The Overseas Aid Imperative

I am glad that the Government have maintained a strong commitment to overseas aid - even if it is just 1% of our GDP. 
Even with the Budget deficit, and the difficult economy, we still have a duty to the rest of the world.  Aid is not only ethical, but combating poverty saves lives and helps bring stability to the poorest regions of the world.  In doing so, it can stop the migration of populations and curb immigration demand into Western countries.
I thought of this both yesterday and this morning:
Last night I went to thank few local residents who had spent a week living on just one pound a day to spend on food - in order to raise awareness of poverty and to raise money for Africa. 
Today I visited a warehouse in Matching (literally on the outskirts of Harlow), where I met with the Directors of West African Relief.  The warehouse was packed with clothes and other items all to be shipped to Sierra Leone. This charity bas been established by Harlow residents and has linked up with the Phoenix Resource Centre (which rescues consumables from the scrap heap),  also based in Harlow and Northants.  Already a host of celebrities including Miss West Africa have given the charity their backing.
The commitment to aid will only be a real success, if it comes from communities, rather than just Governments diverting taxpayers' money overseas.  Community and government assistance has to be complementary, especially if the argument for overseas aid is to be made.
My own preference is that governments should be 'enablers' for aid: providing some finance,  know-how and acting as facilitators.  But international aid will be most successful if it comes from communities to communities, by passing Government's, quangos et al.
In short, aid should be bilateral rather than go through multilateral agencies like the EU. This would mean projects harnessed by local people, assisted by national Government where necessary, going directly to the people intended, rather than passing first through this or that agency.

Iran: the new Soviet Union of the Middle East

Yesterday in Parliament, there was an urgent debate, about the serious threat of Iran building a secret nuclear weapon.

This is deeply worrying: not only for the Iranian people, who are denied their basic democratic rights and freedoms, but for the entire world.

I made a short speech about this, which follows below:

Robert Halfon (Harlow): I welcome this debate because, contrary to what has just been said, I believe that Iran is in essence the new Soviet Union of the middle east. It supports terrorism. We know well its strong backing of Hezbollah in Lebanon. It supplies Hezbollah with the missiles and the finance that it needs to destabilise the region and to fire attack missiles on Israel. Iran also supports Hamas, and we know what Hamas has done in Gaza, overthrowing the more moderate Palestinian Authority, running a totalitarian mini-state known as Hamastan in Gaza, stopping moves towards peace and regularly firing missiles on Israel.

Iran has also undermined democratic states. Not long ago it fired missiles on to the Kurdish regional Government. It is supporting the Syrian Government of President Assad and his crackdown on the recent anti-Government protests. It has provided the Syrian authorities with equipment, advice and technical know-how to help curtail and monitor internal communications. It has provided material assistance in the form of riot and crowd dispersal material, as well as military training for Syrian troops. Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria are in essence proxies for Iran. We well know that Iran has sent suicide bombers into Iraq and attacked our troops.

All this would be bad enough were it not for Iran’s nuclear programme. As has been said, the development of the nuclear bomb in Iran is incredibly concerning. The IAEA report has been highlighted and clearly shows that Iran has been covertly developing the technology needed to weaponise nuclear material. If we think the current Iranian regime is extreme, its so-called more moderate predecessor said that it would be okay to use a nuclear bomb in the middle east against Israel, because if a few million are killed in the process, it does not matter for the wider good.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman mentioned nuclear weapons. Does he not have concerns that Israel has 200 nuclear warheads and is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Does he not think a nuclear weapons convention including Israel would be a helpful step forward in the region?

Robert Halfon: I am happy for any nuclear convention to reduce nuclear weapons in the middle east, but the crucial point that the hon. Gentleman misses is that Israel is a democracy and Iran is a dictatorship.

Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green): I agree with my hon. Friend. May I point out that it is not Israel which has threatened to wipe its neighbour off the face of the earth? Is that not the key point in this?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend, who is a strong supporter of Israel, is exactly right.

The one difference between Iran and the Soviet Union is that, when the Soviet Union and the west had nuclear weapons, we lived under the doctrine known as MAD, mutually assured destruction, and for MAD to work one had to be sane, but the sad fact is that Iran does not have that level of sanity, given that, as my hon. Friend says, the President often says that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. We know how the regime behaves from its recent treatment and trashing of the UK embassy, from its taking of American hostages and from its many other human rights abuses.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned the abuse of trade unionists and the imprisonment of women, an issue that The Times has highlighted so well, so I strongly welcome the fact that the Government have brought in the tough measures before us. This is the first time the UK has used such powers to cut off an entire country’s banking sector from our financial sector, and that is hugely important not just because of the hoped-for effect of stopping the Iranian nuclear regime, but because of the message that it sends to other tyrannical regimes throughout the world—that Britain will not be weak, but be strong and do everything it can to stop the actions of such dictators.

Although I strongly welcome these tough sanctions and praise the Treasury for having the courage to introduce them, I note that we may be too late. Iran is not far off acquiring a nuclear bomb, and we—perhaps not this country itself, but NATO—may need to take further military action to rid the world of that bomb, to put pressure on the country’s evil regime and to bring about a true democracy, with the rule of law, freedom and everything that the Iranian people deserve.


by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Overseas Aid is an important component of muscular enlightenment

If spent carefully, overseas aid is a vital tool of every neo-con.  It can be used as a force for spreading liberty across the world:  promoting democratic parties, preventing terrorism, stopping disease and starvation.  Too often, the critique of neo-conservatism, has been that  its objectives can be achieved through the use of arms.  "You can't drop democracy from the barrels of a B52 bomber" is the oft quoted refrain.

But neo-conservatism is much more than that.  It is as much about hearts and minds as it is about using military force.   It supports muscular enlightenment:   helping to create and sustain a rule of law, religious tolerance, equality towards women and property rights. Democracy - parliament and elections) is just one of the components of freedom, not the whole sum.  International development is one of the means to achieve that objective.

You can argue about the level of aid, or even that some of it gets wasted.  Both have validity.  I have my own views about finance ending up in the hands of terrorists in the Palestinian Territories for example.

But the principle, that wise aid can advance the cause of greater freedom -for countries suffering from repression - remains strong.  Just because some aid is mis-used, does not mean that all aid is a waste of money.

So, I welcome our Government's support for a decent level of overseas aid spending - especially if it is used to advance muscular enlightenment around the world.

P.S.  It is well worth reading Sir John Major, who makes a similar point HERE

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Read this about Haiti

Following my earlier blog about the tragedy in Haiti, I would recommend you reading this excellent article from David Brooks in the New York Times.

Also worth looking at is an important piece in The Wall Street Journal.

Both articles provide food for thought and make the case for a different approach for aid.

Rwanda Diary

Readers of this blog, will be aware that, Rwanda is a subject close to my heart having spent two summers in Rwanda, teaching English to Rwandan English Teachers. I was delighted to see this Rwandan Diary from Shadow Secretary of State, Andrew Mitchell MP, published on Iain Dale´s website today. It is well worth a read.