Public Interest: How The Ebola Outbreak Has Exposed The Damage From UK Aid Cuts

The past three weeks have seen increasing coverage from across the world about the strain of Ebola that has broken out in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has described the outbreak as "deeply alarming.” With more than 1000 suspected cases and at least 246 deaths, the MSF's Deputy Director, Alan Gonzales, reported that there had not previously been so many cases being recorded so rapidly. 

So far, the disease, which is highly deadly, appears to have been contained to the DRC and neighboring Uganda, but the African Center for Disease Control has warned that there is a risk it could also spread to the nearby African nations of Rwanda, Kenya, Tanzania, Angola, Burundi, the Central African Republic, the Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, South Sudan, and Zambia. 

Whilst there have been reports of American doctors on the scene having been infected, and the World Health Organization has declared it a “a public health emergency of international concern,” the UK's National Health Service (NHS) has stated that the risk of it spreading to the UK is currently low. Various commentators, however, have argued that this latest outbreak, alongside the recent outbreak of hantavirus, should be “a wake up call” for the UK and others in relation to the importance of foreign aid; both to countries that receive such aid, but also to UK citizens themselves. 

Health systems in Africa, already fragile, have, it's argued, been left even less capable at dealing with an outbreak of this type following broad cuts by western nations to foreign aid and assistance to countries like the DRC. 

“The abrupt cessation of international humanitarian aid—specifically the closure of certain U.S.A.I.D. services in 2025—has had a significant impact on the capacity to respond to the Ebola crisis,” stated Father Edouard Makimba Milambo, the executive secretary of Caritas Congo ASBK, a Catholic humanitarian and development agency. “In practical terms, this has resulted in disruptions to the supply of essential medical equipment, a decline in prevention and community awareness activities, and a weakening of epidemiological surveillance mechanisms. Several local entities also lost indispensable technical support, which slowed down the rapid identification of cases and the implementation of coordinated response measures.”

Whilst much of the media has focused on the range of cuts to foreign aid made by the US, immediately following President Donald Trump's return to power, it's also been argued that similar cuts by European nations, including the UK, have been just as devastating. It was announced last year that cuts made by the UK would in fact go even further than those made either by the US or any other G7 country, with the amount of spending on international development being shrunk to just 0.3% of GNI - this, under a Labour government, after Labour had previously condemned the Conservative government's own cuts to foreign aid and their scrapping of an independent Department for International Development (DFID), under Boris Johnson. 

Commentators had warned at the time that such cuts could cause as many as 300,000 preventable deaths from diseases such as AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The move further prompted the resignation of former International Development Minister, Anneliese Dodds. Nevertheless, the UK pressed ahead, further announcing earlier this year that they would be cutting Official Development Assistance (ODA) by around 27% over 2026-27. It was also revealed that the UK would be making cuts of more than 10% to its climate aid commitments.

Whilst the DRC itself was in fact the beneficiary of an extra £13 million worth of aid by the UK in March, current UK Development Minister Jenny Chapman has admitted that the wider cuts made to foreign aid by the UK government has been “counterproductive” when it comes to dealing with pandemics such as the Ebola outbreak. 

This has been echoed by figures such as Rory Stewart, the former Africa Minister and Secretary of State for DFID under Theresa May's Conservative government, who has been arguing that the links between aid cuts and these kinds of outbreaks was “very strong.” 

“Pandemic preparedness requires lots of people on the ground in places like DRC or Uganda who are able to detect cases, respond to them, quarantine and prepare responses," Stewart stated. "And it’s all the infrastructure behind that which is being undermined at the moment. And that’s a real threat, of course, to the world. I’m not trying to start a scare in Britain around this outbreak, but what I’m hoping will happen is people will see this and realise how dangerous this is, and how much risk we’re taking by not dealing with it more directly.”

Both the UK and other European countries have maintained that such cuts to aid have been necessary for maintaining defence costs and supporting Ukraine in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war, with the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, pledging the biggest increase in defence spending “since the Cold War.” Figures such as Dodds have acknowledged the need for higher defence spending, but have nevertheless criticized the choice to make such sweeping cuts to the aid budget, given the impact it will have for some of the poorest and most desperate people and communities around the world. 

The fact is that foreign aid spending remains the least popular area of expenditure among UK voters, with polls consistently finding that it was the number one area that the public wanted to see cut, even to the point of no aid being given at all. With Starmer's apparent historic levels of unpopularity, particularly following other cuts to benefits such as the winter fuel allowance and increases to inheritance tax for farmers, it seems likely that the choice to cut foreign aid to such a degree is simple cowardice by the current government - a deliberate choice not to be seen to be handing out taxpayers money to help foreigners. 

Coming after successive U-turns on some of these other key policy decisions, it is a choice that reeks of an unwillingness by the Labour government to stick to their principles, and a mindset of still effectively being in opposition - more wary of how something will play with voters than the actual impact their policies may have.