By Jack Keen
On the 25th of February, the Prime Minister Sir Kier Starmer, announced a major 46% cut to foreign aid. A drop from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP. He promises to redirect the funding to British defence, raising from 2.3% to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. He announced a further ambition to reach 3% defence GDP by next parliament. This aid cut has been criticised not only by the opposition, but also by members of the Labour Party.
foreign aid, is key cog in the UK foreign policy tool kit
Aid spending is often spent in a variety of ways. Most commonly on development projects, like dams and infrastructure, or on humanitarian projects like malaria relief. In recent years, it has also been used as a form of providing economic relief abroad, to ensure market stability. Whilst foreign aid is a key tool in improving people’s lives, it also has a political purpose. By improving people’s lives, extremist recruitment diminishes and there is less migration to the UK. So foreign aid, is key cog in the UK foreign policy tool kit. However, foreign aid has also been used as a form neo-colonialism. Some nations may become dependent on UK aid, as a result the UK has leverage over the receiving nation. Furthermore, some critics consider aid spending a waste, especially when given to corrupt nations.
Amid rising global tensions, marked by Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, most parties agree it is vital to bolster UK defence
By increasing its defence spending, the UK can bolster its defences against enemies, particularly in modern frontiers such as cyber and drone warfare. Furthermore, increased defence spending may have a trickle-down effect on diplomacy, by meeting NATO commitments, and having a ‘larger stick’ to pressure adversaries. However, increased spending may have the opposite effect, by potentially creating an arms race.
Since the cold war, the UK has relied on its allies. Now, following a more isolationist US foreign policy from Donald Trump’s re-election, there are growing concerns about the UK’s ability to rely on its allies for defence. Even more worryingly, there has been a growing concern over the UK’s own ability to defend itself, with former UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace claiming the Army had been “hollowed out”. Amid rising global tensions, marked by Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, most parties agree it is vital to bolster UK defence. It is in this context, that the Prime Minister has justified the reallocation of funding, arguing that strengthening the UK’s military is increasingly necessary. He says, “At times like this, the defence and security of the British people must always come first.”
However, the move sparked accusations of hypocrisy. In 2021, Starmer, then Leader of the Opposition, strongly criticised the decision of the then Conservative government to “temporarily” reduce the foreign aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of Gross National Income (GNI). Now, as Prime Minister, he has gone further than Conservatives by cutting international aid to 0.3%, while echoing their past assurances by promising, “we will do everything we can to return” a commitment eerily similar to the one he once condemned.
Labour MPs have rebuked their leader, with International Development Minister Anneliese Dodds resigning in protest. MP Emily Darlington argued, “National defence and international development are two sides of the same coin,” emphasizing that “our long-term security requires us to invest in both.” The Conservative opposition has welcomed the increase in defence spending, while the Liberal Democrats also supported the boost but called for an alternative source of funding.
The UK is not the only country choosing to cut international aid. In the U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered the dismantling of USAID, cutting $60 billion from the budget. The Centre for Global Development estimates that this could result in “3 million deaths worldwide” within a year. Broken down, this includes “1.6 million people” affected by the loss of U.S.-funded HIV and AIDS prevention programs, “550,000” who will die without food aid, and “1 million” who will be left without access to vaccines.
strengthening the UK's defence is a legitimate priority in an increasingly unstable world, however, cutting foreign aid to fund it comes at a severe humanitarian cost
With the dissolution of USAID, the aid cuts come at an especially bad time. Developing nations in need of assistance have fewer and fewer options to turn to. As Western aid declines, countries such as China and Russia are stepping in, offering alternatives, particularly through initiatives like China’s Belt and Road Initiative. As a result, Western Hegemony may wain in the coming years, as nation look to the east, rather than the west for leadership.
Ultimately, strengthening the UK's defence is a legitimate priority in an increasingly unstable world, however, cutting foreign aid to fund it comes at a severe humanitarian cost. Starmer’s decision will weaken the UK’s global influence and cost the lives of millions of innocent people. While some argue that alternative revenue sources would be a better way to increase defence spending, others see the cuts as a necessary trade-off. However, with millions at risk, the consequences of Starmer’s aid reduction will be felt far beyond the UK’s borders.
Photograph: Reuters
Comments