DFID to MODODA/ODAMOD?

[John Short]

David Cameron reignited the overseas aid debate yesterday by suggesting that more development money should be spent on security and peacekeeping.
At the end of his trade visit to India, he indicated that if more overseas development cash were spent in conflict areas such as Somalia, this could ease the squeeze on defence spending.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3694512.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9884806/Aid-budget-will-pay-for-peacekeeping-missions.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/foreignaid-cash-could-be-used-to-pacify-war-zones-says-david-cameron-8503922.html

[harnett]

Building on Blair and Short's approach in Sierra Leone and Iraq?  What price the reversion of DFID into the Foreign and Commonwealth office?

[John Short]

Not sure of that in Sierra Leone - remember having a "discussion" with a top brass whose even top boss was keen on the development part but disabused him of this on the grounds of the government budget and budget support compared to silos of unsustainble projects installed by the MoD!  These never materilaised.

[petagny]

In answer to Harnett and at the risk of sparking controversy:

Back in the heady days of 1997, I believed that separation from the FCO was a good move. Now I'm less convinced. Perhaps I'm turning into an old cynic, but also the world seems a different place from then. Isn't the reality that aid is and will increasingly be a tool of foreign policy no matter how it's dressed up in MDGs and Gleneagles Agreements? I've seen DFID pull out of, or begin pulling out of, too many middling income countries where well targeted assistance could have had an impact and would have been welcomed, as well as having important foreign policy significance. The absence of British assistance and the accompanying influence in some of our nearer neighbours, Albania and Moldova for example, is not helpful. DFID winding down in Southeast Asia also seems like an odd idea. 

In 1997, we also had 'an ethical foreign policy': that was rather shorter-lived than DFID! I wouldn't be too perturbed if ODA re-emerged under the FCO.

[harnett]

Can't say I'd be too perturbed either - it would be an honest move.  Those of us that thought that the emergence of DFID and its emphasis on poverty alleviation was exciting have had our ups and downs - a certain realignment from emphasising our colonial links, to supporting the poorest countries (Mozambique being a case in point), has been tempered by Clare Short's support of military intervention in Sierra Leone, Serbia and then a hope of a slice of the action in Iraq before resigning too late (Robin Cook got there first) - and that doublethink was in the good old days - it's got worse since, and appears to be fully out in the open now with the Cameron statement as posted by Short (John).  Given the silence of the present day Labour Party on the Cameron statement then yes - let's amalgamate and at least we all know where we stand.

Having said all that - I'm a firm believer in rule number 1.  The poor want peace and stability; poverty alleviation can only be built on these foundations.