From development to terrorism and back again

The election cycle in the UK is revving up - and it is just as interesting to note what is missing from the agenda. By and large, we don't hear much about international sustainable development. Oh, there's a bit about climate adaptation, and a bit about keeping the 0.7% of national GDP going to Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) - which agencies like DFID rely on for their work. But by and large, it is not on the agenda. Some friends of mine recently asked the local conservative MPs why not - they said it isn't on the voter's agendas. They said they never get asked about it. People want to know about the National Health Services, about bankers bonuses, jobs, education, elderly care, climate change - but not ODA.

Except when it comes to security issues such as the two wars and to fighting terrorism. Then, suddenly, development matters. It doesn't take a brilliant mind to recognise that the reasons behind terrorism have as much to do with poverty and hunger and lack of opportunities within a given country as it does to do with a particular ideology. Increasingly, there is a growing link between 'security' and 'development'.And while liberals might have a slightly better record in ODA than the Tories do, they aren't much better. International development has become increasingly concerned with 'security' in the past few years - and that is a trend I only see increasing in the near future.

Most of us who work in international development find this challenging. Many have preferred to ignore it. But I side with those who say, we can't afford to ignore it - security issues impact development (and vice versa) way too much. Whether we like it or not, Western militaries are increasingly encroaching on 'development's classic turf - and we've got to figure out if we are going to help them - and if so, in what way.

Here's the 'good' part: It's true. Fight poverty and you've got a chance of fighting some of the root causes of terrorism. There is clear alignment between ODA and the military. But that doesn't mean that (underfunded) ODA money should be used to fund the (comparatively well-funded) military

Here's the 'bad' part:Fighting terrorism may or may not reduce poverty. Probably not. Most classic anti-terrorist tactics aren't that great at addressing root causes of poverty. And:It's not just about terrorism. Greater poverty leads to greater insecurity - that can include insecurity within a household (ie, wife-beating, etc.), forced migration, people who grow opium because there isn't anything else the market will take, and then get caught up in drug-related gang wars, etc. Reducing poverty with a gun barrel at your temple is difficult. Usually, it takes time and trust and prolonged, sustained relationships to really change anything in the field. The military historically doesn't have the resources or inclination to do that kind of work - its not usually what they are trained for.

Here's the 'hard' part: its complicated out there. It takes time. Reducing poverty requires a lot of things, and time is one of them - not least, time to get the political parties on board to make the right policy decisions. And that leads us to the question: why isn't the UK public thinking about development? They probably don't think it really effects them. And then here is the big question: what if they are right?