Why cutting aid to buy bombs is making us less safe

Key Concepts

Hard Power: Military strength and coercive capabilities.
Soft Power: Cultural and diplomatic influence, including development aid.
Integrated Defense, Diplomacy, Development (3Ds): A holistic approach combining military, diplomatic, and aid efforts for greater global influence and security.
0.7% GDP Aid Target: The United Nations target for developed countries to spend 0.7% of their Gross National Income (GNI) on official development assistance (ODA).
OECD DAC: The Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a forum of major aid donor countries.
Global Public Goods: Benefits that are non-excludable and non-rivalrous, meaning all countries benefit, and one country's use does not diminish another's (e.g., infectious disease monitoring, climate stability).
Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR): The ability of microbes to resist the effects of drugs, making infections harder to treat; a significant global health threat.
Irregular Migration: Migration that occurs outside the laws and regulations of the countries of origin, transit, or destination, often involving asylum seekers and refugees.
Fragile States: Countries with weak governance, high levels of conflict, and vulnerability to internal and external shocks.
Geopolitical Vacuum: A situation where a major power withdraws its influence or presence from a region, creating an opportunity for other powers to step in.
Post-colonial Power: A nation that was formerly a colonial power and whose foreign policy may be influenced by its historical role.
Fiscal Rules: Government-imposed constraints on fiscal policy, often related to spending, deficits, or debt.

The Crisis of Global Aid Cuts and Their Security Implications

The discussion, held on Wednesday, November 26, 2025, highlights a critical global issue: the widespread reduction in aid budgets in favor of defense spending amidst escalating international conflicts. Experts warn that these cuts not only harm vulnerable populations but also pose significant security risks to countries like Britain. The central argument is that cutting aid, far from enhancing security, actually makes nations less safe by eroding influence, exacerbating conflicts, and creating geopolitical vacuums.

Lord Danatt's Perspective: Aid as an Investment in Security

Lord Richard Danatt, former Chief of the General Staff of the British Army (2006-2009), argues that history demonstrates targeted aid reduces the burden on the military and is a crucial investment in national security.

The Erosion of UK Influence

Integrated Power: UK influence stems from a combination of "hard power" (defense) and "soft power" (diplomacy and development). While defense spending is deemed insufficient, the integrated approach of "defense, diplomacy, and development money" (3Ds) is vital for global influence.
Aid Budget Cuts: The UK's development budget, once at 0.7% of GDP during the coalition government, has been cut to 0.3% in recent years. Further proposals, such as Nigel Farage's suggestion of 0.1%, would lead to a significant loss of global influence.
Consequences of Cuts: This erosion of the ability to help people in their home regions contributes to increased irregular migration to the UK, with associated issues like small boat crossings and loss of life. Investing a "sensible amount" in development has "upstream long-term benefit."

Historical Examples of Aid and Defense Synergy

Sudan: Lord Danatt points to the UK's role as the "penholder" at the UN for Sudan. The failure to effectively use diplomatic and development power in Sudan has contributed to a "considerable number" of Sudanese migrants arriving in the UK via small boats, illustrating a failure to help people in their own countries and reduce pressure on the UK.
Bosnia (Mid-1990s): As commander of British forces, Lord Danatt witnessed how "relatively small amounts of money" for development (restoring roads, schools, infrastructure) could have had a "tremendous effect" on communities, complementing hard power efforts to bring Serb, Croat, and Muslim communities together after the Dayton peace agreement. He notes the US government generally understands this synergy better than the UK.

The Afghanistan Case Study

Premature Withdrawal (2021): The "unnecessarily early" and "shambolic" withdrawal of international forces (around 2,500 troops, not involved in combat) undermined two decades of "extraordinary good work."
Positive Developments Undermined: International forces had supported and trained the Afghan National Security Forces, which were holding the Taliban at bay. Afghan civil society was growing, evidenced by over 300 female judges and girls receiving secondary and tertiary education. The withdrawal, driven by a commitment to end the war and save money, led to the Taliban retaking control and the reversal of these societal improvements (e.g., no female judges now).

The Geopolitical Vacuum: China's Rise

China's Expansion: Lord Danatt expresses concern that Russia and particularly China are filling the vacuum left by decreased Western aid spending. China has a long-standing agenda to "take over Africa," a continent rich in resources, and has deployed between 900,000 and 1 million Chinese workers there.
Exploiting Western Hesitancy: China is "very clever" in focusing its development work, taking advantage of Western powers "not pulling our weight" from a development perspective. This shift in global influence is a result of Western "parsimonious" and "hesitant" approaches, partly due to "embarrassment of being a post-colonial power."

Making the Case for Aid to the Public

Sophisticated Argument: To convince the public, the government must link aid to direct UK security threats (e.g., Russia) and make a more sophisticated case: investing in fragile countries and weak democracies, through "inward investment," helps people live better lives in their home countries. This reduces the incentive for economic migration to the UK, which is a "much better thing for them and for the British people."
Avoiding Future Regrets: Lord Danatt warns against complacency, stating that "every pound we cut from development aid today risks costing us more in future military operations." Continuing on the current trajectory will "buring up greater problems." He advocates for a "modest and sensible level" of 0.5% or even back to 0.7% of GDP for aid to help secure futures abroad and reduce migration into Europe and the UK.

Olivia Sullivan's Analysis: Global Aid Cuts and Their Impact

Olivia Sullivan, Director of the UK in the World program at Chatham House and author of a new report, "Rethinking UK aid policy in an era of global funding cuts," provides a detailed analysis of the scale and consequences of these cuts.

The Scale of Global Aid Contraction

"Sharpest Contraction in Decades": Between 2023 and 2026, the 17 largest donors are expected to cut over $60 billion in aid, representing a fall from $213 billion in 2023 – roughly a third of previous spending.
Key Drivers: Cuts are driven by France, Germany, the UK, and other European donors.
US Impact: The "big significant hit" is the Trump administration's decision to "almost completely shutter USAID" in early 2025. The US has historically been the largest donor, sometimes accounting for a third of all aid spending by OECD DAC countries, and a major funder of global health and international organizations. While not the "end of the global aid system," it's a "big shock and a big change."

The US Aid Shift and Its Consequences

Dramatic Reductions: An executive order in early 2025 led to the cancellation of around 80% of existing foreign aid contracts. Confusing messages from the administration (e.g., "preserve life-saving programs") left US aid officials on the ground without clear guidance.
Operational Disruption: The overall picture is a massive reduction in US funding, not just for aid but also for international organizations. This has led to a much smaller USAID with less expertise, likely operating under the State Department.
Myanmar Earthquake Case Study: Following an earthquake in Myanmar in March, the US response was delayed (3 days instead of the usual 24-48 hours), with US officials reportedly receiving layoff emails upon arrival. This confusion allowed China to seize the opportunity, offering significant aid and demonstrating its presence, highlighting geopolitical rivalries.

Drivers of UK and European Aid Cuts

European Shock: Unlike the US, where cuts are ideological, European donors (including the UK) are reacting to a "slow-moving shock": the increasing unreliability of the US as a security partner and the ongoing conflict on Europe's border (Ukraine).
Defense Spending Targets: While Chatham House supports increased defense spending, the NATO target of 5% of GDP by 2035 requires billions more. The UK's aid cuts (yielding about £6 billion additional defense spending by 2027-28) are insufficient to meet the projected £73 billion defense spending target for that year.
Misguided Strategy: Cutting "comparatively small aid budgets" is not a viable strategy to meet defense targets and has "security consequences." A broader approach to collective security, encompassing both hard and soft power, is needed.

The Inextricable Link Between Aid and Security

Beyond Saving Lives: Aid and development serve multiple purposes beyond straightforwardly saving lives (health, education, emergency response).
Global Public Goods: A vast amount of aid funds international organizations that address "global public goods," which benefit all countries but cannot be controlled by one. Examples include:
- Monitoring Infectious Diseases: Diseases "don't respect borders." Outbreaks in poor countries can travel and affect developed nations.
- WHO Pandemic Preparedness: The World Health Organization's functions for pandemic preparedness and monitoring are reporting "significant cuts" and disruption. The COVID-19 pandemic was the "most costly and difficult episode" for UK national security in recent years, underscoring the importance of well-functioning international health institutions.
Impact on Fragile States: Aid cuts disproportionately affect the "35 to 40 countries in the world that are really consistently affected by conflict." It's easier to invest public-private funding in more stable countries (even for climate mitigation), leaving fragile states to "lose out even more."
Long-term Repercussions: Escalating conflicts in these regions tend to spill over, cause regional crises, foster illicit finance and organized crime, and generate refugee flows, which ultimately "rebound on us in the medium to long term."

Specific Impacts on Global Health

Health Bearing the Brunt: Health spending has taken the "hardest hit." The FCDO's Health Institutions and Health Security Department has seen a "61% cut" to its budget.
Loss of Strategic Initiatives: While some funding to major global health funds (e.g., Global Fund, Gavi) has been maintained (though reduced), smaller, more specialist institutions are losing out. The UK's Fleming Fund, a key initiative against Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) – a critical global public good – is being "shuttered." This is emblematic of how "long-term strategic preventative" programs are often the first to go during sudden cuts, despite their potential "considerable" effects on collective health security.
Measles Surge: The global surge in measles, while not solely attributable to aid cuts, highlights that "now is not a good time to... take your foot off the gas on infectious disease monitoring and management." Uncontrolled infectious diseases can significantly affect stability and security.

The Link Between Aid and Migration

Clarifying the Link: While increased wealth in poorer countries can sometimes lead to more migration (as people gain means and aspirations), aid is crucial for reducing irregular migration (refugee flows, small boat arrivals).
Conflict-Driven Migration: Irregular migration "comes from countries which are mired in conflict" (e.g., Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iraq, Syria). Aid cuts, by disproportionately affecting conflict-affected countries, exacerbate the conditions that cause people to flee, leading to "sudden flows and irregular flows and poorly governed flows of people."
Impact on Host Countries: Wealthier, stable countries neighboring conflict zones (e.g., Kenya hosting Somali refugees, Bangladesh hosting Rohingya refugees) bear a huge burden. Cuts to humanitarian funding for agencies like UNHCR could lead to a "loss of patience" and "bigger bone of contention" between these crucial allies and Western donors.

The Future of Aid Spending and Public Argument

Drastic Cuts Proposed: Current UK aid spending is at 0.3% (Labour cut from 0.7%). The Tories propose 0.1%, and Reform UK suggests 0.03%.
Core Argument for Preservation: Olivia Sullivan echoes Lord Danatt: "If we cut aid spending down to those levels, we're withdrawing an investment in our own security."
Responsibilities and Collective Security: Such cuts mean the UK would fail to meet its responsibilities as a global player (e.g., funding World Bank, IMF), undermine the global system's ability to respond to emergencies, and withdraw investment in controlling infectious diseases and preparing for pandemics – all of which "threaten our security too."
Public Understanding: The public recognizes the current insecure world and worries about actions that undermine global stability. A clearer case needs to be made that "quite a lot of aid spending is an investment in collective security and stability." The UK should maintain a clear approach to stability and work with like-minded countries, even amidst difficult choices.

Conclusion: The Imperative of Aid for Collective Security

The comprehensive analysis from Lord Danatt and Olivia Sullivan unequivocally demonstrates that development aid is not merely a charitable endeavor but a fundamental component of national and global security. Cutting aid budgets, particularly in an era of increasing global instability, creates dangerous geopolitical vacuums, exacerbates conflicts, fuels irregular migration, and weakens critical global health defenses. The speakers argue that such cuts are a false economy, risking greater costs in future military operations and undermining the UK's long-term security and influence. The overarching message is that investing in aid is an investment in collective security and stability, essential for safeguarding both vulnerable populations abroad and the well-being of nations like Britain.