The Commons: Britain’s Shrinking Global Footprint – The Impact of Cuts In Foreign Aid
tommao wang
The US is far from the only country to have been pulling up the drawbridge on foreign aid in the past few months. Even as victims of AIDS in Africa have been left reeling from Trump’s recent cuts, the UK government is itself poised to slash funding even further. The UK is expected to cut its contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria by as much as £150 million later this month, following the outcome of a summit hosted by themselves and South Africa. It’s speculated that the withdrawal of this funding could result in as many as 300,000 preventable deaths in countries that are reliant on it for accessing treatment and support.
This has come off the back of increased cuts to foreign aid over the past five years, since the way in which aid had been allocated was overturned under Boris Johnson. Previously, the government had a specific department managing the provision and funding of aid overseas. The Department for International Development – known as DfID – was set up in 1997 with the goal of administering aid abroad and tackling poverty, managed by its own experts and without any intervention from the Foreign Office itself, nor any trade-offs with wider government objectives. Through this, the UK was not only able to fight poverty and disease abroad but also retain an active role internationally.
“Since Suez in 1956, it is the best example of genuine British leadership making an impact around the world,” stated Andrew Mitchell, the former Minister of State for Development, on the success of DfID. In spite of this however, the amounts given out in aid remained highly contentious. Time and again, polls found that the UK public was incredibly hostile to the idea of taxpayers money being spent on development in other countries, with it regularly being listed as the number one area of expenditure they wanted to see cut and many holding to the view that no overseas aid should be given whatsoever.
In 2020, in the wake of Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic, Boris Johnson’s Conservative government took steps to entirely get rid of this separate department, merging DfID with the Foreign Office. The move was presented as a necessary streamlining, ensuring the UK would not have two separate areas of foreign policy acting independently from each other, without consideration for the UK’s own interests. In the Commons, Johnson warned of a risk “of our left and right hands working independently," pointing out that the UK was putting as much towards African nations as it had its allies in the Baltics and Eastern Europe – a point that now seems prescient following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Nevertheless, many raised concerns that such strategically minded allocation of aid risked undermining the core goals of fighting poverty and disease in places where these were most pressing. Former Prime Ministers, such as David Cameron, were among those warning it would result in "less expertise, less voice for development at the top table and ultimately less respect for the UK overseas." Rory Stewart, the former Minister in charge of DfID – who had been expelled from the Conservative Party by Johnson – echoed these concerns that the merger would result in the loss of valuable expertise dedicated to aid distribution, as well as undermining Britain’s reputation internationally.
“Most British diplomats do not have the experience or skills to manage £100m development programs,” Stewart cautioned. “Trying to pretend these two very different organisations are one damages both… It will simply begin the shift of DfID money from development towards things the Treasury cares about more.”
Whilst the government had insisted that this merger would not take away from Britain’s commitments to development, with the target for such funding remaining at 0.7% of GNI (Gross National Income), Britan’s overseas funding did in fact see a reduction in spending that same year, down to 0.5%. This was only a temporary measure brought on by the pandemic. Since then, further cuts have continued to be made.
Having been Leader of the Opposition at the time, Labour leader Keir Starmer was among those who had criticized the merger, suggesting he would reinstate DfID as a separate department upon taking power. However, since Labour’s win in the election last year, no changes have been made on this.
In February, the government announced that spending on international development would be cut even further than under Johnson, down to 0.3% of GNI, in order to allow for a 2.5% increase in defence spending. With much of the aid budget already being spent on housing asylum seekers in the UK, this amounts to the loss of as much as £6 billion for international development, the largest such cuts by a UK government.
The move drew widespread criticism and prompted the resignation of Starmer’s International Development Minister, Anneliese Dodds, who acknowledged the need for higher defence spending but stated she could not support the decision to "remove food and healthcare from desperate people - deeply harming the UK's reputation." Dodds further warned that such cuts would mean withdrawing support from African, Caribbean, and Western Balkan nations, “at a time when Russia has been aggressively increasing its global presence".
The implications for this are enormous. Aid workers and international representatives have warned that it will put at risk a whole range of UK commitments; from the Gavi vaccine alliance, which has been helping to combat disease across the planet, to education programs in South Sudan that have proved vital in providing women with an education. Kuyok Abol Kuyok, South Sudan’s Minister for General Education and Instruction, says that, “This is one of the best projects Great Britain is investing in South Sudan, it had huge impact. Even Boris Johnson ring-fenced this during those difficult days of austerity in the UK, it helped to improve access to many girls in the country.”
Africa is likely to be hit hardest, as it faces cuts to aid up to £184 million. Bond, a network for international development organisations, has warned of the effect this may have of nations stricken by humanitarian crises, such as Sudan & South Sudan, Ethiopia, the Congo, and Somalia. Concerns have also been raised about the consequences for countries like Afghanistan, still under the grip of the Taliban, and with 23 million people in need of aid, and for other countries currently experiencing conflict and displacement, such as Bangladesh and Yemen.
The Opposition have largely welcomed these cuts, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch having stated she will support the Prime Minister on this and urging the government to go even further, pledging to cut aid to just 0.1% of GNI if she is elected. The Treasury has been faced with an increasingly small pot from which it has to spend, with overseas aid remaining deeply unpopular amongst the public. As such, it has largely only been the smaller parties that have spoken out against this move. Monica Harding, International Development spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, stated the cuts “will have a devastating impact on the world's poorest.”
The government has maintained it is committed to providing aid where it can, having confirmed increases in spending towards Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and British Territories Overseas, with countries such as Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine remaining priorities. The UK have also committed themselves to international causes such as the Gavi alliance, funding for the World Bank, and international climate pledges.
Nevertheless, the current cuts will leave foreign aid at its lowest levels since 2012, and it’s lowest as a proportion of GNI since as far back as 1999. This may prove disastrous not only for the countries and the individuals dependent on such aid, but for the UK’s interests more generally, risking irreparable damage to its soft power and its national security.
