The UK’s International Development is not meeting its own set of objectives on national security because of the lack of funds and vision. The Guardian reported that the international development budget will be 0.36% of gross national income (GNI).

For a clearer perspective, I would re-write the title to: UK International Development Fund will Reach All Times Lows in Failure to Protect International Order

We should stop calling it ‘Foreign Aid’. The UK’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) has laid out a strategy since 2015 to tackle global challenges in the national interest and calls for creating prosperity together with developing countries. “Foreign Aid” has shifted to providing funds and working with international partners for developments in education, health and infrastructure for the past decade. The aim is to enable developing countries to become resilient networks in prosperity, secured supply chain, civil liberties and global values. Only then dependence on the patronage of China can be avoided, and patronage from China will only pull nations further into autocracy.

The finer details are more discomfiting. In 2024, the largest recipient of the UK’s ODA is Ukraine. Indeed, Ukraine must be defended. Also, many Ukrainians are displaced and require humanitarian aid. However, the budget should be attributed outside of the remits of the International Development budget or as a special injection of funds. Our support for Ukraine should not come at the expense of International Development in the Global South.

Meanwhile, we are failing on soft infrastructure for the Global South, an area which we used to achieve well. Nigeria received a substantial Development budget in 2022 and dropped off the top 10 table in 2023. As startling, this decrease in support for Nigeria’s education came when the UK spent only £25m in 2022’s support. Further, there is a strong case that a long-term strategy is essential in education funding. In Nigeria, education is highlighted for growth towards social and economic progress. Education is also an important sector to protect from regimes that strive to change the liberal international order.

Unsurprisingly, China implemented a devoted strategy to funding infrastructures in the Global South through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Whether or not Chinese-built roads and railways are functioning at their best, citizens in developing countries have gained from the developments.

And there is an important gap for Britain to fulfil. China cannot be a reliable power for global stability. China lacks the values to develop soft infrastructure including social standards, education and legal frameworks. Beijing’s alliance with Russia and its forced labour camps in Xinjiang has demonstrated much of its intolerance and lack of multilateralism. The UK, especially after the General Election with our increased Parliamentary representation and the majority of sensible politicians in the chamber, is more respectable as a reliable global partner for these soft infrastructures. We should put in a long-term effort. Britain cannot counter the BRI by itself; but, in these challenging geopolitical times, we are not contributing sufficiently in both funds and vision to build alliances or counter threats.

We need to engage in Parliament as a united party for International Development to return to 0.7% of the GNI to counter influences such as China’s BRI. The patronage from China is a real threat to global stability. Essentially, we must inspire the Government not to cut the International Development budget in the Autumn Statement. If we are to hang partners dry, there is no reason they would not accept alternate sources of funds and feel their new partnerships with China and autocracy are worthwhile.

* Nicholas Chan is a Liberal Democrat member training in Criminal Law. He is Vice-Chair of Liberal Democrat Friends of Hong Kong.