Why is the UK’s emergency humanitarian aid to Ukraine taking so long?

Help with military hardware is one thing – but Ukraine needs humantarian aid to deal with the longer-term fallout from war, writes Sean O’Grady

Britain promised a £220m humanitarian aid package for Ukrainians such as these residents of Mariupol (Reuters)

There is always, it would seem, going to be something about a weapon of war that garners more attention than a food parcel. So it is with the war in Ukraine, where the west is heartily congratulating itself for sending the Ukrainians what the military types call “lethal aid” rather than the stuff that saves lives in other ways, such as medicines, clean water, shelter and sustenance.

It is no surprise that politicians tend to want to associate themselves with the state-of-the-art missile systems, and neglect the awkward fact that some western nations are still buying Russian oil and gas, and failing to help the millions of displaced people and refugees inside, and fleeing from, Ukraine.

The contrast is most stark in the British case. The Ministry of Defence was one of the most alert to the Russian threat, not least because of excellent intelligence. The flow of defensive weaponry to the Kyiv authorities began quietly some time before the invasion. According to reports, British anti-tank weaponry have gained something of a cult status among Ukrainian troops, and ever-more sophisticated anti-aircraft systems are being supplied. The prime minister has been vocal in his support, and was brave enough to visit Volodymyr Zelensky in person recently.

The reward for Johnson has been genuinely felt praise from Zelensky and photographs/footage of the pair walking through Kyiv. As a by-product of these high-profile moves, Johnson was able to regain a little of his lost prestige, and tell his critics that he was far too busy fighting for freedom to deal with Partygate. There was a handy political dividend in being associated with the eye-catching heroism of the Ukrainian resistance.

The same can’t be said about his administration’s record on humanitarian aid and welcoming refugees. The Independent’s Refugees Welcome campaign shows that the public is deeply concerned about these issues. Our petition calling on the government to go further and faster to support refugees has reached a quarter of a million signatures. MPs of all parties have loudly complained about how few refugees have found their way to the UK, and how slow the process has been – but more pressure will be required. It seems the rhetoric about warm welcomes and spare rooms ran some way ahead of the ability of the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up to get any actual Ukrainians into the country.

Of course, as is rightly pointed out, most Ukrainians escaping the shelling want to find safety either in the (relatively) quieter west of the country or in nearby countries, especially Poland. Yet even here the UK has been found wanting. The chair of the all-party International Development Committee, Sarah Champion MP, has declared herself “shocked and disappointed” that less than £60m of the UK’s promised £220m humanitarian aid package for Ukraine has been delivered so far. Given that it is much easier to move money across continents than human beings, it is an odd failure.

Perhaps Zelensky mentioned it to Johnson at their last rendezvous; or perhaps he thought it best not to when the UK is pushing Nato policy towards offering weaponry and transit that is becoming more offensive than defensive in character.

Champion has also noticed that the humanitarian aid for Ukraine isn’t “new” money but is being carved out of the existing international aid budget, which is being squeezed by the reduction in the target and by slow economic growth.

“I am also extremely disappointed that the aid money for Ukraine is coming out of an aid budget that has already been slashed from 0.7 per cent of UK national income to 0.5 per cent,” she said. “We know that this reduced budget means cruel cuts to aid programmes around the world. This includes cuts, for example, to projects aimed at helping women and girls in exceedingly difficult circumstances. The government itself said these projects for women and girls were their priority – yet they were still cut.”

At any rate, there is a contrast between the military response – short of committing Nato troops of course – and the “civilian” response. Fortunately for Johnson, this divergence hasn’t affected his image as a “war leader”, but it may become more embarrassing the longer the delays drag on, adding to an impression of incompetence.

Even so, polling shows Ukraine isn’t a very “salient” issue so far as the local elections are concerned, despite a genuine public anxiety about the atrocities there. Politics begins at home.