The recent announcement that the UK government is set to make significant cuts to direct aid to Africa and the Middle East is deeply disappointing (Report, 19 March). It is plumbing new depths by proposing to balance increased defence spending on the backs of the world’s poorest by slashing development aid.
Such a move also breaks Labour’s 2024 manifesto pledge to restore development spending at the level of 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) “as soon as fiscal circumstances allow”.
The cut in aid to 0.3% of GNI from 2027 is not just a moral dereliction of duty, betraying the world’s most marginalised, but a false economy, bringing greater instability to the world and making people less safe.
The UK is making the steepest proportion of aid cuts among G7 nations. Conflict often results from war, famine or persecution. Our finances should be spent on preventing this, not on the deadly consequences.
As James Mattis, Donald Trump’s defence secretary in his previous administration, said: “If you don’t fund the state department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”
Alex Orr
Edinburgh
I welcome your editorial (22 March), which rightly characterises the scale of aid cuts as both shortsighted and damaging to the UK’s global standing. At a time when cuts risk reversing decades of progress in health, education and poverty reduction, the case for sustained investment in development could not be clearer.
However, there is an additional dimension that deserves greater emphasis: the UK itself benefits materially from these investments. The recent inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on global health and security on international health worker recruitment highlights the extent to which the NHS and wider economy rely on the skills, expertise and partnerships rooted in the global south.
The report makes clear that this is not marginal, but structural: the UK has saved £14bn in training costs through international recruitment and continues to depend on globally trained health professionals. UK aid is not simply an act of solidarity; it underpins reciprocal relationships that strengthen our own health system, enhance research collaboration, and build long-term economic and diplomatic ties. Sustained investment in global health and development is an investment in the UK’s own resilience, prosperity and security.
Ben Simms
CEO, Global Health Partnerships
Your editorial argues that a better case needs to be made for development spending. Working on the NHS frontline, that case is clearer than ever. As a London-based GP, I see how stretched the NHS is. When infectious diseases rise globally, the effects inevitably reach general practice. Preventing disease at source is one of the smartest investments we can make to protect patients in Britain.
Investment in global vaccination, disease surveillance and research helps stop outbreaks before they spread internationally and place pressure on health systems. Making that case clearly – that protecting health abroad helps protect patients at home – is essential if the UK is to make sensible decisions about development spending.
Dr Arshad Rizvi
GP and member of the Healthy World, Secure Britain campaign
Somalia is on the edge of famine. Your report on the UK’s climate aid cuts comes at a moment when the stakes could not be higher. Two consecutive failed rainy seasons have left 6.5 million people in crisis, more than double the number a year ago. The herding way of life that most Somalis depend on is collapsing.
In the communities my foundation supports, I see pastoralists who have lost their animals and families who have abandoned homes their grandparents built. When livelihoods collapse and governments are overwhelmed, instability follows.
This is what climate change looks like in practice. Not an environmental headline, but empty pastures, broken lives and people forced to move. The journeys that end at Europe’s borders begin with a failed harvest, not a decision.
Somalia contributes less than 0.1% of global carbon emissions. We are not asking for charity. We are asking for consistency. The UK’s humanitarian relief in Somalia is welcome, yet three months after publishing an Africa strategy that placed climate resilience at its centre, it has scrapped nature funding, cut climate aid, and reduced direct funding to countries such as Somalia even as they remain humanitarian priorities. In doing so, it risks compromising its own strategy of preventing crisis before it takes hold.
You cannot respond to the flood while dismantling the dam. A long-term strategy must prioritise the foundations of stability.
Abdullahi Nur Osman
CEO, Hormuud Salaam Foundation, Mogadishu, Somalia
