LETTERS Aid epidemic
Sir: I wish to compliment the Secretary of State on her skilful defence of an impossi- ble position, the most effective I have read (`No, Better than the Previous 500', 5 September). In a letter, I can address only two of the Secretary of State's many argu- ments to protect development assistance by obscuring realities. She refers to Marshall Aid as an example of successful develop- ment aid. This is misleading. The economies of Western Europe had to be restored not developed. The peoples of Western Europe had the motivations and institutions required for economic progress, as was evident from their pre-war economic conditions. This explains why Marshall Aid could be wound up after four or five years, during which West Germany had to absorb millions of refugees, among whom old peo- ple and children were disproportionately represented. Contrast this with develop- ment aid, the indefinite continuation of which, after 50 years, is taken for granted.
Miss Short's references to population reflect the widely held opinion that people are, primarily, a burden, a liability rather than an asset. But with every mouth God sends a pair of hands. People are a resource. To quote the late Julian Simon, human intelligence is the ultimate resource.
Finally, Cranley Onslow and I did not suggest that development aid 'was responsi- ble for Mrs Gandhi's enforced sterilisation policies', the emergence of Idi Amin, civil war in Mozambique or genocide in Rwan- da. What we did write was that govern- ment-to-government subsidies went to those rulers while they pursued cruel, bar- barous policies.
Peter Bauer
58 Montagu Square, London W1
Previous page
