Oxfam deserves criticism, but this is a gift for the anti-aid ideologues

Afua Hirsch (A white saviour mentality lies behind the Oxfam scandal, 21 February) is certainly right when she highlights colonial attitudes towards the countries aid is supposed to help and the lack of accountability when outrages occur. However, there is another question which has not even been raised by any of the reports since the Oxfam scandal broke: why are NGOs staffed by (mainly) white expatriates? They have to be paid far more than local experts, housed in conditions considered luxurious by locals, given their own transportation and often paid hardship allowances. These people are often young and inexperienced because people with children would incur more costs for the organisation. Stringent insurance conditions mean they have to be taken out, either to nice hotels in adjacent countries or back home, if there is a security scare. If they fall ill they may have to be repatriated. They rarely speak the language or know anything about the local culture, which can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings and bad relationships with aid recipients and local partners. They naturally tend to socialise with fellow expatriates, which increases their isolation from those they are supposed to be supporting.

So why is this? There is an unspoken issue of lack of trust. “Cultural differences” is cited as the reason why experienced local staff are rarely given positions of responsibility. “They spend all their time praying” was one complaint I frequently heard. “The donors won’t like it” was an excuse used to justify a middle-aged, non-Arabic-speaking Englishman being chosen to lead a credit programme for Sudanese women rather than a university-educated local female staff member. “You can’t expect them to be on time.”

“Sustainability” is one of the buzzwords around the NGO world. What is sustainable about using precious air cargo space to take PG Tips, McVitie’s biscuits and Bell’s whisky into Somalia? Of course international staff need their creature comforts when they are doing difficult and often dangerous jobs, but wouldn’t it be better to employ someone who shops in the local market, knows how to behave according to local norms and hasn’t even heard of PG Tips?
Maureen Makki
Nottingham

• Afua Hirsch does make some valid points, but her sweeping dismissal of people who work in foreign aid is false. I worked in the sector in many parts of the world for nearly 20 years, and did not meet anyone with “the underlying worldview, in which [they] see poor countries as a moral vacuum in which to purchase pleasure”, nor did I come across any “aid agencies [which] held themselves up as white saviours”. Rather, we were concerned simply with providing help where it was badly needed. In all the criticism of Oxfam and Save the Children, particularly by the vicious ideologues who hate the very idea of using “our” money to help poor foreigners, this seems to have been forgotten and Hirsch is, unwittingly perhaps, supporting their unpleasant cause.
Dr Richard Carter
Former head of research, European Children’s Trust/Everychild

• I have not given regularly to Oxfam before, but have just now set up a monthly donation (Oxfam loses 7,000 regular donors since Haiti sex scandal, 21 February). Mark Goldring is absolutely right to say that this business has been inflated out of all proportion. Yes, what happened was wrong, but so is a puritanical witch-hunt, and Oxfam does a huge amount of good work. Come on, others who agree – maybe we could start a trend? Even with a hashtag – how about #ThankYouOxfam?
John Foster
Department of politics, philosophy and religion, Lancaster University

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters