Don't divert foreign aid spending to drought relief

Moving aid money to drought relief presents a simplistic and flawed solution that would diminish Australia’s influence in the region. In ancient Greece the sophist philosophers were known for their fallacious arguments. On the surface, the linkages they made seemed plausible, even reasonable, but on closer examination the logic they employed was faulty and it fell apart on closer inspection. If sophists were to survey current social media debates that link drought relief with cuts to foreign aid, they would be quite comfortable. Arguing that the aid given to developing countries should be diverted to support farmers and regional communities is sophistry unchained. Moving aid money to drought relief presents a simplistic and flawed solution. It is a xenophobic response that would diminish Australia’s influence in the region. Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop and Minister for Agriculture David Littleproud have quite rightly spoken against this idea. Bishop views aid as part of the responsibility of developed nations, and she links it with protecting Australia. Littleproud notes that AUD 300 million in aid to Indonesia needs to be weighed up against AUD 3 billion in gains from trade with Indonesia. Soft power and trade are both good reasons to continue to give aid