Sir Keir Starmer's pledge to increase defence spending will have significant consequences. In the long run, it could enhance the UK's ability to protect itself. However, in the immediate future, it will mean billions less spent on foreign aid.
But what diplomatic benefits will this bring to Washington?
Historically, visiting leaders have presented gifts and tributes to powerful rulers. When Starmer arrives at the White House on Thursday, he will bring a substantial offering labelled "more defence spending."
Donald Trump is the latest in a long line of US presidents urging European nations to invest more in their defence. Starmer will be able to tell the president that he has heeded the call and taken action. However, he may prefer that Trump does not scrutinize the details too closely. What does an additional 0.2% of GDP translate to in actual money? When will the UK reach its goal of spending 3% of GDP on defence?
Starmer's priority will be to demonstrate that the UK is aligning with Trump's agenda.
Early reactions have been positive. US Secretary of Defence Peter Hegseth described the move as "a strong step from an enduring partner" after discussions with his UK counterpart, John Healey. This suggests that Starmer's announcement may open doors at the White House and secure an audience with the president.
However, will it help him make the case for European security and Ukraine? Will Trump be more willing to grant the UK a seat at the negotiating table? More importantly, will he support the notion that the US should provide air, logistics, and intelligence assistance to European forces stabilizing post-war Ukraine?
The answers remain uncertain. Starmer may argue that the UK is taking the lead, encouraging other European allies to follow suit. He could also claim that increased defence spending prevents Britain from having to choose between Europe and the US—a decision made more difficult by America’s recent vote alongside Russia against Ukraine and Europe at the UN.
Yet Trump’s administration has made it clear that its primary security focus is China, leaving Europe to manage its defence. Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, told the BBC: "No matter what we do on defence, the US is shifting its focus elsewhere. It will not play the leading role in European security that it has for over half a century."
In this context, the UK’s defence spending increase may be seen as a short-term strategic move ahead of Starmer’s visit, rather than a historic response to the geopolitical shifts resulting from Trump’s election.
European diplomats have expressed scepticism, stating that the UK’s proposal lacks the scale needed for meaningful impact. They argue that the UK must reach at least 3% of GDP in defence spending to build the necessary military capabilities. To achieve this, the government would need to look beyond reallocating development funds. Aid charities point out that cutting foreign aid is an easy target compared to reducing expenditures in larger sectors like welfare, health, and education.
Yet few politicians, regardless of party affiliation, seem willing to advocate for a fundamental shift in post-war European welfare structures to accommodate significantly higher defence spending.
For now, the government has opted to reduce foreign aid, sparking outrage among international charities. The cut from 0.5% to 0.3% of national income means £6 billion less for aid each year. Since a significant portion of this budget is already allocated to housing asylum seekers in the UK, the actual amount spent overseas will be closer to 0.15%.
Starmer has pledged that the remaining aid will support Sudan, Ukraine, and Gaza, as well as efforts to combat climate change and enhance global health initiatives. However, aid organizations reacted with dismay. Save the Children called it a betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable children, while The One Campaign warned it would severely disrupt vital humanitarian assistance. The aid network BOND predicted devastating consequences for millions of marginalized people.
This decision follows Trump's freezing of USAID, America's primary development assistance agency. By slashing foreign aid, the UK government has broken its manifesto commitment to protect the budget and undermined its strategy of using aid to strengthen ties with countries in the Global South.
David Miliband, head of the International Rescue Committee and former Labour foreign secretary, condemned the cuts as "a blow to Britain’s proud reputation as a global humanitarian and development leader."
As Starmer prepares for his visit to Washington, his decision to prioritize defence over aid will be closely scrutinized—both at home and abroad.
Comments
Post a Comment