A Step in the Wrong Direction for Global Britain

The reduction of the UK’s overseas aid budget from 0.7% of national GDP to 0.5% will be harmful not just to the global population but to the UK itself. It is obvious that cutting funding to schemes that the world’s poorest rely on will cause significant harm, a conscious decision that the UK government has made. What is less obvious is how this short-sighted decision will harm the UK government and population. It is more than just a number. Stripping over £24 billion (Kakkad, J. et, al, 2021) from projects in less economically developed countries has a real, felt impact on people’s daily lives. Such a cut in spending means the reduction of the UK’s global presence- this impact will diminish the UK in the eyes of governments across the globe. Aside from the very important loss of moral leverage, the UK loses its position as an ‘aid superpower’ (Kakkad, J. et, al, 2021), a leader in positive change that helped the world instead of boosting British exports. The leadership position is something the UK could be proud of, especially when the phrase ‘global Britain’ usually invokes a shameful colonial past. Our image is not the only thing that suffers from this change, however. The UK is now at greater risks from migration flows (Kakkad, J. et, al, 2021) and trust with developing countries is eroded as our international influence subsides.

It is very important that we realise what it means for the UK to reduce the aid budget by almost a third. For us it is a shift in how we allocate our funding, for girls in Pakistan it means their school will shut. According to the BBC 11,000 girls will no longer be able attend school in Pakistan (BBC News, 2021) because of the lack of funding. The Guardian insists the cuts will lead to 100,000 preventable deaths (Kommenda, N. and Kirk, A., 2021) due to a reduction in health initiatives. These are the real-world implications of the UK reducing its overseas aid budget. Building back better after COVID clearly does not include the world’s poor. It is important to understand what our foreign aid achieves as it is so often the difference between life and death. When viewing aid through its impact rather than what it means politically within the UK, reducing the aid budget becomes less of a political football and more an instrument by which deaths are prevented and futures are protected.

The reduction of UK aid is so devastating because before the change we were able to do such good. Through the UK’s previous commitments three million people were lifted out of poverty and forty million children were helped into schools (Kakkad, J. et, al, 2021). The UK’s aid was modern, it saw a focus on human wellbeing over economic growth, money was spent on civil society and the attainment of gender equality (Phillips, K., 2013). By putting people first, the UK led the charge in changing how we should help those less well off. If Afghanistan is anything to go by, people’s lives are improved with education and healthcare, not through bombs and military takeover. Such a leading role was obtained through the expertise of the Department for International Development (DfID) which employed a technocratic approach insisting on helping those in need as opposed to propping up friendly regimes (The Economist, 2021). DfID was the marvel of the international community, a hub of overseas aid expertise, that assured the UK taxpayer knew their money was leading to measurable change (The Economist, 2015). As the UK embarks on its journey to find its place in the world outside of the European Union such a positive impact should not be thrown away so hastily. The UK is so little thought of as a world leader, but in the effectiveness of DfID’s overseas aid it found its global role.

As our ‘superpower’ status wanes so does the UK’s influence abroad, the result of which will have a significant impact on the UK itself. The UK international reputation is now tarnished, the changes to the budget saw funding removed almost overnight with little warning. As such, relationships with foreign states will be strained (Cameron-Chileshe, J., 2021) due to the sudden decrease in cooperation, something which will severely harm any future trade agreements that the UK will need to make post Brexit. The fewer trade agreements that are signed, the slower the UK economy can recover from the COVID meaning that 0.7% is less likely to be reinstated any time soon.

It is not just the intangible loss of our global influence that will affect the UK, people in the UK will suffer directly as a result of the budgetary change. More migrants will attempt dangerous crossings in the hope of getting to the UK as staying in their original country becomes impossible without British aid. Furthermore, under the 0.7% target 11,700 jobs were created in the UK, 8,900 of those being medium and high skilled jobs (Kakkad, J. et, al, 2021). A large portion of these will now be lost as the sector shrinks under government neglect. It is not as though this money is being spent on job creation, the NHS or even being used to pay off debt. The majority of the money ‘saved’ from the cut, £16.5 billion to be exact, will be allocated as defence spending (Kakkad, J. et, al, 2021) and whilst the most militaristic among us will not see this as inherently bad there is a significant reason as to why this money would be better off left in the hands of DfID. Currently, due to the pandemic, the government has delayed their Integrated Review of Foreign, Defence and Security Policy (Kakkad, J. et, al, 2021) meaning any money pumped into the Ministry of Defence has no plan to follow. The lack of an apparatus to direct funding is a far cry from the expertise of DfID, it is therefore not hard to argue that the 0.7% should have stayed where it was as it is now likely to be lost in bureaucracy.

So many people are harmed by the choice of the UK government to reduce the aid budget. Yet, if the argument that our aid prevented children from dying is not enough to sway thinking, then the negative impact on the UK itself must. The UK will lose potential trading partners and allies in upholding human rights as our moral leverage shrinks alongside our global influence. If that is not enough, jobs will suffer as an industry the UK was once a leader in diminishes. Global Britain had started to mean something positive, but with the loss of our aid ‘superpower’ status our role on this planet is that much more unclear.

---

Notes

Kakkad, J., Miller, B., Scott, M. and Sleat, D., 2021. The UK’s International Aid Commitment. [online] Institute for Global Change. Available at: <https://institute.global/policy/uks-international-aid-commitment> [Accessed 15 November 2021].

BBC News. 2021. Foreign aid: Who will be hit by the UK government cuts?. [online] Available at: <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/57362816> [Accessed 15 November 2021].

Kommenda, N. and Kirk, A., 2021. ‘Devastating’: how UK’s foreign aid cuts could hurt the world’s poorest. [online] The Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/ng-interactive/2021/aug/23/devastating-how-cuts-in-uks-foreign-aid-could-hurt-the-worlds-poorest> [Accessed 15 November 2021].

Phillips, K., 2013. The history of foreign aid. [online] ReliefWeb. Available at: <https://reliefweb.int/report/world/history-foreign-aid> [Accessed 13 November 2021].

The Economist. 2021. Britain is no longer a leader in international giving. [online] Available at: <https://www.economist.com/britain/2021/07/15/britain-is-no-longer-a-leader-in-international-giving> [Accessed 26 November 2021].

The Economist. 2015. Beyond handouts. [online] Available at: <https://www.economist.com/international/2015/09/17/beyond-handouts> [Accessed 26 November 2021].

Cameron-Chileshe, J., 2021. Overseas aid cuts make UK an outlier among G7. [online] Ft.com. Available at: <https://www.ft.com/content/1374907d-ae10-4121-a522-7ddd4be47031> [Accessed 15 November 2021].