2 weeks ago
13
The world is more dangerous today than at any time since the cold war. Russia’s ongoing aggression in Ukraine, tensions in the Indo-Pacific, and instability in the Middle East demand that Britain steps up. Our armed forces must be properly funded to meet these threats, and increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP is a welcome and necessary move.
But we need to go further and faster to meet the challenges we face. Britain’s military capabilities must be strengthened to deter aggression, safeguard our interests and maintain a credible global presence. But cutting aid to fund it is a fundamental strategic error that risks making us weaker, not stronger. Funding one out of the money allocated to the other risks undermining the very security we are trying to ensure.
Britain’s security and influence on the world stage depend on a balanced approach – one that integrates our military strength with diplomacy and development. To wield power effectively, we need hard and soft power working hand in hand. Cutting development aid undermines our ability to stabilise fragile states, reduce the conditions for extremism and build alliances that enhance our security. Simply put, well-targeted aid prevents conflict and reduces the burden on our armed forces in the long run.
As Gen James Mattis, the former US secretary of defence, famously put it: “If you don’t fund the state department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition, ultimately.” That same logic applies to Britain. Every pound we cut from development aid today risks costing us far more in future military operations. Complacency kills – both in war and in strategic planning.
The decision to reduce aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income in 2021 was already a mistake, weakening Britain’s global standing and reducing our ability to shape international affairs. Now, slashing aid further to fund defence spending is not just shortsighted – it is dangerously counterproductive. Weak states become breeding grounds for terrorism, organised crime and mass migration crises. We need only look at Afghanistan, where reduced international engagement has allowed instability to flourish, with consequences for global security. Without well-targeted aid, instability in Africa and the Middle East will only worsen, leading to direct security threats for Britain and Europe. We are not only stealing from the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, but we are also stealing from British taxpayers by investing in a policy that will ultimately cost us more.
Moreover, the premise that aid and defence are in competition is a false one. In reality, they are two sides of the same coin. Well-targeted development assistance helps to stabilise fragile regions, preventing crises before they require military intervention. It is aid that helps to rebuild war-torn societies, counter radicalisation and reduce the refugee flows that destabilise Europe. Without this investment, Britain will face an increased terrorist threat, more humanitarian emergencies and greater pressure on our borders. By neglecting this crucial component of security, we are setting ourselves up for greater instability, which will require even more military spending in the long term.
Furthermore, the burden on Britain’s armed forces will only grow. If we cut aid, we will be forced to deploy military resources in areas where we could have mitigated instability through targeted development. History shows that intervention without stabilisation leads to drawn-out conflicts and increased casualties. The overstretch of our forces is already evident – our army is at its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars, our navy is struggling to maintain a credible global presence, and our air force is operating at capacity. If we do not take a comprehensive approach to security – one that includes aid as a core pillar – we risk overcommitting our forces and diminishing our overall defence capability.
We should also consider the moral imperative. Britain has long prided itself on being a force for good in the world. Turning our backs on the most desperate people, those who rely on British aid for survival, is not just a strategic mistake, it is a failure of our values. But beyond the moral argument, this decision will make Britain less safe. Weak governance and economic collapse abroad lead to radicalisation and conflict, and no amount of military spending can fully address those threats once they take root.
Britain has long been a leader in Europe, not just in defence but in diplomacy and development. In a world where the US is stepping back from underwriting European security, this is a moment for leadership. Leadership means making the right choices – not false ones. Increasing defence spending should not come at the expense of cutting the very tools that help prevent the need for military intervention in the first place.
It is time for a rethink. If we are serious about security, we must recognise that diplomacy, development and defence are not competing priorities – they are complementary. A well-funded aid programme, alongside increased defence investment, will ensure that Britain remains a global leader – both in strength and in moral authority. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
If the government is serious about taking defence spending to 3% in the next parliament, it would be better to break its own fiscal rules and either raise taxes or increase borrowing. We may all have to share in the cost of doing the right thing.
-
Gen Lord Dannatt is a former chief of the general staff, co-author of Victory to Defeat – The British Army 1918 to 1940 and author of Boots on the Ground – Britain and her Army since 1945
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
