With war raging between the world’s largest wheat producers, the government’s choice to cut the international aid budget from 0.7 to 0.5 percent of GDP spells a dark period for the world’s most vulnerable.

With war raging between the world’s largest wheat producers, the government’s choice to cut the international aid budget from 0.7 to 0.5 percent of GDP spells a dark period for the world’s most vulnerable.

The UN has estimated that the conflict in Ukraine will plunge an additional 13 million people into malnourishment within the next 12 months. This comes after last autumn, when the conflict in Afghanistan led the UN to predict that 23 million Afghans would face critical food insecurity, as well as the estimated 14.3 million people in desperate need in Sudan following the effects of climate change and political volatility, and the 14 million people in crisis in Syria after a compounded decade of war… The list goes on.

As a new conflict in Europe scorches at the sides of NATO and shifts the kilter of international relations, it brings with it a real threat of critical global food insecurity. With such intense humanitarian need surging from across the globe, the necessity to protect the world’s most vulnerable has never been greater.

The government’s decision to cut the international aid budget by 0.2 percent of GDP may not seem like a drastic decrease; however, it is crucial to consider that this equates to over four billion pounds. From building healthcare systems, to providing girls’ education opportunities, to supporting the disabled, this cut affects aid distribution across the humanitarian sector.

The Liberal Democrats, and previously the Liberal Party, have long pressed for the UK to continue to provide support for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. In 1964, Jo Grimond quoted that ‘A joint Western program of aid and trade is essential to defeat world poverty’. Indeed, in 2013, the Liberal Democrats successfully ensured 0.7 percent of GDP would be contributed to overseas development cooperation – despite opposition from many Conservative MPs.

The UK was, and remains, the first G7 nation to have met this target.

Unfortunately, this was not to last. Despite enshrining this spending commitment to 0.7 percent of GDP on development cooperation into law in 2015 via the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act, the government has since chosen to abandon this seismic commitment and decrease the spending allowance.

It is crucial to acknowledge that this not only plunges millions more into crisis, but those who were previously receiving aid become markedly less supported. This includes conflict riddled and geopolitically unstable areas such as Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia, and the DRC which now face a dramatic decrease in aid spending. These countries are part of a short-list of similarly fragile countries which take the brunt of a sum of £950 million in cuts.

Reducing support to conflict-prone areas has a well-recorded history in forging breeding grounds for extremism to flourish, as well as forcing gender violence to spiral out of control, and causing endemic migration. These are the very issues the government has said it is determined to squash.

By suspending large amounts of international aid, the government acts inconsistently with its goal to reduce migration. International aid is a key tool in curbing migration for two reasons. Firstly, because aid directed to increase development decreases the demand for migration. Secondly, because over time, settled migrants already residing in a host country begin to lobby for additional aid for their homeland. International aid is therefore a key tool in preventing an exponential increase in international migration.

The global impact of the reduction of aid spending does not stop here.

The Liberal Democrats are currently revising a motion to address the effect of a decrease in aid spending on the Chinese influence in developing countries. China has recently made it clear that as the UK retreats on the scene of international development, its globalist ambitions have been demonstrated via a new aid policy which is aimed at building long-term strategic relationships in the global south.

By allowing Chinese influence to flourish in the arena of international aid, the government’s decision challenges the UK’s position in global relations, and the stability of the international geopolitical status quo. Rather, the UK has compromised its previous long reputation of supporting those in need, consequently allowing other nations to take to the world stage on this front.

Moreover, as the only power in the G7 which has cut its international aid spending budget, this decision fundamentally undermines Johnson’s vision of Global Britain as a ‘soft power superpower’.

Now more than ever, it is time for the UK to maintain its standing within the global political hierarchy, and to show solidarity with those affected by crises.

This week Boris Johnson has outlined in an article in The Times, following his recent meeting with President Zelensky in Kyiv, that some 25 million tonnes of corn and wheat are currently piled in silos inside Ukraine, which are being held hostage by Russia. Johnson stated that this is the equivalent of ‘the entire consumption of all the least developed countries’.

While the significance of preventing this most recent global conflict from affecting the food supply chain cannot be overstated, the recent international aid funding cuts have shown that this government has failed to prioritise humanitarian need across their time in power. Let us not forget, the government chose to reduce the international aid budget at a time when many countries were battling the grip of the pandemic.

This is simply too little too late.

By turning its back on the world’s poorest, the government has painted the UK as a nation which is falling painfully short of its obligation to supply foreign assistance.

Providing aid to those most in need not only saves lives, but ensures that we build a stronger, safer, and more sustainable world for us all. As we look to the humanitarian crises around the world today, this could not be more important to prioritise.

Comments are closed.