Reference:
And his point was, that we should only help those we have a connection with, or who we can benefit from, not those who are living under intolerable and brutal dictatorships.
Gosh - how we all interpret things differently!!
I heard (vis ÃĄ vis current foreign policy NOT his WW2 stuff which was idiocy in the extreme) that if we were still an Empire with shedloads of power and money then yes ... we could pile on in there and sort things out wherever the whim took us - and being a powerful Empire we would probably stick about and introduce them to cricket and football and G&T and stuff.
But these days we are a small island basically hanging on in there with the big boys because we used to be powerful and wealthy (think brash, wealthy industrialist marrying his daughter - say Mary Bowes - to a poor yet aristocratic earl. It adds kudos). We can't afford to take these cases on willy nilly in the same way you can't feed every starving child in India when you take a fortnight's holiday in Goa. It's harsh but true. There is also the point that India represents one of the fastest growing economies on the planet and is emerging as a decided power in it's own right yet we still hand over phenomenal sums in aid. These are tough times economically and whilst the government has elected that overseas aid is not to be affected by the proposed cuts we simply cannot afford to follow the US about as if we're on level pegging.
And back on point...
What I heard was that in tough times we have to look to our own families and make sure they are OK. As for the rest we have to pick and choose carefully since we cannot afford to take on every international dispute, however intolerable.