Following his visit to India, David Cameron announces that some of the International Development budget could be redirected towards military peace-keeping expenditure. Politics editor Thom Hollick urges caution.
Now that health spending is subject to an effective cut thanks to the major restructuring of the NHS, the only department that still enjoys┬áring-fenced┬áspending commitments is the Department for International Development. The government’s commitment arises from its promise to meet a UN target for developed nations; to spend at least 0.7 per cent of gross national income on international development. But this ┬ú10 billion budget has come under sustained fire throughout this parliament, not least from Conservative backbenchers.
Last week a new question mark was raised, when David Cameron suggested that some of this development money could be redirected away from aid, to fund more defence projects, such as peacekeeping and military operations to promote stability and security. Currently these types of project are paid for out of the defence budget, but as has been widely reported the MoD is having its funds very tightly squeezed indeed.
This announcement comes following David Cameron’s visit to India last week, in which the focus was┬ádefinitely┬áon trade and economic cooperation, rather than aid targeted to┬áalleviate┬áthe extreme poverty on the subcontinent. Last year the government announced it would no longer be providing aid to India, and the Indian government responded somewhat ungratefully, saying they didn’t want the support anyway.
At this point it may be worth a reminder that India is a fast-growing economy, with its own space programme and nuclear deterrent, and yet over 400 million individuals living bellow the international poverty line, surviving on 1.25 US dollars a day. Perhaps as much as 68.7 per cent of the entire population lives on less than 2 US$ a day. India is home to about a third of the world’s poor.
Back to the issue at hand: it is difficult to say what the effects of this change might be. The Prime Minister seems fairly adamant that these redirected funds will not go towards improving the combat capabilities of our armed forces. As one Downing Street sources made clear;┬á”you can be sure that we are not going to use this money to buy any tanks”.
But that may be beside the point. Peacekeeping work was formerly carried out by the MoD; by transferring it onto the DfID books the Prime Minister is directly increasing the funding available for military pursuits. The Government will claim that they are still complying with the UN’s 0.7 per cent target, but the spirit of humanitarian solidarity must be┬ádiluted┬ásomewhat.
It is of course a highly complex issue. In reality you cannot fully distinguish between the situations that demand food and medicine parcels, and those that require troops for training purposes or assistance in establishing law and order infrastructure. All different approaches are needed if we are serious in helping the developing world to navigate its way out of poverty, or build states that are more effective at protecting their citizens.
This may all add up to a compelling reason to rethink the structure of our aid spending, but I fear this may be being done for the wrong reasons. Conservative backbenchers are thirsty for a much more isolationist foreign policy, at a time when we are focussing on restraining the public finances. Other Cabinet Ministers are seeing their budgets slashed, so Justine Greening is being put under increasing pressure to justify the special treatment for her department.
We should resist the demands of isolationist fiscal hawks. We want an effective international development programme, but we shouldn’t allow current problems or inefficiencies to be an argument for its abolition all together. When David Cameron is touring the world championing British industry, hopefully he will see that in this complex international world we need to consider what we are able to give, as well as what we are able to get.
Thom Hollick
Add Comment