Written by Findlay Normanton
The ongoing Conservative leadership contest has so far been characterised by attempts by the candidates to court an ever-shrinking coterie of ageing, right-wing, wealthy party members: Robert Jenrick claiming that special forces are forced to kill rather than capture terrorists for fear that European laws would free those detained. Tom Tugendhat advocating leaving the European Convention of Human Rights. Kemi Badenoch declaring that maternity pay is ‘excessive’. Kemi Badenoch declaring that ‘not all cultures are equally valid’. Or Kemi Badenoch declaring that she is ‘not afraid of Doctor Who’. (Makes sense, given she has the charisma of a Cyberman.)
But amongst these declarations, one of Jenrick’s slipped through the net, with the former immigration minister saying in late September, to relatively little scrutiny, that he would cut aid spending to countries which do not take back those who have failed asylum checks in the UK.
Jenrick’s vow seems to have been made mainly to take a hard stance on immigration, particularly considering other measures announced at the same time included more resources to curb illegal employment, and the barring of all asylum seekers coming from Brazil, Vietnam and Turkey. But Jenrick’s plan would also have profound implications for the welfare of developing nations who are in desperate need of support, something the UK has a duty to provide. Some countries that Jenrick’s camp highlighted as not accepting enough failed asylum applicants include Afghanistan, the site of what Amnesty International calls a ‘devastating humanitarian crisis’, with 2.3 million children in danger of acute malnutrition; and Somalia, where 727,000 people are ‘teetering on the brink of starvation’, according to the International Rescue Committee. Were Jenrick’s plans to be put in place, they would sink these countries further into poverty and hardship, constituting the dereliction of responsibility to the world’s poorest by the economy ranked sixth in the world by nominal GDP.
What’s more, Jenrick’s words are emblematic of a wider obfuscation surrounding international spending by the UK. This has been happening for some time. When Rishi Sunak was Chancellor, he cut aid spending from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income, as well as loosening the regulations on what constituted international aid. By the time he was Prime Minister, the government was spending more of its aid budget (barring contributions to global institutions like the World Bank) at home, with Britain funding the entire cost of hosting Ukrainian refugees through the international aid budget – the only country in the G7 to do so. Meanwhile, the government’s website claims that £12,786 million was spent on overseas development assistance (ODA) in 2022 – but this figure includes funds for institutions like the BBC World Service, and something listed as ‘colonial pensions’ for former members of the Overseas Civil Service. These figures are indicative of the UK’s failure to whole-heartedly support developing nations, with the government feigning internationalism while in reality falling short of its duty of support on the international stage.
Added to this, the government is also intent on spending ODA on paternalistic projects that do not adequately address problems in developing nations. One such project is the Green Climate Fund (GCF), a transnational organisation which aims to provide funding to enable developing countries to adapt to the changing climate. The Lowy Institute’s analysis of the GCF decries a ‘lack of strategic clarity’, claiming that ‘approvals of individual projects [are] subject to considerable politicisation’, due to ‘unequal’ negotiations on the GCF’s board. The result is that many African countries, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, have received very little support, in spite of their vulnerability to climate change. Moreover, the GCF seems to make developing countries bend to their needs, rather than adapting to those of the countries themselves, with Annaka Peterson Carvalho claiming that ‘if a country has different priorities [to the GCF], they would need to get new ones if they want to access’ its support. Seemingly, the GCF fails to adequately support poorer countries as they attempt to adapt to and combat global warming. The backing of the GCF by the UK and other developed nations is symbolic of the West’s patronising approach to international aid, throwing their weight behind failing international organisations intent on talking down to those most affected by the challenges of the changing climate.
Meanwhile, charities and other organisations are utilising emerging methods to provide aid to those in need, far more successfully than Western governments. Rory Stewart, the former Tory MP and International Development Secretary, outlines the differences in these approaches in greater detail. Stewart describes visiting a project in East Africa when he was a minister, aimed at providing sanitary products for young women in school. There, he found five buckets, and two holes dug in the ground, surrounded by bricks. The project cost $40,000. Stewart asked why they didn’t give the school’s headteacher the money to invest himself. He was told they were worried he would steal it.
In contrast, Stewart describes seeing the support offered by Give Directly, an NGO providing unconditional money to the poorest in developing nations. Eighteen months after one community received support from Give Directly, 78% of the district had electricity (compared to 53% before), and 91% (compared to 52%) had plastered homes. Health insurance was near-ubiquitous.
The disparity between the results achieved by the British government and Give Directly demonstrate the opportunity for change, and signify new methods to reduce global poverty and mitigate against global warming. Stewart attributes the success of Give Directly to several factors, most significantly that providing people with money gives them autonomy and agency, allowing them to engage more effectively with their communities: ‘when people make their own choices, they are then able to sustain and take pride in their investments.’ This insight provides a basis for the renewal of Western international aid. Rather than forcing those in need to engage with aid projects that often fail, we should instead focus on a bottom-up approach enabling those in poverty to improve their own circumstances, through local, community-driven organisations which aren’t concerned about entrusting those in need with autonomy.
Beyond the immediate alleviation of poverty, other factors are also at play in improving the lives of those in developing nations, ensuring economic growth and creating climate security. These factors must be utilised by the West with the same focus on bottom-up support, rather than paternalistic projects. For instance, developing nations such as India are reliant on fossil fuels to develop their economies: 52% of India’s domestic energy production in 2022 came from coal. This reliance is not dissimilar from the manner in which Western nations developed their economies following the Industrial Revolution. But today, Western nations are prone to reprimand developing nations using fossil fuels, citing endangerment of the planet, something desperately hypocritical in the light of the West’s history. This antagonism is likely to lead to the alienation of developing nations from a Western climate consensus, furthering their reliance on fossil fuels – similar to the manner in which the West’s guarding who possesses nuclear weapons seems to encourage rogue states to try to develop them. The Western approach to developing nations’ industry, therefore, much like the UK’s aid projects, is deeply patronising and paternalistic, seeming to push developing nations away from the Western consensus on green energy.
To counter this, the emphasis of the West’s international aid and support must shift from disempowerment to empowerment. The Lowy Institute’s analysis of the Green Climate Fund asserts that ‘for the GCF to deliver on its potential role in supporting global climate solidarity, it must ensure vulnerable countries are able to access its financing directly, not only or predominantly through international intermediary institutions’, claiming that 76% of total project approvals are implemented through indirect access entities. The West should be enabling local and nationwide renewable energy projects to be implemented in the hands of the communities affected, without the paternalism of current climate and aid projects like the GCF – the condescension of which seems to push developing nations away from renewable energy altogether.
Finally, this shift needs to be seconded economically. For all that politicians might talk about a ‘global economy’, a great deal of Western economic interaction with the developing world is rooted in sweatshops and exploitative labour, producing much of what we consume at home. The tacit acceptance for this exploitation comes from the same notion of Western supremacy that pays $40,000 for two holes in the ground, that fails to protect African countries against climate change, that pushes developing nations away from renewable energy, that enables Robert Jenrick to vow to cut aid to some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. The problem is systemic. The West must change focus from a top-down, patronising, exploitative approach, to genuine empowerment for developing nations, whole-heartedly involving them in a green revolution, in a global economy that doesn’t disenfranchise the global poor for the benefit of Western nations.
The necessary shift is not just in international aid. Instead, it is an attitudinal change moving the West away from paternalism and towards robust integration of poorer nations into a global push for a rising standard of living, and the promotion of a green economy. No more talking down. It’s time to lift up.
Comments