Apr 13, 2025 08:19 PM
(This post was last modified: Apr 13, 2025 08:20 PM by C C.)
Britain’s aid cuts harm the world – and the UK itself
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/edi...32479.html
EXCERPTS: When the government announced that it was to divert almost half of the annual foreign aid budget to defence spending, the outcry, beyond the aid community and the demonstrative resignation of the development minister, was rather less than might have been expected in response to such a drastic switch.
To be sure, the muted response had its causes, which included the acceptance that Europe was going to have to pay a lot more towards its own defence; the continuing strength of UK public support for Ukraine; and the regrettable reality that foreign aid is rarely a popular destination for taxpayers’ money...
[...] As is so often the case, the first to suffer will be the poorest, and chief among those are women and girls, mothers and babies. Programmes designed to widen access to education, family planning, clean water and food are all likely to be cut back or ended, affecting as many as 12 million people. Almost 3 million fewer children could be in education compared with five years ago. Poor sanitation means the spread of disease; curtailing sexual health programmes risks increasing the spread of HIV. By any measure, these add up to a big step in the wrong direction.
Even those dismal figures, however, do not tell the whole story...
[...] International pressure to keep up foreign aid spending is also diminished. ... At 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI), the UK’s aid contribution is now at its lowest for 25 years. It is a far cry from the 0.7 per cent of GNI that is called for by the UN, was promised by the Blair government, and was finally reached by the UK in 2013.
[...] Summary cuts to vital aid programmes harm the intended recipients above all. But they harm the donor country and its government, too. They damage its reputation and its projection of “soft power”, but they also threaten to increase multiple risks, from the spread of disease to security threats and enforced migration, any or all of which could eventually reach our shores. A supposedly short-term slashing of the foreign aid budget today can all too easily translate into much higher costs for everyone tomorrow... (MORE - missing details)
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/edi...32479.html
EXCERPTS: When the government announced that it was to divert almost half of the annual foreign aid budget to defence spending, the outcry, beyond the aid community and the demonstrative resignation of the development minister, was rather less than might have been expected in response to such a drastic switch.
To be sure, the muted response had its causes, which included the acceptance that Europe was going to have to pay a lot more towards its own defence; the continuing strength of UK public support for Ukraine; and the regrettable reality that foreign aid is rarely a popular destination for taxpayers’ money...
[...] As is so often the case, the first to suffer will be the poorest, and chief among those are women and girls, mothers and babies. Programmes designed to widen access to education, family planning, clean water and food are all likely to be cut back or ended, affecting as many as 12 million people. Almost 3 million fewer children could be in education compared with five years ago. Poor sanitation means the spread of disease; curtailing sexual health programmes risks increasing the spread of HIV. By any measure, these add up to a big step in the wrong direction.
Even those dismal figures, however, do not tell the whole story...
[...] International pressure to keep up foreign aid spending is also diminished. ... At 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI), the UK’s aid contribution is now at its lowest for 25 years. It is a far cry from the 0.7 per cent of GNI that is called for by the UN, was promised by the Blair government, and was finally reached by the UK in 2013.
[...] Summary cuts to vital aid programmes harm the intended recipients above all. But they harm the donor country and its government, too. They damage its reputation and its projection of “soft power”, but they also threaten to increase multiple risks, from the spread of disease to security threats and enforced migration, any or all of which could eventually reach our shores. A supposedly short-term slashing of the foreign aid budget today can all too easily translate into much higher costs for everyone tomorrow... (MORE - missing details)