Comment: Humanitarian need must take precedence over politics
Helping people survive in the face of disaster should never be conditional.
By Sir Nick Young
In a time of economic hardship at home, the government’s ring-fencing of overseas aid was always going to be controversial.
And so it has proved; never before have organisations, such as my own, seen so many often uncomfortable column inches devoted to questioning the UK’s support to people overseas.
The new financial commitments have quite rightly brought fresh scrutiny, and this is a debate that must be welcomed.
Less than a month ago the government published a review of development aid provided to other governments. As a result UK support for developing economies will aim to maximise value for money and align more closely with foreign policy and the intangible “national interest”.
This week Paddy Ashdown released his review of how the UK provides aid in response to humanitarian disasters.
It is absolutely right that questions are asked of how governments and international aid organisations can work better together to respond to humanitarian emergencies, wherever they may be.
It is right too that public money is put to best use.
But amongst all the factors to be considered in responding to humanitarian disasters – value for money, efficiency, political convenience or national interest – it is humanitarian need which must be paramount above all others.
Taxpayers quite rightly demand public money be spent wisely, efficiently and transparently, but we cannot allow politics, economics or national interest to limit our help to people in dire humanitarian need.
Helping people survive in the face of disaster should never be conditional.
In a little over a year, incalculable misery has been played out for the world to see in Haiti and Pakistan; earthquakes have struck New Zealand and Chile; refugee crises are ongoing in Libya and the Ivory Coast, and Japan has suffered appallingly at the hands of a huge earthquake and tsunami.
Disasters are indiscriminate in who they affect, and our response too must show no prejudice.
In January the world reflected on the marked, but painfully slow, pace of recovery in Haiti one year on from an earthquake that has reduced an already poor country to rubble.
It is said that it would take 200 trucks working seven days a week 11 years to clear the debris. But crucially that would also assume a functioning road network and transport infrastructure – something Haiti simply does not have.
In such an environment, achieving success comes at a high price. In Haiti, as elsewhere, those most in need are often the hardest and most expensive to reach.
There is a real danger that too rigid an approach to cost effectiveness and value for money could make reaching those who are most vulnerable even harder.
The earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan has shown that rich countries too, even those which are well prepared, can see communities shattered and individuals left destitute.
At the British Red Cross we have been humbled by the willingness of the public to offer support regardless of any consideration other than the desire to help fellow humans in distress.
The Japanese Red Cross deployed immediately following the tsunami, sending specialist medical teams and thousands of volunteers to affected areas.
Rather than send response teams from the UK, we agreed with the Japanese that the best way to we could help them would be to facilitate the transfer of public donations from Britain to Japan to support the momentous task of recovery.
We know that loss of life in major disasters is less in countries with developed infrastructure.
We know, too, that reducing the need to deploy teams from overseas by building local resilience and capacity to respond is absolutely key in improving disaster response.
It’s an approach the international Red Cross Movement has championed for years.
Sir Nick Young is chief executive of the British Red Cross.
The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Speakers Corner are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.
