A long series of democratic donor countries have recently reduced their financial assistance to the developing countries, well aware that decades of extensive aid programmes and cash contributions have had no measurable effect. The Netherlands has thus reduced its aid by 8 million euros and Germany by 2 million euros, and both France and the United Kingdom have announced significant cuts in the developing-country budgets. The United States has cut 80 per cent of the direct assistance from USAID and placed the remaining funds under the State Department. Here at home, Venstre has followed the trend and announced a cut of well over six billion kroner.

The automatic reaction from politicians and the media came immediately. The Social Democrats stated that «We would rather look at whether the very richest Danes can contribute more to the very poorest». The party also maintained that development aid contributes to keeping migration from Africa under control. One must ask oneself: when has Danish aid, thinly spread across a long series of developing countries, been able to prevent the influx to Europe of migrants from Africa and a number of Islamic cultural societies?

The world’s total official aid amounted to 223 billion dollars in 2023, an amount that is modest compared with the total remittances from migrants of around 700 billion dollars. These are funds that migrants send home to their families and villages, which have financed their «flight». The money derives from welfare income in the recipient countries combined with black or white labour and criminality. In the SAHEL countries immediately south of the Sahara, remittances constitute the very basis of survival for the inhabitants’ economic existence. In Lebanon, from where many Islamic migrants are channelled into Europe, remittances amount to as much as 30 per cent of the country’s total GDP.

Then Lars Løkke entered the arena with the hollowest phrase from the politicians’ inexhaustible treasury of worn-out clichés and false illusions. The Foreign Minister lectured us that «development aid is security policy in a world where China and Russia are in the process of taking over what used to be the sphere of interest of the Western world». Again one must ask: how can development aid, which demonstrably has no effect, prevent Russian and Chinese influence over the recipient countries? To compare Danish aid programmes with Chinese investments in Africa is as irrelevant as comparing a mackerel with a ladies’ bicycle. The Danish aid programmes constitute a small bag of mixed sweets, whereas the Chinese undertake large infrastructure investments in railways, coal-fired power stations, ports and airports in exchange for access to minerals, rare earths and raw materials. The Russians concentrate their investments in developing countries on what they do best, namely taking the lives of their fellow human beings. Russia offers security, arms deliveries, militias and intelligence activity, which are services in demand among Africa’s dominant clans.

The two state-run Danish television channels, which always support those it is a pity for, immediately threw Troels Lund Poulsen under the bus and lashed out at him and Venstre for this heartless and cynical initiative, with enthusiastic support from Enhedslisten, SF and selected «experts» with the warm donor heart firmly placed well to the left of the centre — where the beating hearts usually also sit. Venstre accepted the blows without blinking. The party is in an election campaign and knows that the voters are tired of the increasing Islamisation of Danish society, of the enormous aid expenditures of over 90 billion kroner annually on resident migrants and descendants from Islamic cultural societies. The voters sense that their hard-earned contributions to the developing countries do not make any particular difference, and will not punish Venstre on election day for cutting the aid.

There is also solid scientific evidence for the claim that development aid is ineffective. Aarhus University and Deakin University have jointly published a so-called meta-analysis comprising no fewer than 106 studies on the effect of international aid. The meta-analysis, which is a formal quantitative review of entire bodies of scientific literature, concludes that no measurable effect could be demonstrated from several decades of total aid efforts. The same conclusion is found in a series of studies carried out by Professor Alex Dreher from Heidelberg University. Dreher, who is regarded as one of the world’s leading experts on aid economics, makes it clear in a recent article in World Development that development aid has failed. There is no evidence of a positive socio-economic effect from many decades of development assistance, which has been characterised by limiting factors.

Dreher points out that donor countries operate with political motives for the aid, such as helping countries in a democratisation process, or helping former colonies and allies. Increasing demands from donor countries regarding equality policy, consideration for sexual minorities and the green transition have also hampered effectiveness. Recipient countries often use the aid for projects other than the actual purpose. The African Union (AU), which is the co-operation organisation for the African countries, states in several annual reports that corruption is the fundamental cause of Africa’s economic stagnation. Professor Dreher notes that there is much to criticise in the donor countries’ control of the aid funds. With China and India as examples, Dreher recommends that future aid should concentrate on infrastructure, health and education, which are precisely the prerequisites for economic development. This strategy lifted China from a hopeless economic ruin after the Cultural Revolution in the 1970s to the leading world economy China is today.

These solid scientific studies and experiences, however, bounce completely off Danish politicians and the media. Their attitude towards development aid rests firmly upon the clichés from our childhood: «You must finish your food. Think of the small, hungry negro children in Africa!». Christiansborg, DR and TV2 therefore demand — despite the stupid swine in Venstre — that we simply send more money, as we usually do. So that is what we do.