Bob: The €1 Trillion Plan

She asked "what the principles of good practice in humanitarian aid are".

This wasn't quite as abstract a question as it might at first sound.

Curtis-Thomas was referring to specific formally decided criteria, namely the set of principles to which donor countries must commit themselves if they are to be given the epithet "good donor" by the Good Humanitarian Donorship initiatve. This initiative was launched in 2003, convened by Sweden, with representatives from 15 other donor countries as well as various NGOs present, and together they produced and agreed a list of 23 such principles.

As Michael Foster's answer stated, the principles agreed by donor governments (that is, governments who make humanitarian donations to other countries) include that donations be:

• "Guided by the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence;
• Promote adherence to international humanitarian, refugee and human rights law;
• Ensure flexible, timely and predictable funding;
• Allocate funding in proportion to needs;
• Involve beneficiaries in the design and evaluation of humanitarian response;
• Strengthen local capacity to prevent, prepare for and mitigate crises;
• Support the UN, the Red Cross and NGOs; and affirm the primacy of civilian organisations in humanitarian action;
• Support learning and accountability initiatives, and encourage regular evaluation"

All pretty measured, sensible and rational stuff.

So, let's see... how does the government's decision, also announced Monday, to put £37 billion into the banks which boomed and busted, stack up against these criteria?

The British decision, by the way, led the rest of Europe into adopting similar bank nationalisation plans, totalling in the region of €1 trillion (£781.1 billion). There are about 730 million people in Europe all told, which means that the plan works out at around £1070 for every individual person in Europe (including children and other non-tax-payers).

If I take the liberty of treating this colossal sum as a 'humanitarian donation' to our own interests, how does it stack up against the principles above? Let's take them in reverse order.

Accountability: Already one of the main criticisms of this plan, as well as the Americans' prior cash injection scheme, is that it effectively disperses all accountability from the risk-taking bankers (I said bankers) whose policies got us into this mess in the first place. Affirming civilian primacy: The plan does nothing in particular to support the UN, the Red Cross or other NGOs. Strengthening capacity: Banking reform may yet do so, but the cash injection in itself does nothing to protect us against future crises; in fact many commentators are warning that we may simply be buying ourselves back into a boom which is already doomed, and propping up a housing market which is already over-inflated. Involving beneficiaries: The beneficiaries of the plan are not only the banks, supposedly its the common tax-payer, too; but we were not "involved" in the decision. In fact, the British media has dug less into European feelings on the European plan than it did into American feelings on the US plan a few weeks ago, and while this may be down to a preoccupation with gauging voters' opinions during the run-up to the US presidential election, nevertheless the failure to report our own concerns only serves to demonstrate that there has been a minimal expression of public opinion in the UK at all, let alone public involvement in the formation of the plan.

Now on to the top, big four Principles.

Does the €1 trillion plan allocate funding in proportion to needs? Well, £781.1 billion is 15,622 times the £50 million sum raised as an immediate response to the original Live Aid concert. In other words, you could hold Live Aid every single day for 42 years and if it (magically) somehow retained its exact same original popularity it would still not have raised this much money. What we're going to do with 15,622 times the amount raised by Live Aid is (if we're lucky) to prevent some people having a couple of tough Christmases, and (if all goes well) defer a small minority from losing their jobs or homes. I concede, this is no small thing if you think you're financially 'at risk', obviously. But then, imagine what an organisation which was truly concerned about sustainable development in the poorest, most disease-stricken parts of the world could do with £50,000,000 a day, 365 days a year, for the next 42 years, in places where jobs and indeed homes are already far, far harder to come by than they are here.

Is the €1 trillion plan flexible, timely and predicatable? Well, timely, maybe, although some would argue that alternative courses could have been plotted much earlier! Is it flexible? No. It's a massive, once and for all gamble. Is it predictable? Well, did you predict it? Even a few weeks ago a nationalisation on this scale was almost inconceivable.

Does the €1 trillion plan promote adherence to international humanitarian, refugee and human rights law? Well, it doesn't technically contravene humanitarian, refugee and human rights law, but by allocating funds aimed at saving an already bloated economy from collapse we're not exactly putting our money where our mouth is on these issues. Not one child with Malaria in sub-Saharan Africa will benefit. Not one AIDs-infected mother in Malawi will find treatment. Not one business in Bangladesh struggling against the tide of the climate threat, poverty and disease will prosper as a consequence of our trillion euros.

Finally, is the €1 trillion plan guided by the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence? Well, I think I've at least implicitly made a case that an impartial, neutral, independent assessment would find some fault with the plan - if the welfare of the human family as a whole were the objective.

I'm not going to pretend to know more about economics than I do. I don't know the intimate workings of the banking system, nor can I guess exactly how the plan will pan out (mind you, the economists are arguing about that, too!) But we've already heard people, including the government of course, defending the €1 trillion cash injection as an "investment" undertaken on behalf of us all, one which may see British and other European tax-payers make money in the long run. This argument belies the government's own purported stance on international development. Imagine what an "investment" of this magnitude would do in Somalia, or Ethiopia, or Zimbabwe, or indeed in Iraq. There is something that sickens me about calling this an "investment", when so much better "investments" exist, by any humanitarian standard.