You are a hope-bringer in forgotten conflicts
27 February 2025
Keir Starmer made a promise last year that few seem to remember. A “new approach”, he called it, to reverse the Tories’ chaotic handling of international affairs, and to rebrand Britain as a global leader on international development. Less frenzy. More influence. Sounds good, right?
In a hectic world, we need our leaders to project this kind of calmness and compassion. Britain should aspire to be a beacon of stability, putting our values into practice by thoughtful actions and consistent diplomacy. We keep cool, with quiet confidence. We show our humanity and leadership on the world stage.
In reality, of course, the UK is not as loved as we like to imagine. The Prime Minister’s “new approach” to foreign aid is basically the same as the old approach. In fact it’s even worse. He announced cuts of £2bn from the international development budget within three months of taking office. And a further £6bn earlier this week. At a time of unprecedented humanitarian crises, he is withdrawing vital support to millions of people in need.
[Image: Displaced families in Jabarona, Sudan, receive no assistance from the UK Government. Many resort to eating roots, grass and leaves for survival.]
Every day in my work, I hear stories and see evidence of conflict-affected communities who require urgent assistance but who are ignored by the outside world. In Jabarona, Sudan, displaced families receive no help from the UK Government or any major aid organisation. Parents resort to feeding their children roots and grass for survival. In Plateau State, Nigeria, victims of militia attacks are left to fend for themselves. Critical injuries are often treated with local remedies, such as crushing leaves to treat wounds or using battery acid, coal or petrol as disinfectant. In Shan State, Myanmar, pregnant mothers are fleeing conflict to remote jungles and giving birth in highly dangerous locations. Their babies may be born prematurely or suffer from infections. Yet there is almost no special care to help them survive.
Sir Keir can make a difference. If he is serious about fighting poverty, and committed to rebuilding Britain’s reputation on international development, he should rethink his cuts to foreign aid. It is not too late to reverse the decision. It might damage him politically in the short term. But it will save many lives in the very, very long term.
Now is not the time for Britain to disengage.
The Prime Minister always has choices. Even within fiscal restraints, he can choose to negotiate and adapt. He doesn’t have to remove billions from aid spending. There are other options, including the option of maintaining the budget (at 0.5% of Gross National Income) or increasing it (from 0.5% to 0.7% by 2027; a potential waypoint being 0.58% by 2026). If the latter sounds too much, or too fast, then pause to consider the scale and speed at which the world is changing.
President Trump has ripped up the rulebook on humanitarian relief. His 90-day freeze on US assistance has plunged vulnerable populations into real-life horror stories. Life-saving programmes have ceased. Disease and famine will escalate. Now is not the time for Britain to disengage. Starmer must honour his better instincts and offer renewed hope to those facing extreme crisis.
That means scaling up foreign aid and finding, from somewhere, an extra 0.2% of GNI within the next two years. The Treasury won’t like it. Neither will sections of the media. In a post-Trump world, they are understandably nervous about cuts to other budgets. ‘Charity begins at home’, they will argue, ‘let’s get our own house in order first’. Such concerns are red herrings for at least four reasons:
1. Foreign aid is not charity; it is among the UK’s greatest soft power tools. Assistance to Armenia, for example, fosters a sense of partnership and mutual respect. It leads to stronger ties, and positive perceptions, making it easier to argue for positive outcomes. By increasing assistance, we increase Britain’s influence.
2. Foreign aid builds stability, whereas cuts destabilise fragile states, creating conditions that foster conflict and extremism, leading to problems that end up costing more. Starmer himself made this point before becoming Prime Minister. As Leader of the Opposition, he said: “Aid spending makes Britain more secure and prevents the need for military spending in future, which demonstrates the folly in reducing our aid commitments at a time of global instability… My fear is simple: the vacuum we leave behind will be quickly filled not by those who share our values, but by those who seek to destroy them.” Read that again. Keir Starmer literally spoke these words less than three years ago.
3. We are not talking about 20% of GNI, not even 10%. For every one pound of UK earnings, less than one penny would go to foreign aid, and 99p for everything else.
4. These are causes that any British taxpayer should be proud to support: building schools; providing clean water; helping farmers grow food; giving medicine to sick people. The whole point of international development is to affect lasting change. We each play our part in making the world a more equal and better place.
The question we should be asking. Does the Prime Minister intend to keep his promise? Does he really mean it when he talks about expanding the UK’s global influence? Does he really think Britain can become a world leader in tackling poverty? If yes, it is time for a rapid U-turn. Reverse the cuts. Boost foreign aid.
Sam Mason, CEO of HART (Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust)