Outcry as UK shake-up puts ‘national security’ ahead of conflict work

A United Kingdom policy overhaul will sideline conflict and development commitments in favor of boosting “national security,” its government has revealed, triggering strong criticism from politicians and peace-building groups. Officials have lifted the lid on the objectives behind the scrapping of the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, which runs projects to “promote international peace and stability” in fragile states including Lebanon, Syria, Somalia, and Palestine. In April, CSSF will be folded into a wider-ranging Integrated Security Fund. In a new document, the U.K.’s Cabinet Office has: • Said ISF will be "aligned with” the Integrated Review Refresh, a 2023 foreign and defense strategy — but not with the recent international development white paper, ​​which promises to “champion early action to prevent conflict and atrocities.” • Dropped CSSF’s requirement for "mapping against relevant Sustainable Development Goals" — stating the benchmark will be "the IRR’s goals." • Failed to say whether funding for women, peace, and security projects — a key component of CSSF — will continue within ISF. • Refused to provide quarterly information about ISF’s operation during the transition period — arguing that would “not allow sufficient time for changes to become established.” The axing of CSSF was announced during Liz Truss’s brief time as foreign and development secretary, and goes ahead despite the white paper reversing much of her thinking with its renewed focus on tackling poverty, rather than on geopolitics. Aid organizations are also in the dark about whether existing programs will continue when ISF starts next April, and about the bidding process. There are fears the rushed timetable will make it harder for global south groups to apply successfully. This is despite the Cabinet Office stating last May that it would “agree portfolio allocations towards the end of the year” — leaving it just three weeks to meet that commitment. The aims for ISF were set out in the government’s response to a report by parliament’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS) and have been strongly criticized by its chair, the former Labour Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett. “Most of the world’s poorest people are concentrated in countries afflicted by conflict: conflict reduction must be at the heart of tackling extreme poverty. But while development and security used to sit evenly in the Fund, the security element is now dominant,” Beckett said in a statement. “The government is silent on its previous commitment to report progress against the Sustainable Development Goals in the ODA funded portions of the Fund and it has outright rejected our call for quarterly updates. This is also a mistake.” She explained that such reporting allows the committee to track how reduced spending affects progress, and “demonstrate whether funding is at least at the level necessary to achieve stated aims or to actually provide value for UK taxpayers’ money." Lewis Brooks, advocacy adviser for the peace-building organization Saferworld, told Devex: “We were surprised to see the latest letter to parliament made no mention of the SDGs or the international development white paper, but instead appears to have confirmed a downgrading of the U.K.'s conflict prevention work in favor of a narrow and limited approach to national security.” Nic Hailey, executive director of International Alert, which works in conflict-affected countries, said: “The international development white paper makes clear that sustainable development depends on peace, and that preventing conflict around the world is in the U.K.’s interests. A narrow definition of national interest in the ISF falls short of that ambition.” And Eva Tabbasam, director of Gender Action for Peace and Security, a network of 19 organizations, said: “With 70% of victims in Palestine dying being women and children, the Taliban back in power in Afghanistan, and widespread sexual violence documented in Ukraine, it is clear that any security fund must prioritize those who are most affected and who hold solutions: women and girls. “Yet the UK’s response to the JCNSS report fails to mention any of the UK’s commitments to gender equality and the rights of women and girls. For whose security is the new ISF then?” CSSF is aligned “with the priorities” in the U.K.’s previous international development strategy and, in 2023-24, received £360.7 million ($453.8 million) in official development assistance — 40% of its budget. But it was battered by the U.K.’s wider aid cuts, losing 42% of its funding between 2020-21 and 2022-23 and axing projects including a £2.6 million peace-building program in Sudan ahead of its current civil war. In its response, on Wednesday, the Cabinet Office argued ISF “will retain the many benefits and strengths of the CSSF,” stating a reconciliation and stabilization program in Somalia “will continue.” But it made clear the focus will be “UK security and resilience,” stating: “The ISF will have an expanded remit and offer HMG [His Majesty’s Government] a strengthened means of delivering on the most pressing of national security priorities.”