Aid critics would prefer Britain to shut up shop, says Greening

 
12 August 2013

Cabinet minister Justine Greening today hit back at critics of Britain’s aid spending, accusing some of them of wanting the country to “shut up shop”.

The Overseas Aid Secretary launched a staunch defence of UK aid projects including to Nigeria which has its own space programme and to Somalia where some supplies were recently seized or destroyed by terrorists.

More than £900 million of UK funding is set to be spent on health, education and other projects in Nigeria over five years. But Tory MPs have attacked the aid given that three Nigerian space satellites have already been launched and the country has ambitions to have a trained astronaut within two years.

Ms Greening stressed no UK public funds were being given for the west African country’s space schemes.

She also stressed that the satellites, including the British-built NigeriaSat-2, were providing meteorological data to help Nigeria’s 162 million population prepare for natural disasters, as well as monitoring crop yields and carrying out soil studies to support agriculture.

She told the Standard: “In a country like Nigeria where the extremes of both drought and flooding are commonplace, weather forecasting is not about what clothes to wear that day or how warm to wrap up. It is the difference between getting a crop harvest and chronic famine.” The satellites would also aid the battle against piracy, illegal fishing and oil theft, she added.

Pressed on BBC radio over why Britain should fund health and education projects in countries wealthy enough to have their own space programmes, Ms Greening said: “We do expect them to invest in their country as well.”

She believes Nigeria’s satellites are a “sensible investment” by the oil-rich country, which has the second highest national income in Africa but 70 per cent of the population living on less than 64p a day.

Putney MP Ms Greening said the destruction of £480,000 of UK aid supplies in Somalia in a raid by the al-Qaeda linked group Al Shabaab highlighted the instability in the country, and added: “We have a simple choice: either we help foreign governments to deal with terrorists abroad or we do nothing and face a future dealing with them at home or even on foreign battlefields. There are always those who would like Britain to shut up shop and disengage from the world around us. But that is simply not an option.”

Shadow overseas aid secretary Ivan Lewis backed overall UK aid spending as “morally right”. The row comes after senior Ukip politician Godfrey Bloom said Britain should stop sending overseas aid to “bongo bongo land” .

We can shape world we want or let others dictate

Commentary: By Justine Greening

A glance at last week’s newspapers may have left some people thinking that developing nations which receive Britain’s help are on the verge of putting a man on the moon.

But no UK aid money is spent on helping any developing countries with any kind of space mission. Our funding to Nigeria, the country highlighted, goes towards health, education and other projects that make a permanent change for good. So what about these supposed “space programmes”?

While the term might conjure up images of moon landings, shuttle blast-offs and space walks these programmes tend to be about the far less prestigious, yet for them far more vital, business of putting weather and communications satellites into orbit.

It is understandable why Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country at 162.5 million people, might choose to invest in a small number of satellites. Why? Because most of these satellites, including the British-built NigeriaSat-2, are involved in collecting meteorological data so that Nigerians are better prepared for natural disasters, can monitor crop yields, and carry out soil studies to support agriculture and do food supply planning.

In a country like Nigeria where the extremes of both drought and flooding are commonplace, weather forecasting is not about what clothes to wear that day or how warm to wrap up. It is the difference between getting a crop harvest and chronic famine.

Last week’s other reports were about the destruction of £480,000 of British aid supplies in the highly dangerous country of Somalia, where the government is fighting al Qaeda-affiliated terror group Al Shabaab. It shows the huge challenges the Department for International Development faces in working to prevent the likes of Somalia sliding into further lawlessness.

DFID had aid supplies destroyed. Less than two months ago, an Al Shabaab attack on a UN compound in the capital Mogadishu saw the loss of 15 lives, including two UN development staff.

The bottom line is that we have a simple choice: either we help foreign governments to deal with terrorists abroad or we do nothing and face a future dealing with them at home or even on foreign battlefields.

There are always those who would like Britain to shut up shop and disengage from the world around us. But that is simply not an option.

We can either seek to shape the world that we want, and reap the rewards, or sit back and watch while others dictate Britain’s fate.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in