Speaking at a ONE event in January, Ed Miliband reminded his audience (of less sceptical youngsters) that ‘change is possible’, and how, 15 years after the millennium development goals were set out, ‘58m more children go to primary school’. Miliband recognised that while international development is not ‘fashionable’, it remains crucially important, as it is about the ‘kind of world you pass on to people’.
Yet international development remains far more fashionable than it is political, and therein lies a problem on the horizon for those who believe in its importance. Issues that are flagged as voter priorities, such as the economy or immigration, are tied into the maelstrom of globalisation, but remain hotly contested domestic themes. By contrast, issues surrounding international development, a crucial mechanism by which Britain conducts itself in an interconnected world, seem shorn of political disagreement and are of little relevance to how people cast their ballots in May.
The Labour Campaign for International Development is a group for all those ‘committed to a world without poverty and injustice’. Attending its events you are guaranteed to check a few statements off your political bingo card including the ubiquitous ‘internationalism is in our DNA’. At an event in Westminster last month, Douglas Alexander spoke passionately about how international development highlights that governments ‘can make a difference’. A globalised world means interdependence, he said, and the ‘problems of villagers in Bangladesh are our problems’.
But how to convert such high principles into the rough and tumble of political debate? You can usually tell how unpolitical a subject is by whether politicians who are seen to step out of a consensus on it are accused of ‘playing politics’. Labour’s decision in 1997 to create an independent government department with its own international development budget and policymaking arm significantly changed the United Kingdom’s approach to foreign policy. It also met the new Labour government’s strategic goal of underlining its progressive and internationalist credentials – setting the UK on the path to becoming one of the most influential development actors in the world. The strategy was arguably so successful that it has forced the Conservative party to follow Labour policy, with the current government ringfencing the international development department’s budget and stating its ambition for the UK to be a ‘development superpower’.
The consensus on development and in particular development spending has only been disturbed at the margins. According to the TaxPayers’ Alliance, 69 per cent of the public would support freezing the international development budget at its current level, while 43 per cent would scrap the budget entirely. The United Kingdom Independence party has of course promised to cut the foreign aid budget by £9bn, asking ‘Why do the political classes still insist that we can afford to send nearly £1bn per month in aid to countries with space programmes and burgeoning middle classes whilst hard-working UK taxpayers struggle with the rising cost of living?’
Matching the day-to-day relevance of household budgets and the ‘cost of living crisis’ is some contrast to understanding the lives and struggles of a villager from Bangladesh. Honestly put, how can people truly understand the poverty of far-flung parts of the world and how can a debate about the global marginalised avoid being consigned to the domestic margins?
I would argue there is a need for more hard politics and leadership in the sphere of international development. The soft power toolbox of influence it offers can express and reinforce the appeal of British culture and ideas. Indeed, our emergence as an aid superpower could be a vital part of a 2015-20 government’s foreign policy and could bleed back into making the issue one of increasing electoral relevance in future.
To do this we have to ensure that the department for international development is not seen simply as a nice and fluffy charity nestling inside government. In a research paper for Progress that I co-wrote, Jonathan Powell recalled that ‘we took our eye off the ball on international development … before we knew it we had woken up and realised Clare [Short] had effectively created an NGO inside government and given the UK a new foreign policy.’
I do not mean to criticise NGOs but rather believe that it is for government senior politicians to provide the leadership in the development space that is so vitally needed. Mary Creagh is entirely correct when she argues that you cannot have development without security. Today in Syria you have the worst humanitarian crisis since second world war, with the British response it would seem limited to being a big payer (£800m and counting) but not a big player. Serious conversations about long-term refugee status, cross-border aid, legality of humanitarian operations, and protection for the humanitarian space are not getting the bandwidth they deserve.
Promising to match another party’s budget line on an issue should not stop it becoming an issue of debate and disagreement. The issue of Britain’s place in the world is too important to be the last thing written on any party’s manifesto and the opportunities that a well-resourced and well-led development ministry offer should be exploited to the full.
———————————
James Denselow is a foreign policy specialist at the Foreign Policy Centre. He tweets @JamesDenselow
———————————