Cutting Foreign Aid will damage Britain’s diplomatic position
Paul Fricker.
In late November the government announced proposals to cut the foreign aid budget from the target 0.7% of GDP to 0.5% of GDP for 2021, signifying an approximate reduction of £4 billon. Foreign aid, as defined by the House of Commons is “administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective”. This proposal has sparked protest from within the Conservatives and the wider political community, demonstrating that foreign aid will remain a contentious issue and a defensible asset of the UK.
Foreign aid is an annual budget, suggested by the UN target set in 1970 for member states to donate 0.7% of their GDP to foreign aid. The UK committed to this policy in 1974 but achieved the annual 0.7% target in 2013. Two years later the UK set the 0.7% target in law within the UK. Violation of the law could not be taken through the courts, but the International Development Secretary was required to justify their reasons for not meeting the target to the Houses of Parliament.
The Foreign aid cut will be damaging to the UK diplomatically during a vital period. Brexit and Covid-19 provide two major, outward-looking opportunities for the UK to establish stronger and new relations with foreign states. Foreign aid frequently treats health crises in the deprived regions. The HIV, Cholera and Ebola pandemic reactions have benefitted from foreign aid funds. Vulnerable regions will require huge international aid relief in the long term to tackle the virus and future economic hardship, worsening conflicts and regional instability exacerbated by the Covi-19 pandemic. Foreign aid is therefore a necessity to protect fragile states and in part, our home economies who depend on foreign states for trade. The foreign aid cut will also damage the Brexit process as the aid would be a vital tool in diplomacy as Britain seeks to engage in new trading relations and strengthen former alliances. Cutting the aid will therefore reduce the effectiveness of UK diplomacy during a critical period. As Dominic Raab stated, the UK "is a leading, if not one of the leading, countries on aid", demonstrating the critical role of UK aid internationally. The reduction of foreign aid is therefore a multi-pronged blow to international diplomacy, reducing the effectiveness of UK diplomats. The cuts are also potentially damaging the government’s reputation especially during 2021 when the UK will host the G7 summit and the COP 26 conference because the UK will seek portrayal as a world-leading state on current issues whilst cutting funding from a significant humanitarian policy.
Foreign aid is perhaps the easiest target for government reductions because it is difficult to measure. Unlike military interventions, trade and other foreign policy work aid is difficult to measure and evaluate. Politicians and academics have noted that the effectiveness of foreign aid is difficult to track and can never be isolated as the aid is often a part of a comprehensive foreign policy package. Foreign aid is thus a soft power of the UK and whilst it is, when used successfully an effective diplomatic tool alongside being a great method of establishing trade relations and political influence. It is also extremely expensive, marred by rare, but extremely tabloid-prone scandals and not a good home-policy tool for government. The benefits of foreign aid aren’t evident to the press or public, thus one can expect a ‘Home First’ rhetoric gaining momentum during economic hardship. A recent YouGov survey highlighted this when two-thirds of voters supported the cuts, including supporters of all major political parties.
The projected £350bn deficit furthers opposition to foreign aid, with some MPs welcoming the decision and seeking its abolition entirely. The UK's national debt is over £2 trillion and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) stated that borrowing hit £22.3bn in October, the highest since monthly records began in 1993. Cuts are therefore essential to address the recession. Foreign aid is an easy target for such cuts.
The effectiveness of foreign aid as a tool of foreign policy has been noted by Tony Blair, David Cameron, Jeremy Hunt and the Archbishop of Canterbury who expressed their displeasure at the reductions. General Lord David Richards, former head of the British Army, supported the former prime ministers, saying it was in the UK's interests to be "as generous as possible", adding: "It's much cheaper than fighting wars.” The UK is nowhere near considering an overseas conflict, but as all previous figures note, foreign aid is a relatively cheap and useful foreign policy tool that can be used in a variety of contexts. The five biggest recipients of the UK’s bilateral aid were Pakistan, Syria, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Afghanistan. These states have improved their security as a result of funds from the UK. Corruption of foreign aid is evident, with the recent Elite Capture of Foreign Aid publication highlighting that aid was directed to tax havens, illegitimate governments and hijacked by militias. However, under correct leadership and thorough moderation, foreign aid can be sheltered from large-scale corruption.
As International Development Committee Chair, Sarah Champion MP, reacted: “This is devastating news for the poorest people in the world. …. In recent days, we’ve had former Prime Ministers, business groups, aid groups, all warning against such a move saying our global standing will be threatened”. The cuts to foreign aid are almost inevitable whilst the UK seeks to address economic hardship. But the decision will damage the UK diplomatically, generating a divide in government between national and international interests.