Great Britain has in its budget several billion dollars earmarked to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development for “development”, so one would think that such money could be spent in rebuilding its Caribbean islands that were flattened by Hurricane Irma.
One would be wrong. In fact, the OECD has ruled that the three islands are classed as “too rich” and therefore do not fall within the “allowable” target parameters for the development money. Here’s how it works:
Britain is free to spend its aid wherever it wants – what is at issue is whether it counts towards the Government’s 0.7 per cent target.
Last year, the UK spent £13 billion on aid, money which went towards the target to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on international development. But aid money only counts towards the target if it meets rules set by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
So under current rules, any money we give to the three overseas territories cannot count towards this total. Cash is only eligible if it goes towards a country on the OECD’s list of states which are deemed poor enough.
Countries are ranked according to need, which is intended to ensure the poorest countries take priority. While some UK territories are on this list, the three affected by Irma are not.
I’m sure this will come as welcome news to the British Virgin Islanders:
…and that’s just one town’s damage. Needless to say, various Brit politicians are spitting mad and demanding that the rules be “ripped up” — i.e. they’re advocating anarchy because, after all, rules are rules — but so far the OECD hasn’t budged, which means that the Brits will have to find the budget allocation somewhere else in the budget.
Didn’t one of our Founding Fathers warn against “foreign entanglements”? I think that this one would qualify as a good example thereof.
As a (somewhat lukewarm) Christian, I sometimes get sucked into the argument that Christians should support a welfare state because that’s helping the poor, blah blah blah. My response is always the same, the government is NOT a charity organization. Christian charity toward the needy is NOT resolved through government action. The government cannot perform “good” actions since it does not, by itself, create the wealth that it so freely spends. The government should not help other countries unless it is in clear support of a goal that’s in the best interest of the country.
That England is dedicating 13 billion toward helping global needy is about as practical as stacking all that money in a bonfire and burning it. Complete waste.
Money toward rebuilding English territories is, however, inline with the country’s best interest. Easy enough to figure that out.
I’ve always wondered what would happen if some nation decided to stir up trouble when our own do-gooder government decides to send an aircraft carrier to some blighted area to assist after a natural disaster. You should not tie-up wartime resources performing peace-time actions.
Regarding Christianity and supporting a welfare state:
The parable of the Good Samaritan is all about how each individual has a duty to help his less fortunate fellowmen. The Samaritan stopped and helped the young man, spending his own money to do so. The Samaritan DID NOT head right home and lobby for the government to aid victims of crime.
If you’re a Christian, you don’t get out of your obligation to help the less fortunate just because there is a government program that is supposed to be taking care of it. No program — and no amount of personal virtue — are sufficient excuse to “pass by on the other side.” When you see someone in need, YOU are supposed to help THAT person.
My immediate response to them is “I can point to a dozen verses where Christ Himself commands charity be a private matter. I want you to point me to even ONE verse where He defines charity as sending out the legions to steal alms at spearpoint and having politicians distribute them to great public acclaim for the politician’s virtue. I’ll be living the rest of my life while you look.”
The hissing, spluttering, and exploding heads were entertaining the first dozen times…..
Aporitic, agree. My beef is that some people want to replace the church as a charitable organization with the government as a charitable organization. But neither can fill the role of individual action.