What Boris Johnson's speech reveals about the future of UK aid

LONDON — On Tuesday afternoon, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the creation of a new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office — and his speech in the House of Commons gave worrying signals about his plans for government development policy, according to aid experts. Johnson’s announcement of a merger between the Department for International Development and Foreign & Commonwealth Office was laden with references to the U.K.’s national interest. Many in the U.K. development sector fear that the merger will see aid spending diverted from its intended purpose of poverty alleviation and toward foreign policy priorities. They also worry that it could see spending transparency and effectiveness reduced. Johnson insisted that poverty reduction would be a core role of the new department, but development experts were left wary of his plans for official development assistance after hearing his speech. “The language used … [was] really quite disrespectful to the thought, effort, and commitment that has gone into aid and development programs,” said Myles Wickstead, visiting professor in international relations at King's College London, referencing Johnson’s description of ODA as a “giant cashpoint in the sky.” “I think that gave some bad signals … and gives me cause for concern,” he added. There was particular unease over the prime minister’s apparent ambition to use ODA for security spending, after he noted in his speech that: “We give as much aid to Zambia as we do to Ukraine, though the latter is vital for European security. We give 10 times as much aid to Tanzania as we do to the six countries of the Western Balkans, who are acutely vulnerable to Russian meddling.” That remark was “one of the most worrying things” Johnson said, according to Alastair Russell, public affairs adviser at Save The Children, “because he was essentially saying ‘Why are we spending more in Zambia than Ukraine when Ukraine is more important to us?’ [But] the level of need in Zambia is higher.” Russell said the implication of this comment was that an aid budget led by the Foreign Office would prioritize strategically important countries over those that most need assistance. Ian Mitchell, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, echoed this sentiment and said the level of poverty in Ukraine was “not comparable” to Zambia. “The only rationale for spending more in Ukraine relative to Zambia or balancing [the spending] would be to bolster some security interests,” he added. “The language used … [was] really quite disrespectful to the thought, effort, and commitment that has gone into aid and development programs.” --— Myles Wickstead, visiting professor in international relations, King's College London “That has massive implications,” Russell said. “What does it mean for the impact the U.K. aid budget has on getting more kids into school, making sure more kids survive until their fifth birthday, everything on the Sustainable Development Goals?” The SDGs were significant for their absence from Johnson’s speech. “They are universal and apply to the U.K. as much as anywhere else,” Wickstead said. “I keep hoping the government will embrace those as a framework internationally and nationally,” he added. Also absent from Johnson’s announcement was any move to reassure worried observers that the U.K. would maintain its policy against tied aid — in which aid contracts are reserved for U.K. companies — amid fears that such an approach could become more likely with development policy led by FCO. Wickstead said that he was “concerned” about this and that there were “lots of areas where clarity is required.” These are issues that were expected to be raised in the upcoming integrated review of the U.K.’s international policies, he added, but this was preempted by the government’s decision. Several times Johnson mentioned the “national interest” — referencing the idea that aid should be spent in such a way as to benefit the U.K. — along with his intention to “maximize” British influence, which prompted Wickstead, also a former ambassador, to urge caution. “Enlightened self-interest and supporting other countries to develop economically is going to create markets for your goods is fine,” he said. “Using the aid program to promote British commercial interests is absolutely not and will completely undermine our reputation and soft power.”