In 2021, an MP stood in Parliament and confidently asserted that “investing 0.7% [of Britain’s GNI] in international aid is in Britain’s interest” and that it would be wrong to cut it. One may find it perplexing that only 4 years later the same man, now Britain’s Prime Minister, would announce (with perhaps a bit less assuredness) that international aid would drop to as little as 0.3% of UK GNI.
Like a growing majority of Britons, I agree that the UK should increase its defence if we are able to meet the challenges of the ever increasing global disorder. Not only does Russia edge closer to our doorstep by the day, but China is growing more assertive and expanding its influence on the global stage. The UK will need to create a harder front to deter this aggression and develop credible contingencies if this deterrent fails. The imperative for this increases by an order of magnitude if the US should become even more antagonistic to Europe, potentially even adversarial.
Yet I do not believe that cutting international aid is the best way to fund an increase in defence spending. I find myself agreeing with the Starmer of 4 years younger, who correctly argued that cutting aid was antithetical to British national interests. Not only does it harm our image on the global stage, an image in dire need of rehabilitation following the successive failures of the Iraq war and then Brexit, but in terms of realpolitik, this decision runs entirely counter to British national security interests. Starmer should, and can, do better.
The Moral Case
I appreciate that I am in the minority here and that most in the UK, perhaps most even that will read this article, will disagree with me when I argue that we have a moral obligation to help those in the world less fortunate than themselves. Britain is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and though I appreciate that most of this wealth should be used to develop the nation and uplift its 14.3 million out of poverty, at least a slither of this wealth should be used on the hundreds of millions across the world that live in unimaginable conditions.
The United Kingdom was the first in the world to undergo an industrial revolution, ushering in an age of growth and socio-economic development from which it still benefits today. However, this revolution was built off the backs of conquered territories, subjugated nations and millions of enslaved people. Just as we Britons still benefit from the riches extracted through colonialism, billions in Africa, South-Asia and elsewhere are still haunted by the ravages of the empire.
The wealth extraction of the 19th and early 20th century set nations back decades and the decolonisation processes did little to restore these imbalances. In most cases, Britain withdrew just as haphazardly as they entered, leaving conditions rife for political instability and economic stagnation. In view of this exploitative and predatory history, Britain’s foreign aid efforts have hereunto been a feather on the scales of justice. To cut this aid further is to surrender any gesture of recompense and deny any culpability for the conditions of the world which Britain helped create.
Moreover, while much of Europe may think highly of Starmer in this moment as he proves himself to be an admittedly competent and decisive leader in defence in the face of a transatlantic rug-pull, this means little to those outside the continent. To the millions who had no choice to be reliant on foreign aid to combat diseases like HIV, build housing or install basic amenities like water and sanitation, they will only remember that in this moment, Starmer turned his back to them and left them to struggle and starve in solitude.
Lost Economic Opportunity
To those unassuaged by my arguments toward moral responsibility, I make the case that this reduction in aid will do much to harm a Starmer’s “growth agenda”; a goal as important for delivering economic stability to millions in the UK as it is for the PM’s own political survival.
Our relationships with former colonial “properties” and other nations in the developing Global South will be severely damaged by the turning of our backs on them. Take a country like Nigeria for example, who relies on about £150 million to fund vital sanitation, housing, education and climate change mitigation projects. As the UK shrinks the budgets for these programmes, millions of Nigerians will see any hopes of an improved quality of life dashed. In Nigeria, as in many countries like Somalia or Ethiopia who depend on similar levels of aid, the shock this retrenchment creates will be remembered through civil societies for generations; a message that Britain left them behind, once again.
This is more than a failure in UK international development policy; it could dampen our economic prospects in the years to come. The population of the African continent is set to almost double by 2050 to 2.5 billion and 3.81 billion by 2100; the economic potential found in such a large and young workforce could mirror that of China and South-East Asia between the 1950s and early 2000s. To take the Nigerian example once more, their population is set to double to over half a billion by the end of the century, likely entailing an untold level of economic growth and development.
By souring relations with such a promising group of economies now, Britain may be foregoing favourable trade relations and economic opportunities with this potent bloc for decades to come. The decision to shrink foreign aid can thus be seen as an incredibly short-sighted economic policy; a saving of a few billion in the short-term that may cost us tenfold in renounced fortunes in the decades following.
International Security Risk
The decision to slash foreign aid also implies a fatally naive conception of international security and great power competition. The shortfall in aid and development spending will be picked up by actors with shaky human rights records and antagonistic motivations such as China or Saudi Arabia. Already, these nations have used a combination of aid and infrastructure projects to deepen ties with developing countries, and as Britain (alongside the US of course) retracts from their commitments to foreign aid, these ties are likely to deepen further. Over the past decade it has become clear that the Global South does not see the West as a reliable benefactor, reluctant and overbearing in their ever-slimming contributions toward development. Continued reductions in aid will only push developing nations toward the blank cheques of China and other partners whose values and interests are antithetical to those of the UK.
The logic offered behind drawing from aid funds to bolster defence spending is that it will create a safer and more resilient Britain. Yet it is likely to create opportunities for our adversaries to exploit, increasing their own political influence in the Global South just as Starmer surrenders Britain’s. Political gains made by China et al are ones which can easily be converted into strategic security advantages. China could quite conceivably leverage the good-will conferred through its development aid to establish an air base in Ethiopia or a naval base in Sudan. This would endow China with much greater power projection onto the Red Sea, through which much of Britain’s trade passes. Moreover, it would leave China’s air force within 2 hours striking distance of mainland Europe, perhaps even less if we transplant this hypothetical to Libya or Egypt (though Starmer has confirmed Egyptian aid will remain unchanged for the moment).
In light of this, a meager saving of 0.2% of GDP does not seem like it will be the necessary boon to national security upon which these cuts are justified. The concerns regarding strategic retrenchment are just as prescient in the Middle-East and Gulf regions; a British foreign aid withdrawal leaving countries such as Syria, Lebanon or Yemen even more amenable to Chinese diplomatic advances.
A Rise in Global Instability
The reduction in foreign aid will also make possible an uptick in transnational issues such as terrorism, global health crises and refugee flows, each of which poses further challenges to Labour’s agenda.
Firstly, as has been pointed out by many including the former Royal Army chief, decreasing aid toward health and social development projects weakens a state. This is a vacuum often filled by terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, ISIS or Boko Haram, who use their funds to offer quality of life improvements to those within its controlled territory in exchange for shelter, support and manpower. A lack of opportunity amongst disaffected and socio-economically disadvantaged is a foundational and long documented reason for why young men in particular turn toward radical terrorist organisations, and Starmer’s reduction in aid only increases the rate at which this shall happen. Within the decade, new threats may rise and old groups may see a resurgence, impelling a British response and embroiling us in avoidable conflicts.
Secondly, the decrease in contributions to local sanitation projects could have cross-border implications that prove counterproductive to British interests. The COVID-19 pandemic showed how easily viruses can spread across borders, sow chaos and cause damage as measured in human and economic terms. Britain’s foreign aid has been used to fund projects that make it harder for bacteria and viruses to thrive and develop, and vaccinations that improve human resilience and stunt the spread of harmful pathogens. With these efforts abandoned, the likelihood of another dangerous virus developing is higher, as is the chance that it will spread faster and further. Five years after the start of the pandemic Britain is still physically, sociologically and economically recovering from COVID, and to retreat from global health efforts is a reckless denial of this fact.
Finally, and likely of most political concern to Starmer, the reduction in foreign aid risks increasing the flow of refugees into Europe and the UK. The potential for increased violence from various armed groups across Africa or the Middle-East could disrupt the lives of millions, conflicts displacing them and forcing them to flee their homes. Likewise, a reduction in climate aid may leave many people exposed to inhospitable environments and forced to migrate to safer areas. Not only would this be a tragedy in and off itself – nobody wants to leave their homeland unless they absolutely have to – but it would be a gift to the far-right.
To parties such as Reform UK, the AfD or the French National Assembly (Marine Le Pen’s party) an increase of people flowing to Europe and the UK for safe harbour would play into their xenophobic fear-mongering. This may grant them even greater political influence, control even, which risks destabilising Europe and fuelling a populist-nationalist agenda which rips apart over 75 years of unity and cooperation. Since I am doubtful that Starmer is able to rearticulate the conversation around immigration to allay fears and outline the benefits of immigration, the next best option is to stem the flow of refugees at the source through ensuring people have less cause to abandon their homelands.
A Way Forward
In announcing his cut to foreign aid, Starmer claimed that increased defence spending “can only be funded by hard choices”. From where I’m standing, it looks like he’s actually made the easiest choice of all. He has taken money from the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in global society, to whom he is also not electorally accountable and will face no tangible political consequences.
If Starmer wanted to make a truly hard choice, but one with the potential for far greater impact, he could consider finally committing to a wealth tax. Even the most conservative estimates from Tax Justice UK find the government could raise £24bn from a modest wealth tax on assets worth over £10m – that’s three times the £6bn the government saved by cutting the foreign aid budget. If the government applied slightly stronger policies, that figure could go up to £50bn; enough to increase the defence budget to well beyond 2.7% and keep foreign aid spending at least 0.5% (although here too, an increase would be prudent, as this article would suggest).
I’m not ignorant to the political backlash Starmer will face for raising taxes, but there are only so many welfare budgets and foreign aid programmes he can cut before it may become a necessity anyway. Starmer is early in his term, and raising taxes on the wealthy now would mean years for it to pay dividends that quell reactionary discontent. Moreover, who benefits more from a secure Britain than the wealthiest in the country? Would their bottom line’s not be threatened by a Britain established by conflict, their foreign investments imperiled by conflicts that cut across supply chains? They have the most to give and least to lose by an increase in tax, and it is only right that they contribute to the safe and resilient Britain from which they continue to generate wealth.