Make no mistake: this is the abolition of DFID, not the combination of two departments. Those arguing for this merger will inevitably say – and have already begun saying – that it will foster more ‘coherence’, more ‘joined up’ foreign policy, better coordination, alignment, and a way to consolidate resources. However, the realpolitik is, functionally, DFID will cease to exist.
The Case for International Aid
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. At a time when the world is turning in on itself, the case for bolstering, not dissolving international aid is stronger than ever. The head of the UN’s food agency has warned of widespread famine ‘of biblical proportions’ and, unsurprisingly, aid targeted countries are being the hardest hit. As traditional donor countries like the UK reallocate resources to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic, the risk that crucial NGO portfolios will be diminished is materialising. It is imperative that development departments, programmes and funding retain their independence and focus, rather than being integrated into other areas. We are already seeing serious regression, with sociopolitical divides widening, corruption, extortion and exploitation increasing. There is a false, populist backed dichotomy threatening to emerge between internal and external priorities which must be addressed. As countries haemorrhage funds dealing with the economic fallout of the pandemic, aid resources are being diverted with justifications of ‘national interests’.
Diluting Priorities: A Neocolonialist Move
In a seismic blow to international development, and right in the middle of a pandemic that worst affects the world’s global poorest, the UK government has recently announced plans to merge the Department for International Development (DFID) and the Foreign Office (FCO). This move has concerned many, with the evident danger of the amalgamation of the two resulting in diluting key priorities, such as poverty reduction. The two are very different departments; the FCO typically safeguards national security, engaging in counter terrorism and weapons proliferation, as well as furthering British interests and promoting sustainable growth. DFID’s remit is tackling poverty, disease, mass migration, insecurity and conflict in developing countries as well as the UK. Boris’ dismissive excuse for this hostile takeover is that DFID has been a ‘giant cashpoint in the sky’ for developing countries. But its work makes the difference between life and death for millions of people across the globe. In recent examples, in 2019 it helped to vaccinate 45 million children against polio, and afforded 23.5 million of the world’s poorest women and girls access to safe contraception, saving lives, averting child marriages and enabling girls to stay in education. These vital initiatives must not be conflated with promoting British interests overseas.
With the Foreign Office handed direct control of the £14 billion aid budget, it is clear that funding for tackling destitution and conflict will be repurposed for ‘national interests’ rather than development-oriented purposes, and the loss will be camouflaged by carefully shaped rhetoric. This is a neocolonialist move, as it means a reintroduction of tied aid: aid granted conditionally, which is not aid at all. Instead, it is the exploitation of countries in a position of difficulty for political gain by donors: a sideways form of influence compared to imperialism, but a forcible one nonetheless. For example, as reported by the Institute of Economic Affairs, the US, being the largest shareholder of both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) employed aid as part of Cold War foreign policy and used it to procure UN votes for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The World Bank and IMF have also been accused of participating in neocolonialism by offering loans to developing countries. These are often a poisoned chalice: conditional on them implementing reforms which are beneficial to the donors but not necessarily to their own economies, and interest laden, which keeps them dependent, forced to spend more on servicing debt, and ultimately controllable.
The aid commitment of spending 0.7 % gross national income is enshrined in law, and the government is using the effective eradication of DFID to gain backdoor access to it. Not only is it an exploitation of others through leveraging aid disbursements, but an exploitation of the pandemic situation itself. When three ex Prime Ministers, (and within them a Conservative PM no less) condemn the same move, it is increasingly difficult to laud this as a meritorious decision. As Ian Blackford, Westminster SNP leader commented, the creation of this ‘Whitehall super-department’ as Boris terms it, ‘is using challenging domestic circumstances as an excuse to wind down aid for the world’s poorest’. Ahead of a speaker event I am chairing with the Fabian International Policy Group, Lord Ray Collins, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Development, was open about the internal and external damage this move will cause. ‘Scrapping DFID in the middle of a world pandemic, the department that has been leading the global development of a vaccine and providing health resources to the world’s poorest is both irresponsible and counterproductive. Instead of focusing on the pandemic, the Prime Minister has decided to undertake a large-scale Whitehall restructure, which will cost millions of pounds of public money, and abolish a department that is the most transparent, the most effective and a global champion at delivering value for money for British taxpayers’. Labour Campaign for International Development (LCID) added: ‘Covid is a global crisis that Britain and DFID should be playing a leading role in tackling-one that is hitting the world’s poorest hard. Just at a time when DFID, with its two decades worth of expertise, should be helping lead the global response, they have been sidelined. Jut when the world needs global leadership, this government is not only nowhere to be seen, but making the problem worse’.
Make no mistake: this is the abolition of DFID, not the combination of two departments. Those arguing for this merger will inevitably say – and have already begun saying – that it will foster more ‘coherence’, more ‘joined up’ foreign policy, better coordination, alignment, and a way to consolidate resources. However, the realpolitik is, functionally, DFID will cease to exist. The post-Brexit ‘Global Britain’ rallying cry rings hollow, as it moves to repurpose one of its biggest contributions to the global poorest, whilst simultaneously confronting its colonial legacy. This undermines, not strengthens Britain’s international standing. UK NGOs warned in a shared statement in November 2019 that it ‘would risk dismantling the UK’s leadership on international development and humanitarian aid.’ The effective liquidation of DFID and move towards tied aid echoes President Trump’s threats to defund the World Health Organisation (WHO) if it does not ‘commit to major substantive improvements within the next 30 days’ which it has just been announced that he will be following through with.
The Historical Pendulum Swing
This merger isn’t a novel idea, however. It has long been suspected that the government has been gearing up to put it into effect. ‘The move towards joint DFID-FCO ministers has been happening for a while,’ said Ian Mitchell, senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development. Ministers with portfolios across the two departments were first introduced in 2017, under then-Prime Minister Theresa May. In Johnson’s February reshuffle, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, a vocal critic of foreign aid, who agreed with Priti Patel’s summation of aid being a ‘waste of cash on vanity projects in far-flung lands’ was appointed International Development Secretary. She replaced Alok Sharma, who said: ‘My personal view very much is that [DFID] should continue as an independent department’, to members of the cross-party select committee that scrutinises UK aid spending. Boris then appointed seven joint FCO and DFID ministers, meaning the two departments had one joint ministerial team.
Nor is it the first time that this has happened. DFID was originally the Ministry of Overseas Development (ODM) under Harold Wilson, then merged with the FCO under Ted Heath, but reinstated by Mr Wilson in 1974. Under Thatcher, it was re-merged with the FCO and then again, re-established by Tony Blair as DFID. The pendulum swing is predictable, but costlier now more than ever, as countries around the world are crippled by the pandemic. This is a geopolitically strategic move to further Conservative post-Brexit foreign policy interests and essentially increase their purchase power. ‘Never waste a good crisis’ said Churchill. It appears Boris is following his advice to the letter.
How Have Previous Mergers Fared?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan recently said; ‘We have before us a health crisis, a humanitarian crisis, and an economic crisis which threaten to undo 30 years of international development work’. She expressed her worry that the secondary impacts will be felt for years to come for the poorest, and most disproportionately affected.
Yet not only is the UK government complicit in this process now, but actively contributing to it. This does not only dilute funding, but also the world class level of experience Boris referenced in his speech. DFID is home to international aid workers with specialist expertise in delivering programmes and ensuring aid is spent properly. This combination will make future employees generalist, and sideline development in favour of commerce objectives. During PMQs, Boris referenced the fact that New Zealand and Canada also merged their ministerial departments to support his arguments. However, since the Canadian International Development Agency merged with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to become Global Affairs Canada, its overall ranking in the Commitment to Development Index, — an initiative of the Center for Global Development that looks at how donors perform on development work across the whole of government — dropped from 11 before the merger in 2012 to 17 in 2018. New Zealand’s merger had similar results in aid expertise dropping substantially, as aid practitioners abandoned government jobs, noted in the 2015 OECD DAC peer review. The AusAID-Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) merger in 2013 sadly followed the same trend. An independent review of the merger found that it caused a devaluation of development knowledge, worse performing programs and less transparency. We have the advantage of hindsight in looking at how mergers have damaged aid efficacy in other countries, and yet the government has chosen to ignore these warnings. This is not a strategic, useful alignment of foreign policy, but a removal of the UK’s soft power in one stroke.
The nature of aid is humanitarian and the nature of foreign policy is political. We must oppose this insidious restructuring which will render DFID obsolete at a time when it is needed most. DFID must not be weaponised to strengthen the government’s diplomatic clout, as Boris himself said ‘this will allow us to punch even harder’. It must remain an independent body best placed to tackle the crises it works to mitigate. In short, this integration is a populist stunt and morally reprehensible. The outcomes of previous mergers are clear: a loss of expertise, a quantifiable drop in performance, and decrease in accountability. Development priorities must not be subsumed beneath British trade interests; we must fight this at every available opportunity.
Cecilia is a Parliamentary policy advisor, founder of a public speaking society and former leader of two international NGO outreach programmes.
Image credit: Florian Serieux/Action Against Hunger, ‘Shelter provided by UK aid for people displaced by Daesh in Iraq.’ Link – https://www.odi.org/blogs/17077-dfid-and-fco-merger-our-experts-views