Cameron was determined to increase foreign aid spending to £11.2 billion during his term in government – and he has reached his target. He was so determined that he introduced legislation to protect foreign aid spending from the chancellor’s budget cuts.
At a time when (according to the government) spending has to be curtailed in every government department, the inefficient and corrupt Department for International Development, which has seen a massive 37% increase during term of Cameron’s tenure, is receiving more funds than it has the capacity to spend and is depositing excess funds in the World Bank.
A large proportion of Cameron’s increased foreign aid budget lands in the laps of corrupt dictators around the world.
A report by Transparency International, shows that tens of millions of pounds is being syphoned off into the personal bank accounts of dictators and their cronies around the world.
Cited as the most corrupt regime in the world, Somalia has received £86.8 million in aid from Britain.
Much of the aid is given to ‘charities’ in the country and then used to pay protection to the terrorist Al-Shababb group – who in turn pay protection to government officials.
Other countries operated by criminal gangs and dictators fared well in the distribution of Britain’s foreign aid. Some examples are:
- Afghanistan – £200.4 million
- South Sudan – £107.6 million
- Somalia – £86.8 million
- Sudan – £50.5 million
- Syria – £38.5 million
- Libya – £6.7 million
- Iraq – £5 million
- Uzbekistan – £1.6 million
- North Korea – £756,000
- Turkmenistan – £416,000
Foreign aid costs the British taxpayer an average of approximately £137 per year – the majority of which would be better spent on domestic needs instead of going to corrupt dictators, and to British ‘consultants’ (such as Adam Smith International) who benefit from increased foreign aid by ‘winning’ lucrative contracts to supply privatised services, such as water and education, subsidised though aid payments instead of public services – which would generally be far better value for money.
The Department for International Development has awarded contracts worth half the value of their total spend on contractors to five contractors – Adam Smith International (£66.3m), Crown Agents (£62.2m), Voluntary Services Overseas (£54.6m), British Council (£32.4m) and Maxwell Stamp (£26.1m).
The Department for International Development use of contractors or consultants is a sensitive political issue. Last year, it came under fire after it emerged that £500m of UK aid money had been spent through a handful of, primarily British, consultants, some of whom earn six or seven figure salaries and used to work in government.
As well as the wasteful spend on foreign aid, Cameron has another reason to keep aid spending as high as it is.
By meeting international aid targets set by the UN of 0.7% of gross national income, Cameron can claim an international leadership role – which will be highly lucrative for him, both now and in the future.
So perhaps the answer as to why Cameron is so intent on maintaining the ridiculously high foreign aid budget – the majority of which is not spent directly on aiding the people the government states it is aiding – is fairly clear.
Keeping the money flowing to dictators ensures countries stay in an unstable condition, which will benefit Cameron in any international role he decides to take up in the future (just like Blair) – where he will have ‘friends’ to support him. He is ensuring that some UK businesses gain immense benefit financially, ensuring that his friends are looked after, and may give him lucrative board memberships when he loses the next election.
Any supposed ‘leader’ in their right mind (if one believes there is any truth in the ‘economic’ downturn we are supposed to have experienced) would have cut foreign aid and used the money to alleviate the stress placed on public services. Not Cameron – he has far more selfish agendas than looking after the British people.
Let’s not forget the influence of Cameron’s masters such as major world financiers and so on. No doubt they will have their finger in the pie somewhere along the line.
It’s all a con – simple as that.