Post by ashliy on Jan 24, 2017 14:32:57 GMT
In our Brexity, Trumpist times, you only need to see the words "foreign aid" to understand that such a thing - and also its entire operational philosophy - is in jeopardy. In the midst of a populist right, wrecking ball attack on all that was once presumed to be safe, something that puts the words "foreign" and "aid" alongside each other like that is clearly in for a kicking.
Donald Trump made this very clear during an election campaign in which he pledged to "stop sending aid to countries that hate us". He is not the first Republican to talk in these terms and so, thankfully, the internet has already explained the rationale behind sending aid to countries that hate the United States and, moreover, has pointed out that the second largest beneficiary of US aid is its solid bestie Israel.
But recently, the tone and type of questions sent by Team Trump to the US state department regarding aid to Africa has caused some alarm, according to The New York Times. Noting that Americans believe their country spends 25 percent of GDP on aid (it is actually less than 1 percent), the paper reports that one of the questions from Team Trump was: "Why should we spend these funds on Africa when we are suffering here in the US?"
It's the same crowbar used by some of Britain's right-wing papers to wrench open the issue of United Kingdom foreign aid. There have been fairly regular rumblings over Britain's aid budget - it is one of the world's highest.
WATCH - Foreign aid to Afghanistan has 'low impact' (2:43)
But recently, sections of the UK press went after an aid recipient they misleadingly dubbed "Ethiopia's Spice Girls" - a pop group, Yenga, part of a wider project to empower women.
This UK-funded project uses talk radio, social media and music, among other platforms, to discuss issues such as forced marriages and access to education - and seems to have had a measurably positive effect.
The misreporting of Yenga and its umbrella project, Girl Effect, was dissected in a Twitter thread by one of Al Jazeera's online editors, who has reported from Ethiopia.
Described a "blood-boiling waste of taxpayers' money", Yenga's funding - which has now been scrapped, a development which the Daily Mail claims as a victory - was set against a UK crisis in social care and in the health service, making clear, Trump-style, that the money could be better spent at home.
Setting us against each other
The UK's social care crisis is the product of deep ideological cuts imposed by the Conservative government. Britain, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, is also home to 3.9 million children who live in poverty and more than a million people who use foodbanks.
But the juxtaposition of foreign aid with domestic need, in the UK as in the US, is nothing to do with fund allocations or budget balances, much less with opposition to rampant wealth inequality, on either side of the Atlantic.
It's about the populist right taking things apart by deploying zero-sum game rules: for us to win, someone else has to lose. Or, to rephrase the message to suit the crude spirit of the times: we can't win if Africa is winning, with our money.
www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/scapegoating-foreign-aid-170124093550179.html
These zero-sum games that these people play in real life are going to get (more) people killed.
Donald Trump made this very clear during an election campaign in which he pledged to "stop sending aid to countries that hate us". He is not the first Republican to talk in these terms and so, thankfully, the internet has already explained the rationale behind sending aid to countries that hate the United States and, moreover, has pointed out that the second largest beneficiary of US aid is its solid bestie Israel.
But recently, the tone and type of questions sent by Team Trump to the US state department regarding aid to Africa has caused some alarm, according to The New York Times. Noting that Americans believe their country spends 25 percent of GDP on aid (it is actually less than 1 percent), the paper reports that one of the questions from Team Trump was: "Why should we spend these funds on Africa when we are suffering here in the US?"
It's the same crowbar used by some of Britain's right-wing papers to wrench open the issue of United Kingdom foreign aid. There have been fairly regular rumblings over Britain's aid budget - it is one of the world's highest.
WATCH - Foreign aid to Afghanistan has 'low impact' (2:43)
But recently, sections of the UK press went after an aid recipient they misleadingly dubbed "Ethiopia's Spice Girls" - a pop group, Yenga, part of a wider project to empower women.
This UK-funded project uses talk radio, social media and music, among other platforms, to discuss issues such as forced marriages and access to education - and seems to have had a measurably positive effect.
The misreporting of Yenga and its umbrella project, Girl Effect, was dissected in a Twitter thread by one of Al Jazeera's online editors, who has reported from Ethiopia.
Described a "blood-boiling waste of taxpayers' money", Yenga's funding - which has now been scrapped, a development which the Daily Mail claims as a victory - was set against a UK crisis in social care and in the health service, making clear, Trump-style, that the money could be better spent at home.
Setting us against each other
The UK's social care crisis is the product of deep ideological cuts imposed by the Conservative government. Britain, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, is also home to 3.9 million children who live in poverty and more than a million people who use foodbanks.
But the juxtaposition of foreign aid with domestic need, in the UK as in the US, is nothing to do with fund allocations or budget balances, much less with opposition to rampant wealth inequality, on either side of the Atlantic.
It's about the populist right taking things apart by deploying zero-sum game rules: for us to win, someone else has to lose. Or, to rephrase the message to suit the crude spirit of the times: we can't win if Africa is winning, with our money.
www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/scapegoating-foreign-aid-170124093550179.html
These zero-sum games that these people play in real life are going to get (more) people killed.
