Letters: Aid with too many strings
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your front page lead of 18 April was a valiant attempt to raise the election campaign to issues of aid and development. It rightly emphasised the good work done by Chancellor Kenneth Clark in getting Western countries to agree to debt relief proposals; and contrasted this with the role of the IMF, and the USA in particular, in delaying their introduction and tying them to the kind of economic shock treatment seen in Eastern Europe.
However, your economics editor, Diane Coyle, does no service to an informed debate by telling readers that "the Conservative manifesto does not mention aid, while Labour's affirms its commitment to spending 0.7 per cent of national income on overseas aid". In truth, not only does the Tory manifesto mention aid, but in many respects it says much the same about it as Labour, while both parties make clear that the UN's target of 0.7 per cent of GDP is a spending objective, not a promise.
In one crucial respect, though, they are rather different. The Tories want to focus aid on countries "growing towards self-sufficiency under democratic government", while Labour wants to target aid to those in greatest need. While the Conservatives seem to expect countries such as Rwanda to play by "Westminster rules", Labour is interested only in the poorest of the poor.
But where does any of this leave those developing countries that aren't starving, or show precious little sign of "growing towards democracy"?
NEIL PARTRICK
London N7
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments