Foreign aid is not charity it’s defence
In the process of applying for various jobs I’ve been asked to write everything from my hopes and dreams for the next five year of my life to what I believe is the biggest threat to the UK media industry. A recent question asked me to choose and discuss one of the biggest news stories that has occurred in the last six months and explain why. My chosen news story was the UK cuts to foreign aid. Feeling like I may not get the job (I’ve been on the job market now for while), I thought I’d extend what I wrote into my first political op-ed, something I’ve been nervous about trying but eager to attempt. So here it goes.
Foreign aid has long been considered a duty of leading nation states. A sort of Kantian moral imperative. States then assume this duty should be sacrificed for the sake of national security. Logic would have it that politicians must put their citizens first; national interest overrides moral obligations to the wider international community. I disagree with this logic. Foreign aid is not a moral imperative that states can choose to participate in. It’s a necessary feature of a functioning international community. It’s simply an imperative.
The International Development Act of 2016 introduced the duty to spend 0.7% of Britain’s gross national income (GNI) on aid. This positioned Britian proudly as a humanitarian leader amongst other leading nations. Covid 19 sparked the first cuts to foreign aid which occurred alongside a promise to return to the 0.7%. On the 25th of February 2025, the current Prime Minister, Kier Starmer, announced that he would be cutting the UK’s foreign aid budget from 0.5% of the GNI to 0.3% by 2027. This would involve slashing aid once reserved for humanitarian crises and conflict, global health security and education, climate change, poverty, and refugees. What was Starmer’s justification for these cuts? Britian’s need to increase its defence spending.
Starmer’s choice to slash spending provides a clear indication for where the world is heading. It represents our descent into a world of fear and protectionism as opposed to compassion and inclusion. The world is moving further and further away from perceiving conflict and distress as transformable. Instead, these issues have been reduced to solely manageable, something that can only be contained not solved. In doing so, politicians like Starmer are admitting defeat before even looking at the issue. In fact, it seems any attempt to pursue or even discuss peace and global security have been labelled pointlessly ‘idealistic’. The laws of isolationism and self-help have taken precedence over any hope of international cooperation.
Jenny Chapman, Britian’s Minister of State for Development, praised this move. She talked about the positives of moving away from international aid for both donor and recipient. It was frightening to read about Chapman speaking in such a way that made the word ‘charity’ sound taboo. Cutting aid, according to Chapman, was about more than just increasing defence spending, it was about deconstructing the humanitarian industry and, in its place, building a business-like system that functions upon the rules of efficiency, profit and reciprocity. Masked behind business-like language it seems we are witnessing the delegitimization and dismantling of both the concept and system of foreign aid, making it seem not only idealistic but also harmful for all parties involved.
The government’s choice highlights a question that needs to be re-examined. What obligation does Britain have to those beyond their borders?
Our moral obligation to the political community is no longer enough to incentivise government and public support for foreign aid, in fact, it’s actually becoming counter intuitive. Being charitable and compassionate on the world stage is now perceived as a weakness. This does not have to mean the end to foreign aid; we just need to change the narrative. Foreign aid isn’t a selfless sacrifice made for the greater good, it’s a strategic move that attempts to secure the donor just as much for the recipient.
The world is, more than ever, inextricably linked. To deny this would be to deny the nature of the world which cannot, as much as some may try, be reversed. It’s assumed that cutting foreign aid will allow countries to divert their spending into areas contained within their borders; this is not the case. Cutting foreign aid is the unopened letter, the bill has arrived, you’ve ignored it and its going to get worse. Your the child who covers their eyes thinking it will make the problem go away. It won’t. To cut foreign aid in favour of defence must be seen as harming oneself as much as the other. You cannot stop wars, climate change, disease, or any other global issue crossing borders. If we are to properly address international issues, we must first accept the international nature of these issues. By accepting this, we must then accept that the solution must also be international. We can no longer hide behind military defence. Increasing foreign aid spending must be our new defence tactic.
Esme Gordon-Craig