Category Archives: Aid

Aid, Foreign Policy, Gaza, Israel, Middle East, Palestine

Decisive action is needed in Gaza if it is to be saved

ISRAEL-GAZA WAR

Intro: Palestinians need deeds, not words

THE UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher has signalled his fears that thousands of babies are at imminent risk of death in Gaza unless aid reaches them. Inconceivable, is that Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, is concerned that foreign politicians could now see too many graphic pictures of Palestinian children in dire need of aid and is doing everything in his power to censor and suppress such images.

Two months after all supplies were cut off, the Israeli government denies the obvious truth: that Gaza is on the brink of famine. A few days ago, Netanyahu announced that “minimal” aid deliveries would restart, adding that his country’s “greatest friends in the world” had told him that they could not “accept images of… mass hunger”. His entirely cynical response saw a handful of aid trucks permitted to cross into Gaza. Reportedly, 100 aid deliveries a day will now be permitted, but even if that happens that is still grotesquely inadequate given the vast scale of need. Reaching the most vulnerable will be perilous and extremely dangerous anyway amid Israel’s intensified offensive. Netanyahu vowed that Israel would “take control” of all of Gaza.

His words show both that Western allies can shift Israel’s behaviour, and that they are insufficiently willing to do so. The trickle of supplies is meant to ensure the continuation of a war that enables his political survival, but has killed almost 54,000 Palestinians. That death toll may be a grave underestimate, say many researchers.

Foreign leaders are finally stirring as Palestinians starve and the enormity of Israel’s plan sinks in. Britain, France, and Canada have described conditions in Gaza as intolerable and have threatened further “concrete” actions if Israel’s “egregious” campaign continues and aid restrictions are not lifted. An unrepentant Netanyahu accused the trio of “offering a huge prize” for the murderous Hamas attack of 7 October 2023, which triggered Israel’s assault. In a separate statement, 23 other countries including Australia and New Zealand, condemned the aid blockade and ongoing military offensive. And, the European Commission has launched a review of trade ties with Israel. Relatives of Israeli hostages continue to press for a ceasefire and release deal. Outrage has also broken through in mainstream domestic politics in Israel, with Yair Golan, opposition leader of the Democrats, saying that his country was “on the path to becoming a pariah state”.

The growing condemnation is spurred not only by the grotesque suffering in Gaza and ministers’ explicit calls for ethnic cleansing but also by a growing new gap between Netanyahu and the Trump administration. On his recent Middle East tour, Donald Trump didn’t bother stopping in Israel and repeatedly overrode its interests – on Syria, on the Houthis, and on Iran. He has emboldened the Israeli government’s annihilationist approach and would be happy to see a Gaza without Palestinians, but seems now to be tiring of the conflict. Nonetheless, any perceived shift in approach should not be overstated. Support for Israel endures in Washington even as other governments think again.

Others must match rhetoric with action. The UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, condemned the “repellent” words of the extremist minister Bezalel Smotrich. But suspending trade talks is barely a start. The same goes for the sanctioning of settler activists: imposing sanctions on Mr Smotrich and his colleague Itamar Ben-Gvir should have happened some time ago. The UK should follow the example of France, which has said it is “determined” to recognise a Palestinian state. Most of all, it should ensure that no arms, including parts for F-35 fighter jets, continue to reach Israel. Until it does so, it will be complicit in these war crimes.

The US has the ability to stop the slaughter and achieve a desperately needed ceasefire. But pressure from other allies can make a difference. If they care about saving lives – and not just their own optics – it really is time for decisive action.

Standard
Aid, Britain, Defence, Economic, Government, Politics

Labour’s foreign aid cuts: they will undermine security

BRITAIN

THE nature of politics is about choices. Some are forced on governments by circumstance. Others are self-imposed. The Labour Government’s decision to cut the aid budget to pay for an increase in defence spending is firmly in the latter category. It is also very wrong – forcing the world’s poor to pay for Britain’s safety and security. This is a false economy. Cutting overseas aid will make the world more unstable, not less. The very crises that fuels conflict – poverty, failed states, climate disasters, and mass displacement – will only worsen with less development funding. Labour’s logic is self-defeating: diverting financial resources from aid to defence does not buy security; it undermines it.

The numbers tell the story. Despite government attempts to inflate the amounts involved, in real terms the extra £6bn for defence is tiny relative to Britain’s GDP. The UK could easily absorb this through borrowing – especially in a global financial system where pound sterling is heavily traded – or, if the government prefers, through a modest wealth tax. Yet, Sir Keir Starmer has chosen to frame this as a zero-sum game, where aid must give way to security. But why? Because this is not about economic necessity – it’s about political positioning. Labour wants to prove that it can be fiscally disciplined even when the numbers don’t demand it. It wants to neutralise Tory attacks, even when the real battle is over priorities, not affordability.

It is also a move that aligns with Donald Trump’s worldview. The US President wants to close down the US government’s main overseas aid agency, treating it as an expensive indulgence rather than a pillar of foreign policy. A UK prime minister that echoes Mr Trump’s “America first” instincts on defence and aid will likely meet with congeniality. Starmer has been searching hard for common ground since President Trump was re-elected. On aid and defence spending he has found it.

Labour doesn’t just believe in fiscal discipline; it believes that it must adopt financial rectitude and has constructed a justification for that belief. The problem is that by accepting Conservative trade-offs, Labour locks itself into an orthodoxy that it may later need to break. In a volatile world, Britain – outside the EU – must boost high-value exports and cut reliance on fragile supply chains. Even under Joe Biden, the UK was kept out of the US-EU Trade and Technology Council, which strengthened transatlantic industrial policy. Will Downing Street ever admit that Britain’s real limit is productive capacity and not budget deficits?

Britain’s fiscal constraint is artificial, but its resource constraints are real. Energy, food, and manufacturing are matters of national security, not just market functions. Without investment, dependence on key imports makes the UK vulnerable to supply-chain shocks and price inflation. If every pound spent requires a cut elsewhere, recent announcements by Labour’s Ed Miliband and Steve Reed wouldn’t have mattered.

Keir Starmer often presents himself as a pragmatist rather than an ideologue – claiming to be adapting to circumstances rather than adhering to dogma. Yet, such pragmatism is itself a belief system, one that treats capitalism’s rules as fixed and unchangeable, markets as being beyond politics, and history as a one-way street where past mistakes justify permanent and crippling caution. In doing so, Starmer isn’t just rejecting viable alternatives – he’s rewriting history to suggest they were never an option to begin with.

Standard
Aid, Britain, Defence, Economic, Government, Politics

Defence spending is lacklustre. Structural reforms are needed.

DEFENCE SPENDING

Intro: Why do we still send millions to China when we desperately need that money to defend ourselves against countries like… China?

WHEREVER you look, Britain’s adversaries are on the offensive. Russian hegemony and aggression shows no sign of abating. China’s military jets breach Taiwan’s airspace almost on a daily basis, and with its unprecedented defence spending, Beijing’s ambitions evidently stretch further. Iran’s proxies attack British ships in the Red Sea while Tehran is on the verge of gaining nuclear weapon capability. The security threats we face are the greatest in a generation.

In geopolitics, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. And the UK, hands meekly by its side, is yet to muster any credible response. Despite a recent increase in spending, our Armed Forces are still reeling from 30 years of cuts and disastrous unwinnable wars that have steadily eroded our conventional capability. We are shockingly under-prepared for this more contested world.

At the outbreak of the Falkland War in 1982, the Royal Navy had 43 frigates and 12 destroyers. It now has 13 and six respectively.

Russia regularly deploys spy ships to tamper with our undersea cables, yet neither of the two specialist ships needed to protect them have materialised, despite being announced in 2021.

The British Army has shrunk to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era. Of serious concern, there is a £17billion black hole in the Ministry of Defence’s ten-year procurement plan. By some estimates, if Russia invaded a NATO member – a very real and distinct possibility – our stockpile of ammunition would last just eight days.

Most scandalously, the foundations of our defence, our Trident nuclear deterrent, has been appallingly neglected. Just two of the four submarines that deliver our continuous at sea deterrent are functional. They are so stretched that our Vanguard submarines are being sent on longer deployments than ever before. Submariners now have to spend five months continuously at sea – three months more than in the past. The next generation of Dreadnought submarines set to replace our old and creaking fleet is well behind schedule.

The dangerous and humiliating collapse of our nuclear deterrent is a catastrophe waiting to happen unless we urgently grip this crisis. A reckoning is inescapable.

The cost of sustaining Trident is cannibalising the rest of the UK military budget. We have no choice but to increase defence spending to three per cent of GDP to deliver the uplift we need to defend ourselves. If Greece and Poland can do it, why is it beyond the UK’s reach? Most in Parliament agree; that’s the straightforward part.

What’s much harder to explain is how to fund this increase when money is tight. Hard trade-offs will need to follow.

Strong defence rests upon a strong economy that can fund military upgrades. To provide the type of defence we need the UK will need to relentlessly pursue pro-growth, supply-side reforms. This will include liberalising planning to build more affordable homes, roads and factories, reforming welfare to get abled bodied people back into work, and cutting regulation that stifles entrepreneurs and small firms.

We cannot continue shovelling more money into increasingly bloated public services. The UK must drive through radical reforms. The security of a nation depends on having a strong military capability.

Strong economic growth will not appear overnight. We cannot wait until tomorrow to tackle today’s crisis. The choices are stark: either taxes are raised hitting an already squeezed middle class, borrow more upon the trillions we already have as public debt, or divert spending from elsewhere.

We mustn’t add to the national debt with interest payments at already astronomical levels, nor increase taxes when the tax burden is at an unacceptable high. Neither should we divert existing spending on the NHS or policing.

Instead, we should cut the foreign aid budget, and redirect that money to defence. While the aid budget does provide vital resources for alleviating extreme poverty that we should continue to support, a significant chunk of our “development” spend is incoherent, wasteful, and not necessary. It’s beyond ludicrous that we send hundreds of millions of pounds to nuclear powers China, India, and Pakistan.

Almost a third of our foreign aid budget goes on the ballooning costs of supporting asylum-seekers in the UK. If we ended the abuse of the system by economic migrants and closed the farcical asylum hotels, billions of pounds could be freed.

Another third goes to multinational organisations such as the UN and World Bank. An estimated 15 per cent of that aid is spent on managing humanitarian crises, the rest we have little control over.

Only ten per cent of the total expended by the Foreign Office on aid goes specifically and directly to deal with humanitarian emergencies. Other uses of taxpayers’ money include nebulous spending on “open societies” and “research and technology”.

Halving the aid budget would free about £7billion a year and immediately push defence spending above 2.5 per cent of GDP. When growth returns, or a crisis unfolds, we could make carefully targeted increases in overseas aid spending.

In a world of difficult choices, we should view our contribution to global peace and security as primarily through hard power and free trade. After all, the expansion of global commerce has been the biggest alleviator of extreme poverty.

There’s an argument, too, that we should also bring back “patriot bonds” which enabled citizens to invest in their security during the World Wars. We should stop guilting City investors out of putting money into our defence industry through warped environmental, social, and governance regulations. Instead, they should be encouraged to support British manufacturing jobs, and our military.

We need to continue reforming our defence procurement systems to ensure taxpayers’ money goes much further and bring an end to the indignity of the MoD having to beg the Treasury for money every year. Nonetheless, billions could be saved in procurement efficiencies if proper structural reform was carried out.

In the words of Churchill, we appear “decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift”. If we continue to dodge the difficult political decisions that need to be made, they will only come back as greater crises in the future.

Standard