Conservatives rebels have been among those calling on the government to reverse its plan to cut foreign aid.
Since 2015, it has been enshrined in UK law for the country to give at least 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) to lower and middle-income countries to aid their development.
The plan to reduce the UK’s contribution to foreign aid to 0.5% of GNI – despite a United Nations target of 0.7% – has been met with widespread domestic and international criticism.
Here, we look at how much the UK gives in comparison to other countries.
Who gives foreign aid?
Advertisement
Most richer countries give aid, including some that are classed as middle or lower-income.
But the 0.7% target applies to countries that are on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC).
More from Politics
These 30 countries are made up of many in the European Union, the UK, US, and other highly developed nations like Australia and New Zealand.
A couple of other countries are participants on the DAC, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bulgaria and Romania.
Last year, the UK was one of only seven countries reporting to the OECD that met the 0.7% target, giving the equivalent to $17.4bn – exactly 0.7% GNI. Out of European countries, only Germany spent more than the UK on aid in absolute terms ($27.5 billion or 0.73% of GNI). But several OECD countries gave more as a percentage of GNI.
In 2020, the proportion of GNI given by countries varied significantly from country to country, despite the UN’s target.
What is the money spent on?
The aid from DAC countries is called Official Development Assistance (ODA), which is intended to promote the economic development and welfare of developing countries, according to the OECD.
In 2020, the last year for which net flows of aid were reported, member countries sent $161bn to those developing countries, an increase of 7% in real terms compared to 2019. About three-quarters of that came from G7 countries.
Broadly, this falls into one of four categories: 1. Bilateral projects, programmes and technical assistance, which represent just over half of total net ODA; 2. Contributions to multilateral organisations (about a third of total ODA); 3. Humanitarian aid; and 4. Debt relief.
This can include grants that fund improvements to the health of people in developing countries, such as vaccination programmes, but it can also include programmes that can benefit donor countries, such as infrastructure projects that allow greater levels of trade and investment.
Many countries, such as Japan, offer a sizable proportion of their aid in the form of loans.
How has the UK been doing up until now?
In 2013, the UK achieved the 0.7% target for the first time.
It came about after the Conservative Party committed to the target in its 2010 manifesto, when it also proposed setting up a dedicated department for international development to help achieve its aim.
It has maintained the commitment in subsequent manifestos, including in 2019 when it pledged to maintain the proportion of spending.
In 2010, then leader David Cameron defended the move, telling business leaders at the Lord Mayor’s banquet in London’s Guildhall that it saved lives, prevented conflict and was the “most visible example of Britain’s global reach” for millions of people.
Since 2015, the Government has also been under a statutory duty to meet the 0.7% target, as a result of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act.
But, in the wake of the impact of the pandemic, ministers want to slash the proportion to 0.5% saying that, while it is only a temporary measure until the nation’s finances are repaired, it will save £4bn.
If the UK had spent 0.5% of GNI in 2020, as it plans to in 2021, it would have ranked 10th in the world for its aid spending as a proportion of GNI, instead of seventh, according to the House of Commons Library.
How did the 0.7% target come about?
A target for international aid was originally proposed as far back as 1958 – at first by the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, which suggested a 1% of GDP figure would be appropriate, and the idea was then circulated to all United Nations delegations at the 1960 General Assembly.
The 0.7% target was first agreed by the DAC in 1970 and it has repeatedly been international endorsed.
Among the key moments at which the 0.7% figure has been backed are the 15 countries that were members of the European Union by 2004 agreeing the following year to reach the target by 2015 and the 0.7% target serving as a reference for 2005 political commitments to increase ODA at the G8 Gleneagles Summit and the UN World Summit.
In 2017, the UK government said it wanted to modernise the ODA rules to include some peacekeeping-related spending.
Currently, spending on military equipment or activity, including peacekeeping expenditure and anti-terrorism operations, are excluded, apart from the distribution of humanitarian aid.
Aid that relates to nuclear energy can be included as long as it is provided for civilian purposes.
Do countries outside the OECD provide international aid?
OECD countries are not the only ones that provide foreign aid, in its widest definition.
Evidence has been presented that China, India and Russia – which are classed as middle and upper-middle income countries – provide aid that would qualify under the ODA rules, but the amount they provide is not subject to the degree of transparency of DAC aid budgets.
US research group Aid Data has examined the Chinese loans paid to developing countries for a wide range of projects and businesses, with tens of billions in ODA payments given to lower or middle-income nations.
The vaccine diplomacy engaged in by Russia and India illustrates how two other countries outside the OECD offer one form of help.
And the World Bank reported that Russia’s ODA was $1.2bn in 2017, the last year for which figures were available, and India’s Ministry of External Affairs says it has offered “lines of credit” to 64 countries, worth $30.6bn.
London’s mayor Sir Sadiq Khan has for the first time described the situation in Gaza as a “genocide”, becoming the most senior Labour figure to contradict the government’s official position.
It is claimed the government wants to avoid the issue dominating a news conference the two men plan to hold, according to The Times.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:47
Trump meets Starmer: What can we expect?
The prime minister has found himself at odds with the US administration over the move, which is opposed to official recognition of Palestine.
The mayor of London, who has engaged in a long-running spat with Mr Trump, has added to the political tension by contradicting official Labour policy at a people’s question time event on Wednesday.
“I think it’s inescapable to draw the conclusion in Gaza we are seeing before our very eyes a genocide,” said Sir Sadiq.
Sir Keir has previously pledged to recognise Palestinian statehood ahead of next week’s United Nations General Assembly in New York if Israel does not meet a series of conditions to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
Other nations, including France, Australia and Canada, have said they plan to take the same step at the UN gathering.
The UK has consistently argued that the issue of whether Israel has committed genocide was a matter for the courts. Israel is fighting a case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in which the country is accused of genocide.
But some opposition leaders, including Zack Polanski for the Green Party, and the Liberal Democrats’ Sir Ed Davey have specifically referred to the situation in Gaza as genocide.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:05
Is Israel committing genocide?
On Tuesday, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory released a report, claiming: “It is clear that there is an intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza”.
It said Israel’s actions meet the criteria set down for defining a genocide.
In years to come, it may become known simply as Chequers ’25.
But today’s summit between Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump, at the prime minister’s country retreat, has the potential to be a landmark moment in UK-US history.
There’s plenty of scope for it to go horribly wrong, of course: over Jeffrey Epstein, Sir Keir’s pledge to recognise Palestine, the president’s lukewarm support for Ukraine, the Chagos Islands sell-off, or free speech.
But on the other hand, it could be a triumph for the so-called “special relationship” – as well as relations between these two unlikely allies – with deals on trade and tariffs and an improbably blossoming bromance.
Either way, this Chequers summit – on the president’s historic second state visit to the UK – could turn out to be one of the most notable one-to-one meetings between PM and president in 20th and 21st century history.
Image: Donald Trump and Keir Starmer wave as they board Air Force One on a previous trip. Pic: AP
It was then that the PM theatrically pulled King Charles’s invitation for this week’s visit out of his inside pocket in a spectacular stunt surely masterminded by the “Prince of Darkness”, spin doctor-turned-ambassador (until last week, anyway) Peter Mandelson.
And over the years, there have been some remarkable and historic meetings and relationships, good and bad, between UK prime ministers and American presidents.
From Churchill and Roosevelt to Eden and Eisenhower, from Macmillan and JFK to Wilson and Johnson, from Thatcher and Reagan, to Blair and Bush, and from Cameron and Obama… to Starmer and Trump, perhaps?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:08
‘History’ that binds the UK and US
A brief history of relationships between PMs and presidents
Throughout UK-US history, there have been many examples of a good relationship and close bond between a Labour prime minister and a Republican president. And vice versa.
Also, it has not always been rosy between prime ministers and presidents of the two sister parties. There have been big fallings out: over Suez, Vietnam and the Caribbean island of Grenada.
Leading up to this Chequers summit, the omens have not been good.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:47
Trump meets Starmer: What can we expect?
Second, the president arrived in the UK to a barrage of criticism from London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan, who accused him of doing more than anyone else to encourage the intolerant far right across the globe.
Image: Churchill and FDR at the White House in 1941. Pic: AP
Back in the mid-20th century, the godfather of the “special relationship” was wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, though it was 1946 before he first coined the phrase in a speech in the US, in which he also spoke of the “iron curtain”.
It was in 1941 that Churchill held one of the most significant meetings with a US president, Franklin D Roosevelt, at a Washington conference to plot the defeat of Germany after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour.
Churchill arrived in Washington in December after a rough 10-day voyage on a Royal Navy battleship and stayed three weeks, spending Christmas in the White House and on Boxing Day becoming the first UK PM to address Congress.
The close bond between Churchill and Roosevelt was described as a friendship that saved the world. It was even claimed one reason the pair got on famously was that they were both renowned cigar smokers.
Churchill and Truman
Image: Churchill and Truman catch a train from Washington in 1946. Pic: AP
After the war ended, Churchill’s “special relationship” speech, describing the alliance between the UK and US, was delivered at Westminster College, in Fulton, Missouri in March 1946.
The speech was introduced by President Harry Truman, a Democrat, with whom Churchill had attended the Potsdam Conference in 1945 to negotiate the terms of ending the war.
These two were also close friends and would write handwritten letters to each other and address one another as Harry and Winston. Mr Truman was also the only US president to visit Churchill at Chartwell, his family home.
Eden and Eisenhower
Image: Eden and Eisenhower shake hands at the conclusion of their three-day conference in 1956. Pic: AP
But the transatlantic cosiness came to an abrupt end in the 1950s, when Churchill’s Conservative successor Anthony Eden fell out badly with the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower over the Suez Crisis.
Mr Eden did visit Mr Eisenhower in Washington in January 1956, and the official record of the meeting describes the discussion as focussing on “policy differences and Cold War problems”.
Macmillan and JFK
Image: Harold Macmillan and John F Kennedy at Andrews Air Force Base. Pic: AP
But in the early 1960s, a Conservative prime minister and a Democrat president with seemingly nothing in common, the stuffy and diffident Harold Macmillan, and the charismatic John F Kennedy, repaired the damage.
They were credited with rescuing the special relationship after the rupture of the Suez Crisis, at a time of high tensions around the world: the Berlin Wall, the Cuban missile crisis, and the threat of nuclear weapons.
The two leaders exchanged handwritten notes, as well as Christmas and birthday cards. The Macmillans visited the Kennedys twice at the White House, in 1961 and 1962 – the second described in the US as a “momentous” meeting on the Cuban crisis.
The relationship was abruptly cut short in 1963 by “Supermac’s” demise prompted by the Profumo scandal, and JFK’s assassination in Dallas. But after her husband’s death, Jacqueline Kennedy was said to have had a father-daughter relationship with Macmillan, who was said to have been enchanted with her.
Wilson and LBJ
Image: Johnson meeting with Wilson. Pic: Glasshouse Images/Shutterstock
After JFK, the so-called “special relationship” cooled once again – and under a Labour prime minister and Democrat president – when Harold Wilson rejected pressure from Lyndon B Johnson to send British troops to Vietnam.
Mr Wilson became prime minister in 1964, just two months after LBJ sent US troops. His first overseas trip was to the White House, in December 1964, and the PM returned to tell his cabinet: “Lyndon Johnson is begging me even to send a bagpipe band to Vietnam.”
Thatcher and Reagan
Image: Thatcher at Reagan’s 83rd birthday celebrations. Pic: Reuters
And even though Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were ideological soulmates, Thatcher was furious when she wasn’t consulted before the Americans invaded Grenada in 1983 to topple a Marxist regime.
Even worse, according to Mrs Thatcher allies, a year earlier, Reagan had stayed neutral during the Falklands war. Reagan said he couldn’t understand why two US allies were arguing over “that little ice-cold bunch of land down there”.
Image: Thatcher and Reagan became firm friends. Pic: Reuters
But their relationship didn’t just survive, it flourished, including at one memorable visit to the presidential retreat at Camp David in 1984, where President Reagan famously drove Mrs T around in a golf buggy.
They would also memorably dance together at White House balls.
Blair and Bush
Image: Blair hosts Bush in Durham in 2003. Pic: PA
Camp David was also where in 2001 the Republican president George W Bush and Labour’s Sir Tony Blair embarked on the defining mission of his premiership: the Iraq War. It was to prove to be an historic encounter.
The war was the turning point of Sir Tony’s decade in Number 10. He was branded a liar over claims about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”, he was vilified by the Labour left, and it was the beginning of the end for him.
And to add to the suspicion among Sir Tony’s critics that he was Mr Bush’s poodle, in 2006 at a G8 summit in St Petersburg – that wouldn’t happen now – a rogue microphone picked up the president calling, “Yo, Blair! How are you doing?”
Cameron and Obama
Image: Cameron and Obama serve food at a barbecue in the garden of 10 Downing Street. Pic: Reuters
Some years later, the Tory prime minister sometimes called the “heir to Blair”, David Cameron, bonded over burgers with the Democrat president Barack Obama, serving a BBQ lunch to military families in the Downing Street garden. They also played golf at the exclusive Grove resort in 2016.
They seemed unlikely allies: Obama, the first African-American president, and Cameron, the 19th old Etonian prime minister. It was claimed they had a “transatlantic bromance” in office. “Yes, he sometimes calls me bro,” Lord Cameron admitted.
But not everything went well.
The Tory PM persuaded Mr Obama to help the Remain campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum, when he claimed the UK would be “at the back of the queue” on trade deals with the US, if it left the EU. It backfired, of course.
Now it’s Sir Keir Starmer’s turn to tread a delicate and potentially hazardous political tightrope as he entertains the latest – and most unconventional – US president.
The greatest dangers for Sir Keir will be a news conference in the afternoon, in the gardens, if the weather permits.
Good luck, as they say, with that.
Before then, there’s the potential for what the Americans call a “pool spray”, one of those impromptu, rambling and unpredictable Q&As we’ve seen so many times in the Oval Office.
For Sir Keir, what could possibly go wrong?
Chequers ’25 could be memorable and notable, like so many previous meetings between a PM and a president. But not necessarily for the right reasons for this UK prime minister.
A total of 167 workdays have passed since Trump’s inauguration — though David Sacks’ team reportedly insists he has been cautious not to exceed his limit.