Ray Baguma, a journalist from the New Vision newspaper in Kampala, Uganda, was a guest at TheTimes CEO Summit in London, joining over 100 chief executives from top British companies as they discussed the future of Britain. He questioned the Chancellor on his promise not to cut spending on international aid
Following the recent budget presented by George Osborne amidst budget cuts and national debt, British taxpayers are questioning how the UK government could decide to ringfence the aid and development budget. This, some argue, is to prop up aid recipient governments, mainly from my home continent Africa, that are ridden with corruption and lack of transparency.
So foreign aid will remain intact, while there are cuts in other benefits for British citizens, children and the disabled Britons. DFID must be the most enviable government department to work for at the moment. But to the British taxpayer, this sounds like the head of a household who leaves his children to starve, while he goes on to provide food to the neighbour’s family.
The first time I met Chancellor Osborne was in 2007, when he visited Uganda to tour the Millennium Villages Project piloted by Prof Jeffrey Sachs. Osborne was a rising star but still in the shadow of Alastair Campbell. As a reporter, I moved alongside him in the rural countryside of Uganda covering stories and taking photos as he ate boiled sweetcorn from a farmer’s garden. So, I am sure that Osborne has witnessed African poverty and toil at close range, and tasted African corn, grown with a hand hoe.
Now three years later, with the key to the treasury, Mr Osborne remembers those Ugandan children who entertained him while he sat on a wooden chair under a mango tree in Isingiro district. He pledges to provide for their education, mosquito nets for the tots, condoms for Dad and pills for Mum.
The UK government will honour the commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GDP on overseas aid from 2013, and to enshrine this commitment in law to guarantee consistent aid to the families in Isingiro. So, the aid budget becomes a sacred Hindu cow that cannot be slaughtered.
I had flown into the UK by jet – and to borrow Mr Osborne’s words – to connect to the global economy for the first time, in London. I am not a CEO; but as a journalist from Uganda, East Africa. In more ways than one, I was already connected to the global economy for instance I listen to the BBC on a radio receiver from China, I travel in a Japanese Toyota and my Weinbrenner pair of black shoes is made in the US.
It is not my role to defend the English taxpayer; but logic demands that you would first take charge of your household before your neighbours. Britain and Uganda are linked by the Commonwealth. In fact, British royal personalities like Albert, Edward, George and Queen Victoria have Ugandan lakes named after them.
Osborne says that UK has a moral obligation to deliver its promises has made at donor conferences. Never mind the broken promise to fulfil the Gleneagles summit commitments. Giving the little is a step towards fulfilling the promise. And in any case, among the G8 countries, Britain spends the largest proportion of its national income on aid ahead of France, Germany, USA and Italy.
Well, should not the British taxpayers be happy that it’s good public relations for the home government to have a good image as the most philanthropic administration? Thanks to their sweat, the UK is the fourth largest donor in the world. After all, this is small money compared to what Britain got from its former colonies. Wait a minute; these are not reparations for colonialism.
In the London Council Hall and I ask Osborne how the UK government chooses to do this at the expense of the British taxpayer. The UK bilateral aid to Uganda is £71.1 million and some of it goes to corrupt Ugandan civil servants who build palatial country homes, equipped with solar and satellite TV.
Meanwhile the UK government launches the new UK Aid Transparency Guarantee to check on the civil servant and politician in the aid recipient country. It is a good move, but the onus should be on the African countries to strengthen accountability systems to improve transparency. This should not be the role of the donor.
Nevertheless, there should be no cause to worry for the UK taxpayer. In fact, the one to worry may be the Africans in the Diaspora who toil hard to send money back to their families in Africa. With the 20% VAT increase, the remittances will certainly reduce. The corrupt African politician (usually a man) has an offshore bank account in a European bank where he keeps the booty. Somehow, the donor money to Africa returns to the UK and European economies.
This article was originally published in The Times