Defense at the Cost of Humanitarian Aid
by: Jolanka Kocianová Vuong
reading time: 5 minutes, 2 seconds
International aid is under attack! The two most prominent aid organizations in the world, USAID and UK Aid are reducing their spending dramatically, with severe consequences all over the world. It seems as if there is a new policy orientation in the world: down with international aid - let's invest in defence! Here, the recently introduced UK Spending Policy illustrates how funding for the country's armed forces comes at the cost of other important areas, most notably humanitarian support. This development gives rise to a few vital questions: What is the future of international aid? Is the EU going to step into the vacuum to substitute Member State spending, or are China and Russia going to use this opportunity to gain soft power in countries depending on foreign aid? Most importantly, are financial aid and defence spending mutually exclusive?
Shifting Priorities
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, defence has been an increasing priority of European countries. Now that the US has proven that it is no longer a reliable partner, a development which revealed the EU’s dependency on American resources - more and more countries announce an increase in defence spending. The leading example is Britain. At the end of February, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a plan to boost defence spending to 2.5 % of the GDP by 2027. This announcement ties back to his willingness todeploy troops to Ukraine alongside other states such as France. Where does Starmer plan to get the money from? The answer is not without controversy: to invest in security, Starmer had to make the “painful choice” of cutting the aid budget, decreasing its aid spending from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP. The announcement caused furious reaction from some Labour MPs and the development sector.
Keir Starmer announces Defense Spendings , credit: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyrkkv4gd7o
Global trends
The British decision is indicative of the overall global trend to cut aid and/or increase defence spending. Trump led the way to cut more than 90% of USAID foreign aid programs worldwide, which resulted in the loss of $60 billion in overall US assistance. EU Member states are likewise following this trend- the Netherlands slashed 30% of its aid budget, redirecting it to “Dutch interests”. Its neighbour, Belgium, followed suit and cut aid by 25% while France reduced its budget by 37%. In Germany, one of the world’s largest foreign aid donors, plans to cut aid were in motion before the government's eventual collapse. The new Government under Merz wants to invest heavily in investment, and is, thus, also considering reducing aid. On the other hand, defence spending has been increasing dramatically. Starting with Germany, a vote was held in the Bundestag to reform the constitutional limits of the ‘debt brake’ alongside plans to invest 500 billion Euro primarily in defence; which will be explained in our upcoming article in detail. Last year, Germany’s defence spending rose by 23.2%, setting a record 11.7% rise in European defence outlay. Even on the EU level the Commission under Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced an 800 billion euro plan to increase European defence spending at the summit in early March. We can conclude: Less aid, more global defence spending - a slightly concerning trend.
Cuts at the cost of human life
There is no way around talking about the impact on human lives when dealing with development aid cuts. Trump’s cutting of USAID threatens millions of lives and livelihoods around the world. Starting with the health sector, health clinics are shutting down, and medication, oxygen tanks, and other crucial medical supplies are missing. While DODGE claimed to restore Ebola prevention programs, no action has been seen so far, and other infectious disease monitoring programs have been shut down for good. Women lost access to contraception – and with it their right to self-determination. 25,000 extremely malnourished children will no longer receive nourishment, adding to the 700,000 people in Burkina Faso and Mali who have lost all access to water, food, or health services. This means that a health crisis is on the way, not only affecting developing countries, but Europe as well. COVID showed how rapidly infectious diseases can spread. Do we really want to risk another pandemic just to drive around in our new Leopard 2 Tank?
But the crisis goes further than just healthcare. The dependency ratio on foreign countries in Africa is around 80%, as Dr Bujari, a public health specialist in Tanzania states. People are facing existential challenges as aid is withdrawn. Programmes accounted for many employment opportunities in Africa, contributing to the overall functioning of the concerned countries. Now, suddenly, staff from Aid programs find themselves without a job;, so that they are no longer able to support their families. In practice that results in children forced to drop out of school, losing insurance and a significant decrease in the quality of life of many families.
The aid cuts may even affect entire states..To exemplifyJordan, which has been heavily dependent on US money, is now feeling the extent of this financial loss. In detail, USAID constituted 7% of Jordan’s public revenues, amounting to about 1.45 billion dollars annually. The loss of funding widens Jordan’s fiscal deficit and escalates public debt, which was projected at 82.3 % of the country’s GDP. Apart from the economic aspect, Jordan’s infrastructure programs have been halted as well, including 60 school buildings and $362 million worth of infrastructure. In an almost malicious turn,Trump may use USAID cuts and exploit Jordan’s struggle as a negotiation strategy for his plans on the relocation of Palestinian refugees. By stopping their payments, the US is betraying an important strategic partner, exposing it to the risk of becoming a failed state. In sum, a trade-off between saving billions of dollars and saving millions of human lives is made directly before our eyes.
Political Opportunism
Now that a huge political void has been left after the US lost most of its global soft power, the question is: who will replace the UK and the US? China and Russia have already grasped the opportunity to fill the power vacuum and expand their influence. Chinese government officials already offered their help in previous USAID areas, ranging from agricultural aid to poverty alleviation. China has managed to launch its first-ever humanitarian response in Madagascar and has stepped in with aid in Cambodia. China even signals willingness to aid in Ukraine’s post-war rebuilding, clearly wishing to replace the US in Europe. Yet, it is not as simple as accepting Chinese money instead of American. China’s aid model prioritizes high-interest loans, creating long-term debt traps, virtually converting the country receiving aid into a potential future satellite state.
The case of China illustrates how aid spending is not ‘wasted money’, as many critics tend to say, but can be seen as a security investment. Instead of using the money to buy weapons, aid spending provides for future security guarantees. It is vital for the prevention of conflict, and speaking of the geopolitical dimensions, an effective strategy to gain influence. Yet, it is not too late, the EU now has a major opportunity to up its game and establish itself as a global power. It has the necessary budget and structures to step into the political void, already having aid programs independent of the member states. The EU can do both: become a global power by expanding its aid programs AND rearming. As shown, Aid and Defense are not mutually exclusive but are two sides of the same coin. Aid preempts the usage of weapons, and is as much a deterrent as a strong military presence.
In conclusion, we can observe a trend of countries increasing defence spending while cutting aid funding. This has drastic consequences in the form of human life, social welfare and endangers the existence of entire states. It is also a short-sighted strategy from a geopolitical point of view, as countries such as China and Russia leap at the opportunity to fill the political vacuum and expand their influence. Yet, it is also a chance for the EU to expand its power and become a global player, investing in aid and defence for maximum efficiency.
