Raiding the aid pot to plug financial holes is a monumental act of self-harm
4 min read
If, like me, you have been following Trump’s jaw-dropping antics on Ukraine, you will be relieved by the government’s decision to accelerate defence spending as we enter this perilous juncture. On this we can trenchantly agree.
But if you also believe that shoring up our military capability at home should come at the expense of our development budget overseas, it is here we part company, for Britain will emerge less secure as a result.
Instinctively we conceive defence in terms of our military might, which indubitably forms the cornerstone of our security strategies. But defence is about much more than the sum of our armed forces: there are limits to what hard power – designed to respond to traditional military threats – can achieve.
There are many examples around the world where boots on the ground failed to vanquish threats. In 2013 France’s intervention in Mali aimed at ousting Islamic militants from the north of the country was successful at first, with short term military gains secured at speed. But after spending a decade engaged in counterterrorism on the ground, France’s mission is widely judged a failure.
The government’s cuts betray a failure to grip the importance of soft power in our defence arsenal
The reason is simple. It wasn’t that the military wasn’t strong enough, it was that wars against terrorism cannot be won on the battlefield alone. To succeed it is not enough to kill terrorists, you must kill ideologies and offer hope. And that part, no amount of armament can secure.
But international development – or foreign aid – can and does. Contrary to the populist view that “we are giving away our money to foreigners”, development is essential to help alleviate the misery in fragile states like those across the Sahel belt where starving and vulnerable people fall prey to violent extremists.
When I was deputy foreign secretary I established the Sahel Regional Fund after visiting Niger, another deeply troubled country. The aim was to provide support to demonstrate an alternative path forward is possible and worth investing in. Challenging hostile ideologies involves changing people’s realities, and the state must be seen as a friend and ally and not as a predator.
Historically the UK was a leader on international development – admired around the world. We transformed lives and left positive footprints. All projects particularly in unstable settings like the Sahel, whether life-saving vaccinations, girls’ education, or family planning had measurable positive effects on people’s prospects. The more stable and secure the conditions, the less likely extremist movements will take root. In turn, investing in security and prosperity abroad makes us safer and more prosperous at home.
The government’s cuts betray a failure to grip the importance of soft power in our defence arsenal. Hard and soft power are two sides of the same coin, working in different but complementary ways, and if either isn’t functioning properly, or at all, the entire structure unravels.
While terrorists cheer on, and space now opens for the likes of Russia and China to enter the fray, ordinary people will lose out to poverty, disease and hunger.
Consider this: over the next few years the population of Africa will rise by 600 million. But economists claim that only 150 million new jobs will be created. Where will the others will go? The answer is they will migrate – largely toward the Mediterranean or Europe.
The prime minister’s framing the decision to reduce the aid budget as painful but inescapable is simply wrong. He made that choice against other fully costed options because he knew that foreign aid is the path of least resistance politically – the least likely to arouse opposition and most likely to enjoy public support.
But raiding the aid pot as a quick fix for plugging financial holes is not only a mistake, it is a monumental act of self-harm which will come back to bite us. I hope we will wake up before it is too late.
