With a diminished position on the global stage and waning soft power, the UK and its allies lose their ability to push back against authoritarian trends, writes Yasmine Ahmed [photo credit: Getty Images]
The UK Labour government was elected on a manifesto that it was “committed to restoring development spending at the level of 0.7 percent of gross national income as soon as fiscal circumstances allow.” And yet, just eight months into its tenure, the government has u-turned on this commitment, slashing the aid budget to just 0.3 percent by 2027, a projected reduction in cash terms of approximately 4.5 billion pounds.
I have heard firsthand from human rights defenders what aid cuts could mean. The leader of an organisation that ensures access to reproductive health for the most marginalised people in Nairobi, Kenya, told me it is girls, like her 11-year-old sister, whose lives will be in danger. Her sister, a victim of sexual abuse, died as a result of not having access to accurate information on reproductive health and safe abortion care.
Despite the UK Government’s commitments to protect women and girls globally, they are the ones who most likely will bear the brunt of these cuts, if the2020 cuts are anything to go by.
By 2021, it is reported that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office had reduced its spending on sexual and reproductive health and rights by a third, halved its spending on family planning and cut spending on reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health by 37 percent.
I am not sure words exist that can do justice to the scale of the suffering this decision will create, the lives that will be lost, and the hardships and insecurity it will generate. It is an unconscionable betrayal of the world’s most marginalised people and a shameful retreat from the world stage. It is commendable that the former development minister, Anneliese Dodds, resigned on principle over the extent and impact of the cuts.
According to the United Nations, more than 300 million people require humanitarian assistance; more than 120 million people have been displaced; and two million people teeter on the brink of famine as the World Food Programme warns that “Acute food insecurity is set to increase in both magnitude and severity across 22 countries and territories.”
The UN Secretary-General warned that the US aid cuts will be “devastating for vulnerable people around the world … from Gaza to Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine and beyond.” The UK’s reduction will only compound this.
In Sudan alone, a total of 24.6 million people are acutely food insecure and famine is spreading across the country.
Relatively recently, the UK announced a doubling of aid to Sudan and further aid for Gaza but it is not clear whether this spending will be ring-fenced going forward.
In attempting to justify the cuts, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that the decision was not one he was happy to make, but “the defence and security of the British people must always come first.” His justification betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the role aid can play in reinforcing Britain’s security, both at home and abroad.
Here lies the remains of the UK’s soft power
Put simply, Britain benefits from the stability that UKAID fosters overseas.
That stability might be delivered through providing education to children and young people, including those vulnerable to recruitment by extremist groups, improving government accountability by supporting civil society groups in fragile or conflict-affected countries, or through programmes aimed at promoting social cohesion across ethnic, or religious divides. Investing in stability also reduces the likelihood that instability will cross borders, either in the form of terrorism or forced migration.
Starmer’s decision seems all the more short-sighted and political as these measures have been taken without a risk assessment and while knowing the efficacy of aid in promoting stability.
Painted as a zero-sum game between aid and defence, the discussion around this topic has failed to acknowledge the important role aid plays in exerting soft power, nor has it expended much energy examining alternative fundraising options available to Starmer.
Placed in this context, the evisceration of the aid budget feels like a political choice, more geared towards currying favour in the White House, which is itself slashing aid, and avoiding criticism in the right-wing media, than a genuine attempt at protecting and promoting British interests.
Subscribe Now and Listen to our Podcasts OnThe decision to downgrade the UK as an aid superpower will invariably have longer-term security implications. As the US and UK, two countries that are among the top international aid donors, signal their retreat, who do we think is likely to fill the void?
The European Commission, France and the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland have also decided to reduce future overseas development spending while Germany, another international aid giant, is yet to decide which course it will take.
With this vacuum, countries will not only become more susceptible to division and conflict, but also the influence of states that are actively hostile to human rights, like Russia, China, and the United Arab Emirates.
We have already seen how Trump’s cuts to aid have severed a critical lifeline for civil society actors and independent media in countries like Armenia and Moldova, countries already straining under the influence of Russia’s election meddling and misinformation campaigns. And in Georgia, where activists are fighting the dramatic rise of authoritarianism, and Russia itself and Belarus, where the abusive governments are attempting to eviscerate all forms of dissent. Crushing dissent often comes accompanied by attacks on women’s rights too.
Britain should not abandon those on the front line of fighting the rise of authoritarianism in Europe and beyond. Even if Starmer identifies this threat and maintains funding to some of these programmes, this whack-a-mole approach to aid inevitably leads to neglected areas, such as the Sahel and the Gulf of Aden, becoming more vulnerable to instability.
China, which continues to increase its global influence, undermine the rules-based order and promote its own norms via its “Belt and Road Initiative” and the Global Security Initiative” — which dilute human rights — is likely to be seen as an ever more attractive option in the void left by the US, UK and other democratic governments. With a diminished position on the global stage and waning soft power, the UK and its allies lose their ability to push back against these trends.
Leaving aside the massive human cost of this unconscionable decision, which aid groups warn could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths, Starmer’s approach is prioritising short-term gains over longer-term objectives. Weakening the basic rights of so many people will inevitably severely undermine British interests.
As one member of parliament put it in 2021, cutting aid is “not in the national interest” and “will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy.”
That member of parliament was Keir Starmer. He should heed his own advice.
Yasmine Ahmed is UK Director at Human Rights Watch
Follow her on X: @YasmineAhmed001
Have questions or comments? Email us at: [email protected]
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.