The question in the title was prompted by the apparent indifference of Western Governments to the appalling plight of people living in Gaza, and the grotesquely different values placed on human life depending on nationality, religion and ethnicity.

My May 2003 article on how to assess the case for overseas aid¹ developed some criteria for analysing the circumstances in which it was reasonable for a Government to tax its own citizens in order to benefit non- citizens. In addition to some rather dry technical analysis, this developed the idea that the value that citizens place on the lives of specific groups of noncitizens depends on the perceived distance between the donor population and the intended beneficiaries. The concept of distance encompasses not just geographical distance but also perceived cultural differences and differences in time ( how much will today’s citizens pay to benefit future generations?).

The interesting point is that this concept of ‘distance’ is not absolute but is influenced by knowledge. Our willingness to deny or ignore the common humanity of others responds to how much we know about them. The response to Band Aid reflected the fact that we were watching the distress every night on news bulletins. The great Tsunami reinforced our sense of common humanity because Europeans and Asians were impacted and were seen helping and supporting each other.

It is not difficult to find reasons why we might be less able to recognise our common humanity in 2025. Our consumption of news has become fragmented and more partisan. Foreign coverage has reduced, with the BBC for example focusing on a very narrow range of subjects and reflecting a strong Western perspective that does not give much space to other viewpoints. Many people elect to avoid news coverage and, with the relative decline in terrestrial channels and national newspaper readership, they can easily do so.
A Labour Government could choose to promote empathy for our fellow human beings, and between different populations, wherever they live. That sounds like an idealistic fantasy, but the previous Labour Government achieved a lot through the exercise of soft power, and might have done more if it had not wrecked its reputation by joining the Iraq war. The previous Labour Government spearheaded global efforts to resolve the debt problems of many low income countries. It was central in persuading donors to signup to the millennium development goals, and to commit the necessary funding to achieve them. The Department for International Development established a strong reputation for competence and leadership on development issues. Most remarkably, it was the first Government to make the objective of reducing Global Poverty sufficiently popular to gather the support of both parties for a commitment to higher aid flows to help achieve it. Explaining what it was doing and why were key elements of this.

The Government could also choose to rebuild other aspects of our soft power. Al Jazeera has shown how investment in a trusted news source can give a country as small as Qatar disproportionate influence in the world . It has taken that role away from a much diminished BBC. The BBC did much to train Al Jazeera but has now been eclipsed by the Qatar station which has far better coverage of the world, far deeper analysis, and reflects a far wider range of views.

Government can also choose to distance itself from a belligerent and unreliable USA and its genocidal ally Israel and work instead with others to rebuild the multilateral system. We have in the past refused direct requests from the USA for support without wrecking our relationship with the Americans. A bit of distance from them and their genocidal ally might help us to establish a reputation for fair dealing and for seeing both sides of an issue. The use of aid, cultural ties, our educational institutions and a genuine commitment to a free press and the rule of law could win us more influence.

This could be reinforced by a commitment to explaining the policy to our own population and thereby educating empathy into our politics. When shown suffering, normal people want to alleviate it.
Sadly, it seems that our Government is even more indifferent to foreign suffering than to the poverty of our own population. It has chosen to cut aid and other sources of soft power in order to spend more on lethal weapons. It is choosing to do this in order to counter a paranoid fantasy about the extent of the threat from Russia, an economy smaller than ours. It is bizarre to believe that the very expensive nuclear armed aircraft we are proposing to buy will be at all useful in any realistic conflict- but the defence lobby is brilliant at persuading gullible Governments to spend billions on toys to fight non existent threats. The Government waves the threat of Russia at us while ignoring the unspeakable evil being done by our friend and ally Israel to the population of Gaza.

Far better value would be achieved at far less cost if we spent it instead on soft power. This would require an end to the double standards that reflect Israeli and US views that place a near zero value on Palestinian lives, and not much more on poor populations living elsewhere. We could make a real contribution by seeking to reduce the distance between nations and populations, rather than reinforcing it by ramping up spending on weapons of doubtful utility.

1. Mick Foster, Criteria for Assessing the Case for Overseas Aid, a note, Development Policy Review, Vol 21 Number 3, May 2003 ↩︎