(MENAFN- Daily Outlook Afghanistan) Since the UnitedKingdom's Department of International Development (DFID) was created 22 yearsago, it has lifted millions out of poverty, sent millions of children toschool, and saved millions of lives through vaccination programs and otherinnovative initiatives. Most recently, it has been a world leader in deliveringdevelopment aid to poor countries facing the ravages of climate change.
Yet under a proposalnow being explored by the transition team of the UK' s likely next primeminister, Boris Johnson, DFID would be absorbed into the Foreign andCommonwealth Office (FCO). The new PM would be solving one problem – theunacceptable neglect of the British diplomatic service – by creating an evenbigger one: the loss of perhaps Britain's greatest global asset today: the softpower it exercises on every continent because of its pathbreaking commitment toending world poverty.
As other countrieshave discovered, incorporating their international aid efforts into theirexternal affairs offices harms both diplomatic and development efforts. No onegains when development, which thrives on transparency and external scrutiny, issubsumed by diplomacy, which requires confidentiality and is often marked bypoor audit trails.
Of course, theJohnson team thinks it is appealing to a public that, for reasons for which Iand others must take at least some responsibility, is not fully acquainted withthe facts about what UK development aid can achieve. When asked, British votersseem to think that around 20% of the national budget is spent on overseas aid,when the true figure is closer to 1%. British parents are usually shocked tolearn that their government's total annual aid budget comes to around 50 pence($0.63) per African schoolchild, which is not even enough for a pen, let alonea teacher or classroom.
Saving DFID is not apartisan issue, for there is remarkable consensus in support of the UK-basedCoalition for Global Prosperity, which has shown that diplomacy and developmentare distinct tasks of equal importance. The FCO, notes Tom Tugendhat, aConservative MP and Chair of the UK Foreign Affairs Select Committee, is thecountry's 'principle diplomat, and one should 'no more expect diplomats toknow how to steer the Queen Elizabeth than how to lead on international tradeand development.
But there is an evenstronger and more urgent argument for supporting an independent DFID. FormerBritish Prime Minister Winston Churchill used to describe the United States,Europe, and the Commonwealth as the three concentric circles of Britishinfluence. The more influence Britain had in one circle, he argued, the more itwould have in the others: when the British have a strong voice in Europe, theyare taken more seriously by the Americans.
Yet, in the sevendecades since World War II, Britain has too often neglected a fourth circlecomprising multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, theInternational Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization.These institutions' role in global governance is now being challenged by USPresident Donald Trump's administration, just when international cooperation ismost needed to solve common problems. But, because post-1945 Britain fearedthat stronger multilateral institutions would put even more anti-colonialistpressure on the country as it retreated from empire, we often remained at arm'slength. In contrast, France has established significant influence at the IMF,and the Scandinavians have become indispensable in UN peacemaking anddevelopment efforts.
The Labour Governmentof 1997-2010 tried to reassert British influence in this domain. Britainassisted in the creation of two important new institutions: the G20 and the globalFinancial Stability Board. And if a post-Brexit UK is going to enjoyinternational influence and be a 'global Britain, DFID is vital, as it hasestablished a strong track record of leading multilateral initiatives in areasranging from health and education to the environment. In each case, it hasmanaged to punch far above its weight by working with fellow donors andleveraging the capacities of other stakeholders.
Among other things,DFID had a hand in creating the International Finance Facility for Immunization(which has provided vaccines for more than 700 million children since 2000),Global Partners for Health, and a $1.5 billion Advanced Market Commitment fundthat has financed the development of new drugs in poor countries. Through DFID,the UK is also a leading member of the Global Fund and a top supporter of thenew International Finance Facility for Education that I and others havedeveloped.
It should go withoutsaying that in the absence of a strong DFID, Britain will lack the status to leadin important global multilateral development efforts.
The FCO cannot easilyreplicate DFID's unique role in bringing countries and the developmentcommunity together. Without an independent budget, cabinet-level minister, andinternationally-respected leaders, the UK's development program would lack thecapacity to mobilize resources as quickly and effectively in response to futurecrises. Nor will it have pride of place internationally as a source of softpower.
Even nationalistsmust confront the security threats posed by fragile states, the explosion ofrefugee numbers, and the continuing scourge of poverty and injustice. Whentoday's most pressing global challenges – from climate change to inequality andviolent conflict – do not admit of unilateral solutions, the case formultilateral action is unanswerable. A robust, institutionally independent, andwell-financed DFID is needed now more than ever.
So,while Johnson is anticipating that a post-Brexit UK will need a much strongerFCO to maintain the country's influence abroad, the relegation of DFID wouldundermine an even more important post-Brexit imperative – maintaining ourglobal leadership, not least in achieving the Sustainable Development Goalsagreed by all UN member states.
MENAFN1507201901750000ID1098762363
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.