'Global Britain' will disappear unless we keep spending to make the world safer and more equitable

It will only become a reality if our international standing in the world remains based on values and principles, writes Myles Wickstead

Johnson is wrong to describe the purpose of aid policy as being to 'maximise our influence' through pursuing our own narrow self-interest (EPA)

The UK currently commits 0.7 per cent of its gross national income – that is to say, 70 pence in every hundred pounds – to foreign aid. This is in line with a target adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1970. The UK achieved the target for the first time in 2013 and was the first G7 country to do so.

Other countries, such as Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, have reached the 0.7 per cent target consistently over several decades – and deserve the highest commendation for their leadership.

But the UK has been able to exert greater leverage, not just because of its record on the quantity and quality of its aid programme, but also because of its global position and influence as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, of the G7, and its own seat on the boards of the IMF and World Bank.

International development and aid are an important element of the UK’s global reach and reputation. The Department for International Development (DfID) is widely respected for the quality of its programmes and for supporting the economic development of, and poverty reduction in, the countries that receive funds.

That reputation has been at risk for some time, as over a quarter of foreign aid funds are now being spent outside DFID by other departments. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact has warned that this has resulted in less UK aid going to the world’s poorest people, a diminution in aid quality and a reduction in transparency.

Depriving DfID of its independence, by merging it with the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, creates a risk that funds will be spent in ways that are inconsistent with regulations that set out what can and cannot be counted as aid.

Boris Johnson has previously argued that the aid budget needs to be spent “more in line with Britain’s political, commercial and diplomatic interests”. He is right in the sense that a more prosperous and equal world will, for example, provide enhanced commercial opportunities for British companies. But he is wrong to describe, as he did recently, the purpose of aid policy as being to “maximise our influence” through pursuing our own narrow self-interest, rather than helping to reduce poverty and making the world safer and more equitable.

The prime minister is also right to say that we need to pursue political, diplomatic and international development, as well as look after our own security. This is best done not by mixing them up, but by pursuing them in parallel and in a coordinated way, which one might reasonably assume was the key purpose of the current review of the UK’s foreign policy.

In addition to maintaining the 0.7 per cent commitment – which must by definition be spent according to internationally recognised norms and standards, otherwise it won’t count – we should maintain our existing 2 per cent commitment for defence and security. We also need to increase the resources available for our diplomatic service, whose budget has been salami-sliced for decades, and provide increased support for our “soft power” organisations like the BBC World Service and the British Council as well as Higher Education partnerships.

All of this can be achieved by spending 3 per cent of our gross national income: 0.7 per cent for international development and global poverty reduction; 2 per cent for defence and security; and 0.3 per cent for diplomacy and “soft power”.

Of course the UK must develop and maintain strong relations with Ukraine and the Western Balkans, as the prime minister has said, but that should be supported from other areas of our international engagement, not from the development programme.

We hear a good deal about “Global Britain”. That will only become a reality if our international standing in the world remains based on values and principles. To do that, the government must make resources available for our international efforts and clearly defines the purposes of different areas of activity and funding. This week’s decision to merge DfID and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office signals an increasing focus on the UK’s narrow national self-interest and a retreat from that aspiration – and the risk of a corresponding loss of global reputation and influence.

Myles Wickstead is visiting professor in international relations at King’s College London and a former senior official in DFID and British Ambassador