Cheveners debate in the hallowed halls of Cambridge Union

The historic Cambridge Union was the site for the second Chevening Debate for the 2016/2017 academic year. The six debaters came prepared to air their views in the hallowed halls of Cambridge Union, the home of the world’s oldest debating society.

The evening was about discussing perspectives on the motion, ‘This house believes that international development aid has been successful in achieving its goals’.

It is certain that all the debaters saw it as honour to speak in that space, which has been previously graced by famous people such as Winston Churchill, the Dalai Lama, Margaret Thatcher, Stephen Hawking, Justice Antonin Scalia, Jesse Jackson, and other leaders and Nobel laureates. As a matter of fact, mere hours before, Bernie Sanders was speaking at the same venue.

Before the debaters could share their points and rebuttals, Chevening Alumna Dr Solava Ibrahim gave a guest lecture. Dr Ibrahim is currently an affiliated lecturer with the Centre for Development Studies at the Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge. She highlighted many of the questions that people ask about international development.

Dr Ibrahim spoke of the need to understand development as either an intervention or industry, or development as social change. Noting too that there are unequal power relations in the international aid chain, Dr Ibrahim emphasized that aid programmes must be community-owned, sustainable, and managed locally. She stated that what is classified as a successful development programme depends on which development actor or stakeholder you ask.

She also raised the issue of ‘aid corruption’ and the need to properly examine this and put in place measures to mitigate against this. In an assessment of the success of international development aid, one question from Dr Ibrahim which left many scholars nodding was, ‘how much of the money actually reaches beneficiaries and how much is spent on overheads?’

The speakers supporting the motion were Natalia Halweendo from Namibia and University of East Anglia, Armine Petrosyan from Armenia and University College London, as well as Veton Kasapolli from Kosovo and Queen Mary University of London.

The opposition team was made up Kourosh Ziabari from Iran and University of Kent, Orjola Shahaj from Albania and University of Edinburgh, and Angela Uyen from Peru and Queen Mary University of London. Before the speakers started, the moderator called for a vote on the motion, and by a show of hands, the majority of the scholars present indicated that they did not believe international aid has been successful in achieving its goals.

Natalia opened the debate. She spoke about the importance of global cooperation and how many developed countries have been assisting developing countries in many areas, and also in times of crisis. In response, Kourosh pointed out that some countries are not receiving international development aid because they are the most in need, but rather, because of the strength of their political ties with donor countries. Conversely, if countries have weak ties with donor countries, they may miss out on important support.

Armine, armed with statistics, argued that the success of international aid can be attached to two broad areas; macroeconomic growth and social outcomes. While conceding that some potential benefits of international development aid have been lost to corruption and some monies have been stolen, she stated that the macroeconomic effects of aid tend to be positive. Importantly too, she clinically outlined cases and statistics of how international aid has helped to improve health and education outcomes in many countries.

From the team against the motion, Orjola agreed that there have been improvements in health and education outcomes. However, she argued that aid has not addressed education and health inequalities. In many countries, education and health inequality is strongly correlated with poverty. While accepting that international aid is important, Orjola made the pointed statement that, ‘poor countries do not need charity; they need justice.’ To further elaborate on that point, Orjola posited that some developed countries are providing some aid on one hand, while simultaneously eking out high interest payments from the developing countries. Equity, therefore, must be an explicit feature of international aid. Orjola went on to point out the rise in ‘philanthropic capitalism’.

Going back the side in favour of the motion, Veton presented arguments about the importance of international development aid in security around the world. International aid, in this area, has manifested in training and important equipment support. In an era of extremism, international cooperation through development aid for security is important.

To wrap up the arguments from the opposing team, Angela pointed out that often the donors are the ones directing the interventions, and so recipient countries cannot always direct funding to the areas of greatest need as defined by their local governments. With this donor-directed kind of aid, NGOs become agents of the donors and many NGOs end up competing for funding and viability.

The audience was comprised of other scholars, many of whom have experience working in development. This helped to extend the robust debate, as they asked questions and shared insightful interventions.

At the end of the debate and discussions, there was another vote. It appeared that the team for the motion that ‘this house believes that international development aid has been successful in achieving its goals’ was able to convince many of the other scholars. This resulted in them receiving more votes than in the first round. Despite this, a majority of the attendees still indicated that they did not believe international aid has been successful in achieving its goals.

After the debate, there was a reception in the Cambridge Union’s library. The discussions and networking continued there and many people shared their opinions on the debate and the topic. The feedback from all was that it was a really good debate, and they were all engaged throughout. Many said they could not choose a winner, and felt the teams were evenly matched.

Let’s continue to talk about it. What do you think? Has international development aid been successful in achieving its goals? Tweet me at @KemeshaKelly_.