Connect with us

Published

on

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?

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.

Foreign aid cuts: ‘Far more’ than 100,000 people will die, leading rebel MP warns

Foreign aid cuts not only a tragedy for the developing world – but the UK too

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.

This impoverished school shows how cuts to UK’s foreign aid budget hurt those most in need

UK cutting aid to help fight AIDS and HIV branded ‘maddeningly short-sighted’ by charities

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.

Continue Reading

Politics

MP recalls childhood abuse as he calls for law change to make domestic abuse a specific criminal offence

Published

on

By

MP recalls childhood abuse as he calls for law change to make domestic abuse a specific criminal offence

An MP who decided until recently to “never speak” about the abuse he suffered as a child has shared his harrowing story so that “no kid has to go through” what he did.

Josh Babarinde describes being physically abused by his mother’s former partner from the age of four, and remembers crying himself to sleep under the covers “hearing shouts, hearing screams and things smash”.

He says he became hypervigilant growing up and felt safe at school but “like he was treading on eggshells” in his own home.

The Eastbourne MP, who is also the Liberal Democrats’ justice spokesperson, says his experience has driven his politics. He is calling on the government to stop abusers “slipping through the net” and being released from prison early.

Opening up about his story in his twenties was “difficult” but looking back, Mr Babarinde says, he is “so proud of the resilience of that kid”.

The MP recently found his childhood diary containing Star Wars drawings alongside an entry he wrote from the bathroom. The diary, he recalls, wrote: “I’m really going to try to go (to the toilet) but I can’t. Oh my goodness, I’m gonna be in so much trouble, I’m going to get smacked so hard.”

Then an entry five minutes later: “I still haven’t done anything, I’m going to be in so much trouble.”

More from Politics

He says reading the entry reminded him of how “helpless” he felt.

“It was mortifying,” he says. “An abuser takes away your sense of self-worth.”

Josh Babarinde speaking to Sky's Ali Fortescue.
Image:
Mr Babarinde says he wants the government to ‘properly recognise domestic abuse crimes in the law’

The 32-year-old is calling on the government to change the law to make domestic abuse a specific criminal offence. The change would mean, he argues, abusers can no longer effectively disguise their history under other offences like assault.

He says the Ministry of Justice’s early release scheme, which has seen thousands of prisoners released early to ease overcrowding, has failed to exclude domestic abusers despite government promises because there is no formal categorisation for offenders.

It is impossible, he argues, to know exactly how many domestic abusers are in prison currently so perpetrators are “slipping through the net” on early release.

Read more from Sky News:
Remembering the bravery of 7/7 victims and responders 20 years on
Met Police chief calls for ‘mega’ forces in push for shake-up

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

January: Rising violence against women and girls

Mr Babarinde says the uncertainty means victims and survivors are not able to prepare for their abuser’s release.

He said: “They might need to move house or move their kids to a new school, shop in different places. All of these kind of things are so important, and so that’s why that commitment the government made was so important.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said: “Our thoughts are with all victims of domestic abuse – it takes immense courage to speak out.

“We are building a justice system that puts victims first – strengthening support, increasing transparency, and giving people the confidence to come forward and be heard.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

In common with many parents across the country, here’s a conversation that I have with my young daughter on a semi-regular basis (bear with me, this will take on some political relevance eventually).

Me: “So it’s 15 minutes until your bedtime, you can either have a little bit of TV or do a jigsaw, not both.”

Daughter: “Ummmm, I want to watch TV.”

Me: “That’s fine, but it’s bed after that, you can’t do a jigsaw as well.”

Fast-forward 15 minutes.

Me: “Right, TV off now please, bedtime.”

(Pause)

Daughter: “I want to do a jigsaw.”

Now replace me with the government, the TV and jigsaw options with axing welfare cuts and scrapping the two-child cap, and my daughter with rebellious backbenchers.

Politics latest: Former Labour leader calls for wealth tax on assets above £10m

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rachel Reeves’s fiscal dilemma

That is the tension currently present between Downing Street and Labour MPs. And my initial ultimatum is the messaging being pumped out from the government this weekend.

In essence: you’ve had your welfare U-turn, so there’s no money left for the two-child cap to go as well.

As an aside – and before my inbox fills with angry emails lambasting me for using such a crude metaphor for policies that fundamentally alter the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society – yes, I hear you, and that’s part of my point.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Welfare U-turn ‘has come at cost’

For many in Labour, this approach feels like the lives of their constituents are being used in a childish game of horse-trading.

So what can be done?

Well, the government could change the rules.

Altering the fiscal rules is – and will likely remain – an extremely unlikely solution. But as it happens, one of Labour’s proverbial grandparents has just popped round with a different suggestion.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Welfare: ‘Didn’t get process right’ – PM

A wealth tax, Lord Neil Kinnock says, is the necessary outcome of the economic restrictions the party has placed on itself.

Ever the Labour storyteller, Lord Kinnock believes this would allow the government to craft a more compelling narrative about whose side this administration is on.

That could be valuable, given one of the big gripes from many backbench critics is that they still don’t really understand what this prime minister stands for – and by extension, what all these “difficult decisions” are in aid of.

The downside is whether it will actually raise much money.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Corbyn an existential risk to Labour?

The super-rich may have lots of assets to take a slice from, but they also have expensive lawyers ready to find novel ways to keep their client’s cash away from the prying eyes of the state.

Or, of course, they could just leave – as many are doing already.

In the short term, the future is a bit easier to predict.

If Downing Street is indeed now saying there is no money to scrap the two-child cap (after heavy briefing in the opposite direction just weeks ago), an almighty tantrum from the backbenches is inevitable.

And as every parent knows, the more you give in, the harder it becomes to hold the line.

Continue Reading

Politics

UK restores diplomatic ties with Syria

Published

on

By

UK restores diplomatic ties with Syria

The UK has re-established diplomatic ties with Syria, David Lammy has said, as he made the first visit to the country by a British minister for 14 years.

The foreign secretary visited Damascus and met with interim president Ahmed al Sharaa, also the leader of the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and foreign minister Asaad al Shaibani.

It marks the latest diplomatic move since Bashar al Assad’s regime was toppled by rebel groups led by HTS in December.

In a statement, Mr Lammy said a “stable Syria is in the UK’s interests” and added: “I’ve seen first-hand the remarkable progress Syrians have made in rebuilding their lives and their country.

“After over a decade of conflict, there is renewed hope for the Syrian people.

“The UK is re-establishing diplomatic relations because it is in our interests to support the new government to deliver their commitment to build a stable, more secure and prosperous future for all Syrians.”

Foreign Secretary David Lammy shakes hands with Syrian interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa in Damascus. Pic: X / @DavidLammy
Image:
Foreign Secretary David Lammy with Syria’s interim president Ahmed al Sharaa in Damascus. Pic: X / @DavidLammy

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has also announced a £94.5m support package for urgent humanitarian aid and to support the country’s long-term recovery, after a number of British sanctions against the country were lifted in April.

While HTS is still classified as a proscribed terror group, Sir Keir Starmer said last year that it could be removed from the list.

The Syrian president’s office also said on Saturday that the president and Mr Lammy discussed co-operation, as well as the latest developments in the Middle East.

Read more:
Wildfires break out in Greece, Turkey and Syria
Putin ‘mocking Trump’s peace efforts’, Poland says
Hamas gives ‘positive’ response to ceasefire proposal

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Since Assad fled Syria in December, a transitional government headed by Mr al Sharaa was announced in March and a number of western countries have restored ties.

In May, US President Donald Trump said the United States would lift long-standing sanctions on Syria and normalise relations during a speech at the US-Saudi investment conference.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

From May: Trump says US will end sanctions for Syria

He said he wanted to give the country “a chance at peace” and added: “There is a new government that will hopefully succeed.

“I say good luck, Syria. Show us something special.”

Continue Reading

Trending