N.Z. Churchman In Relief Controversy

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32252, 21 March 1970, Page 20

N.Z. Churchman In Relief Controversy

(Vroin lhe London correspondent of “The Press”) The relief controversy in Nigeria has brought a New Zea- i ■ land churchman into the thick of the conflict between charity. ’ and politics. He is the Rev. A. A. Brash, for 13 years general secretary of the New Zealand Council of Churches, and now' director of Christian Aid —the overseas aid agency of the British Council of Churches.

Christian Aid is one of J the agencies which used the Joint Church Aid organisation’s 5000 night flights to get supplies into Biafra. But Mr ’Brash claims that his agency should be exempt from General Gowon’s criticism of the Christian churches’ role in the con-' flict because it deliberately played no pail in policy making and took pains to give relief to the needy on both sides. “The reason for his resentment towards Joint Church Aid, which embraces 23 Protestant and Catholic agencies, i is quite said Mr Brash. “General i Gowon is not mad at them; for feeding starving people: he is angry because while; they flew at night they were [shielding French arms flights; |to Biafra. If they had flown'during the day he could have shot at the arms flights at! ! night. General Ojukwu would not allow day flights, and the ; World Council of Churches: wanted the night flights I stopped. ■ Unfortunately, all Protestant relief work in Biafra was identified with the World Council of Churches, while in Nigeria it was all done under ■ the Nigerian Red Cross. So the publicity the churches got in Biafra was tremen- ■ dous, while in fact they were doing just as much in Nigeria,” he said. Mr Brash said from the beginning Christian Aid had insisted that both sides be

1 helped. It had sent medical) : teams to Nigeria, plus vast 5 supplies of stock fish and - medical supplies. “We have ’ tried to keep this as even 1 as possible,” he said. ; The need for aid on the : federal Nigerian side was J almost as bad as it was in ; the former enclave of Biafra. ’INow Christian Aid was mak’!ing plans for using the considerable funds which it was /holding for long-term rei habilitation projects in 1 Nigeria. 1 This was not Mr Brash’s r first brush with political 5 aspects of relief work. Only 3 last month he was attacked in ' the right wing weekly maga--5 zine, the “Spectator,” for 1 Christian Aid’s part in the s lobbying campaign to per- : suade the Government to in- * crease its overseas aid ’ expenditure by £l5O million a year. “When the Church itself has come to accept—indeed ito support—the nationalisation of charity,” said the [“Spectator,” “it is time to i sound the alarm." '] But Mr Brash believes that 1 relief can hardly avoid political implications and that ’ agencies like his are right to exert political pressure. “The needy of our society,” he . told the “Spectator,” “and s the hungry of the world are 5 noi clamouring and should ’ not have to clamour, for . charity: they are claiming r justice in a world which has , the potential to meet their needs.” Into Lobbying 2 Mr Brash says he ]; represents a growing dis- " covery by a lot of people that relief agencies have to get into the business of political lobbying—he calls it J education. i, “All we are pressing for.” he said, “is the implementa3 ] tion of what the British * [Government has accepted in '■[theory—that 1 per cent of ''[the country’s Gross National

| Product should be given in] I laid. This includes both I ] Government money and ] I [private giving. At present I , the Government gives 0.4 I [ per cent and the private I' giver provides a similar I ] amount. The Pearson ComI mission of the World Bank I said that the 1 per cent : target was all right, but that : the Government’s share ] should be 0.7 per cent If you look at the amount of aid we are giving now it seems satisfactory, I but when you look at what [ we are doing in terms of the I problem we are trying to I solve, it is sheer cause for I despair,” he said. I One criticism was that I adequate national aid would I I undermine the spirit of 11 charity; the individual | ! would no longer feel the ] desire to help. “Nonsense,” says Mr Brash. “I don't ■ think State aid undermines ‘ | personal response at all.” □! These are the same attitudes which he held “back in ]jiNew Zealand days.” he says, [and he will take them with o him to his new job of ” director of Inter-Church Aid } —the relief agency of the World Council of Churches ” —which he takes up in ]_ Geneva in March. s He sees this new task as .. one of getting the donor 3 agencies and the developing countries together to talk s about how the money should j be spent. y o Joint Planning “I would hope,” he said, _ “that always in the future, ® relief and development pro- [’ grammes would be planned j jointly by the - agencies a with the money and representatives of the people who f need the money. In this way j we should avoid any sort of colonial domination by the s 1 rich. 5 [ “The day when big agencies run relief programmes in tJ someone else's country is . absolutely over,” he said, t Mr Brash expects to visit! 5 New Zealand in the course e Of his new duties and ] e eventually he aims to' 1 return there, where he is e still on the official roll of i j Presbyterian ministers.