal framework” of the SDGs, linking the aims of investing in people’s health and education, tackling poverty, building the prosperity and jobs that economies need, supporting peace and security, and protecting our fragile planet.

As it stands, we are halfway through this mystical SDG programme, with only 15 percent of the “indicators” due to be met. The Covid pandemic set back the programme, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has intensified energy and food insecurity around the world and an increasing number of countries are in severe debt and unable to access affordable finance to grow their economies.

But at least there is an acknowledgement that “conflict is increasing in many parts of the world”, which Cameron’s White Paper tells us, makes for “a contested and volatile world”, where” global development co-operation is more difficult, but more important, than ever”.

Later on in the Paper, we do get a little detail to clothe this homily, as we are told that conflict state fragility and instability are on the rise and holding back development, with the impacts spreading in affected regions, as seen in the growing challenges faced in the Sahel and the Middle East. In 2022, we are thus informed, there were 55 violent conflicts and a 97 percent increase in deaths on the previous year.

We also learn that “human costs of conflict are high and rising” – something of a “No Shit! Sherlock”, statement, unsurprisingly with women and children particularly affected.

In 2022, says the White Paper, conflict and insecurity were the most significant causes of high levels of acute food insecurity for around 117 million people in 19 countries and territories. Up to two-thirds of the world’s extreme poor will live in fragile and conflict-affected contexts by 2030.

With that, one might have thought that the global priority, amounting to an unequivocal sine qua non would be measures to reduce and resolve some of the ongoing conflicts. In such a context, mediation, military intervention, and peacekeeping might get a look in.

From the hero of Libya, though, we get no such ideas. Rather, the key to tackling “challenges that do not respect borders” is “global development co-operation”. Devolving to extruded verbal material, we are instructed that it is necessary to build the open and stable international order in which all countries, including the United Kingdom (UK), can secure their interests, and in which we and others can prosper.

Tucked in there is the establishment poison, with the view that “migration, where properly managed, can be a win-win” – as if there was any likelihood of it being “properly managed”, but the key motif is “co-operation” – but conflict has to take its turn.

Top of the list is tackling climate change, followed by biodiversity loss. Then comes growing trade and commercial opportunity, and only then do we see “improving security and reducing conflict”.

With a growing sense of foreboding, we are then directed to a “re-energised international development agenda”, to enable the UK to work “with our partners”. And here we go: the priorities include going further and faster to mobilise international finance to end extreme poverty.

We will tackle climate change and biodiversity loss, power sustainable growth and increase private sector investment in development; strengthening and reforming the international system to improve action on trade, tax, debt, tackling dirty money and corruption, and delivering on global challenges like health, climate, nature and energy transition.

On top of all that, we will harness innovation and new technologies, science and research for the greatest and most cost-effective development impact, as well as ensuring opportunities for all, putting women and girls centre stage and investing in education and health systems that societies want.

Not content with that, we are going to “champion” action to address state fragility, and anticipate and prevent conflict, humanitarian crises, climate disasters and threats to global health. This means, as one might expect, building resilience and enabling adaptation for those affected by conflict, disasters and climate change, strengthening food security, social protection, disaster risk financing and building state capability.

And, of course, where would we be without “standing up for our values, for open inclusive societies, for women and girls, and preventing roll-back of rights”.

In order to deliver, “patient and mutually respectful relationships will be central”. You will all be delighted to learn that the UK “will listen to and champion the asks of developing countries in the international system”, and as the sun sets on the distant upland, our country partnerships “will focus on supporting countries’ own plans, prioritising their capability and building their resilience”.

And so it goes on, page after page of vacuous drivel, with not the slightest doffing of the cap to the real world, or the root causes of the problems. All this says the Guardian is part of Cameron’s “moral mission”, for which he wants to “unlock billions of dollars”.

But Bill Gates loves it, as does Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, which really tells you all you need to know. It’s not really surprising that the media could hardly be bothered with it.