UK development minister Anneliese Dodds resigned over significant reductions to the international aid budget, which she warned would impact essential programs in Gaza and Sudan. Prime Minister Starmer’s plan to increase defense spending by cutting aid funding has drawn criticism, particularly from charities advocating for vulnerable populations. Experts warn of adverse effects on various international aid initiatives as the UK faces historical lows in aid spending.
Anneliese Dodds, the UK’s Minister for International Development, has resigned following the government’s announcement of significant cuts to the international aid budget. She asserted that these reductions would adversely affect vital programs in Gaza and Sudan. Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently proposed increasing defense spending from 2 percent of GDP to 2.5 percent by 2027, partly funded by reducing aid from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent of gross national income.
Dodds emphasized that implementing the proposed aid cuts would be unfeasible without compromising essential support for affected regions such as Gaza and Sudan. In her resignation letter to Starmer, she noted that the postwar global order was collapsing and expressed her agreement with bolstered defense spending. However, she criticized the decision to burden Official Development Assistance (ODA) with these cuts, highlighting its implications on programs she previously defended.
In a column for Middle East Eye, Dodds previously called for prioritizing the needs of women and girls amid the ongoing conflict in Sudan. She cautioned that Starmer’s decision could lead to significant withdrawal from multilateral partnerships, diminishing the UK’s role within international forums like the G7 and G20. Furthermore, she remarked on the potential long-term repercussions of these cuts, likening them to past austerity measures adopted under former US President Trump.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy remarked shortly before that the UK would aim to protect essential programs in conflict zones, yet acknowledged that other crucial initiatives would inevitably face delays. Reports indicate that this aid reduction represents the lowest percentage of national income allocated for overseas aid since records began. Experts anticipate adverse effects on aid programs in regions including Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan.
A coalition of 138 charities has condemned the recent decision, arguing that the UK should not prioritize defense at the expense of vulnerable communities. These charitable organizations urged the government to reconsider its approach, pointing to the imminent risks faced by disadvantaged children and families resulting from diminishing aid resources. They suggested alternative funding methods, including a wealth tax or proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club, previously frozen as part of sanctions against Russian oligarchs.
The resignation of Anneliese Dodds, UK’s International Development Minister, highlights the contentious debate surrounding international aid cuts and defense spending. Her departure underscores concerns that reallocating funds from humanitarian assistance could severely impact vulnerable populations in regions like Gaza and Sudan. As experts predict negative ramifications for various aid programs, the growing consensus among charities and advocates calls for a more balanced approach to international funding priorities.
Original Source: www.middleeasteye.net
