Make Great Britain big again?

The international development sector is in shock. After the decision of the new American administration to freeze all development aid, the British government has also announced major reductions in its aid budget.

The United Kingdom and other NATO countries undergo increasing American pressure to increase defense spending by 2.3% to 2.5% of GDP. To comply with this demand, the British government has decided to reduce its 0.5% 0.3% national income budget by 0.5%.

There was an outcry among practitioners of aid concerning the devastating impacts of this British decision, at a time when the largest international donor (in the United States) is no longer willing to send aid to poor countries hungry for resources.

According to The Guardian, some of the poorest and most conflict countries in the world will now see their aid programs funded by the British more than half. Ironically, many of these highly indebted countries dependent on aid owe their existing fragility to highly dividing and extractive policies implemented during British colonial domination.

The British Foreign Office, however, blames the negative impact of the Pandemic on the British economy, which has apparently forced the government to make difficult decisions, in particular by reducing international aid.

Political experts in the United Kingdom also justify aid reductions as a better option than increasing domestic taxes in response to the need to increase defense expenses. Help reductions in the United Kingdom will not only have devastating impacts on humanitarian efforts in countries already in distress, but also to undermine the strategic interests of Great Britain, exacerbating destabilization in fragile countries and in combustion of unregulated migration.

It is interesting to note that even the former British PMs, like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May, have urged the current Labor government to reconsider its decision to reduce the expenses of aid. However, many of these leaders were the supporters of neoliberal programs themselves, who exacerbate inequalities in poor countries.

The current British PM, like its predecessors, also put pressure for privatization, austerity and deregulation, which are typical neoliberal strategies, despite its apparently socialist tendencies.

International aid has always been a soft power instrument, having served as a carrot to attract poor countries to comply with the interests of donors. In recent years, the use of development and humanitarian aid to continue the strategic interests of donors has become even more obvious.

In 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the merger of the Department for International Development with the UK Foreign Office. Similar efforts are underway in the United States, which plan to absorb USAID programs in the State Department, to use aid more easily to pursue the own interests of America. Australia did the same way in 2013, when its liberal PM, Tony Abbott, joined Ausaid in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

British aid reductions would not only have an impact on bilateral development programs, but would also provide pressure on multilateral agencies, including those affiliated with the United Nations system. In addition to the Trump administration’s decision to reduce development funding, British aid cuts coincide with similar movements by other European countries, which also provide UN assistance and a plethora of international NGOs.

The Germany's assistance budget has also decreased in the past two years. The Netherlands have reduced 30% of its aid budget, while redirecting these funds to projects that contribute more directly to Dutch interests. Belgium has reduced aid by 25%, while France reduced its 37%aid budget.

These disruptive trends can lead worldwide powers and China to become a larger player in the international development sector, which will also allow this emerging superpower to increase its already significant international influence.

What would be the most desirable is that the governments of poor countries reduce their dependence on their aid, which will also make them less inclined to follow inequitable development models. It remains to be seen if this will happen and which countries will have the most successful in transforming this aid crisis into a more important self -sufficiency opportunity.