Less than a decade after the UK abandoned its goal to stand as a global aid superpower, it decisively turned a corner on development spending on Thursday.
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper instead chose to spend less money on the basis of protected priorities, not universal needs. That means a set of winners from the UK policy shift, alongside many countries and projects that will lose out.
In headline terms, Ms Cooper will ensure that resources for global mine clearance groups (Halo Trust and Mines Advisory Group), BBC World Service, girls' education on the front line and sexual violence survivors is safeguarded.
In raw terms, the UK's overseas development assistance budget is to be cut by more than £6 billion annually from its projected levels. Ms Cooper told British MPs on Thursday that national security was the first duty of any government and that the money would be redirected into defence spending.
Two in five British pounds spent on development will now be rerouted to security. Prime Minister Keir Starmer made that decision as he sought to lift UK spending on defence to 2.5 per cent of GDP and eventually three per cent, in line with the common Nato target.
For critics such as Sarah Champion, chairwoman of Parliament's International Development Select Committee, the rationale for the cuts is built on a false dichotomy. “These cuts do not aid our defence, they make the whole world more vulnerable,” she told Ms Cooper.
With only two weeks before the start of the next financial year for the government, the announcement makes it clear that the cuts will be painful after years of Britain playing the role of reliable donor and partner before retreating.
Experts estimate that after spending of funds within the UK on migrant support for newly arrived refugees, the funds going abroad could level off at £6 billion. A further technical change means the UK will no longer find additional spending if economic growth is faster than expected from year to year.
The axe has been spared for countries at the heart of regional wars. Lebanon, Ukraine, Palestine, Gaza and Sudan will be prioritised to address the harm caused by conflict and global threats, Ms Cooper said. No promises can be extended to Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia, where the need is also desperate. In general terms, Ms Cooper promised instead that overall 70 per cent of all geographic support will be allocated to the most fragile and conflict-affected states by 2028.
To show that core funding can go to the priorities, she said the funding for the global programme Education Cannot Wait, led by Maysa Jalbout, the former chief executive of Jordan's Queen Rania Foundation, would be protected. It funds education in crisis contexts, and the UK has pledged £80 million, a sum that has been maintained.
The shift in focus by the UK has been explained by the rubric that overseas development is more suited to taking the role of investor, not just donor.
Ms Cooper would not stress that the UK is a development superpower during her speech. But she did say that it would emerge from the cutbacks as the fifth-largest funder in the world, after allies such as Germany, France and Sweden made similar adjustments in their budgets to cope with a changed international situation.
In an effort to assuage the anger of a substantial number of her own Labour Party colleagues who are hostile to the concept of cuts, Ms Cooper also reiterated Mr Starmer's promise to return to 0.7 per cent of national income “when the fiscal circumstances allow”.
Aid was, she said, a central part of Labour's foreign policy and “a fundamental part of our moral purpose”. It is true that economic growth and rising trade is a far more effective route to alleviating poverty and ending disease than direct handouts from rich nations.
Critics of the new policy are also correct that the UK national interest is harmed by instability and crises across the world.
Arguments around aid centre on two poles: the position that grants and other concessionary support do not work and instead enrich local elites and divert resources from productive parts of the economy, and the position that cites absolute humanitarian needs and successful schemes.
It is also hard to escape the conclusion that, faced with China's Belt and Road Initiative as well as the decline of the dollar as the basis of trade, the West has given up on the development tool as an instrument of power.
Arguments around the balance between soft power and hard power have development spending at their core. Ms Cooper announced an additional £11m annually for the BBC World Service and added that the British Council was being protected from the 40 per cent rule.
What might once have been seen as a soft-power boost now underlines the shift towards hard power, where misinformation is a battlefield.
