Home Secretary Priti Patel and Prime Minister Boris Johnson sit in the House of Commons in London. (Photo: House of Commons/PA Images via Getty Images)
'A Truly Shameful Day': UK Government Condemned for Slashing Global Aid During Pandemic
"Children will die as a result," said U.K.-based group Save the Children.
Jul 13, 2021
Global aid groups rebuked the Tory-led U.K. government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Tuesday for approving a plan to slash overseas aid spending by PS4 billion ($5.5 billion) per year, with critics saying the cuts would result in disastrous consequences for the world's poorest people, including millions of children, in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic.
Johnson's plan was met with outrage from some members of his own Conservative Party, but only 24 Tories ultimately voted against the proposal.
A number of Tories who had originally said they disapproved of the plan to cut international spending from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income eventually joined most of the party in supporting the proposal after accepting a compromise from chancellor Rishi Sunak, stating that the cuts will be reversed once government debt is decreased and the country no longer has to borrow to fund daily spending--"a position the UK has not been in since 1970," OpenDemocracy reported.
"MPs should not be fooled," tweeted Global Justice Now ahead of the vote. "Unless they vote against the aid cuts today, this government will never reverse them."
Under the plan, aid to Syria could be cut by two-thirds; to Libya by 63%; to Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo by 60%; and to South Sudan, where millions are facing famine, by more than half.
Stark warnings were issued by international charities following the vote, including Kirsty O'Neill, executive director of policy, advocacy, and campaigns for Save the Children.
"Children will die as a result," O'Neill said simply.
"We have seen already the immense damage caused in some of the world's poorest and most fragile countries--from 40% cuts in aid for Yemen to 85% cuts in British support for family planning," she added. "The vote today means that the cuts will not stop there. Faced by the biggest humanitarian crisis in a generation, the U.K. has stepped back when it needed to step up, and the consequences will be felt for years to come."
In April, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) said the funding being withheld this year by the U.K. would have prevented 250,000 maternal and infant deaths, 14.6 million unplanned pregnancies, and 4.3 million unsafe abortions.
The UNFPA's condemnation was echoed Tuesday by Global Action for Peace and Security, which had called on MPs to reject the aid cuts and warned they would "have devastating and disproportionate impact on millions of women and girls."
Some charities noted that pulling back billions of dollars in aid each year represented a reversal of Johnson's campaign pledge to lead a "Global Britain."
Describing the vote result as "a disaster for the world's poorest people," Oxfam Great Britain chief executive Danny Sriskandarajah warned that amid the coronavirus pandemic, "aid is needed more than ever."
"We are seeing a yawning gap between the rhetoric of 'Global Britain' and the reality of a government breaking its promises to the world's poorest and further undermining the U.K.'s credibility on the international stage," Sriskandarajah said. "These cuts won't balance the books; the government is putting politics above the lives of the world's most vulnerable communities."
The 333 MPs who voted in favor of the cuts "should know that blood is on their hands," said Daniel Willis, campaigns and policy manager at Global Justice Now. "Today, claims of Global Britain ring hollow."
Conservative leaders who spoke out against the cuts included former Prime Minister Sir John Major, who slammed Johnson's Ministry of Defense for funding a "national yacht" amid the withdrawal of aid--and former Secretary of State for Brexit David Davis.
"Such a choice is morally reprehensible," David said of the plan. "Let's be clear about it: morally reprehensible."
The results of Tuesday's vote, Global Justice Now said, represents "a deliberate attack on the idea of internationalism."
"A truly shameful day," tweeted the organization.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Global aid groups rebuked the Tory-led U.K. government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Tuesday for approving a plan to slash overseas aid spending by PS4 billion ($5.5 billion) per year, with critics saying the cuts would result in disastrous consequences for the world's poorest people, including millions of children, in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic.
Johnson's plan was met with outrage from some members of his own Conservative Party, but only 24 Tories ultimately voted against the proposal.
A number of Tories who had originally said they disapproved of the plan to cut international spending from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income eventually joined most of the party in supporting the proposal after accepting a compromise from chancellor Rishi Sunak, stating that the cuts will be reversed once government debt is decreased and the country no longer has to borrow to fund daily spending--"a position the UK has not been in since 1970," OpenDemocracy reported.
"MPs should not be fooled," tweeted Global Justice Now ahead of the vote. "Unless they vote against the aid cuts today, this government will never reverse them."
Under the plan, aid to Syria could be cut by two-thirds; to Libya by 63%; to Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo by 60%; and to South Sudan, where millions are facing famine, by more than half.
Stark warnings were issued by international charities following the vote, including Kirsty O'Neill, executive director of policy, advocacy, and campaigns for Save the Children.
"Children will die as a result," O'Neill said simply.
"We have seen already the immense damage caused in some of the world's poorest and most fragile countries--from 40% cuts in aid for Yemen to 85% cuts in British support for family planning," she added. "The vote today means that the cuts will not stop there. Faced by the biggest humanitarian crisis in a generation, the U.K. has stepped back when it needed to step up, and the consequences will be felt for years to come."
In April, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) said the funding being withheld this year by the U.K. would have prevented 250,000 maternal and infant deaths, 14.6 million unplanned pregnancies, and 4.3 million unsafe abortions.
The UNFPA's condemnation was echoed Tuesday by Global Action for Peace and Security, which had called on MPs to reject the aid cuts and warned they would "have devastating and disproportionate impact on millions of women and girls."
Some charities noted that pulling back billions of dollars in aid each year represented a reversal of Johnson's campaign pledge to lead a "Global Britain."
Describing the vote result as "a disaster for the world's poorest people," Oxfam Great Britain chief executive Danny Sriskandarajah warned that amid the coronavirus pandemic, "aid is needed more than ever."
"We are seeing a yawning gap between the rhetoric of 'Global Britain' and the reality of a government breaking its promises to the world's poorest and further undermining the U.K.'s credibility on the international stage," Sriskandarajah said. "These cuts won't balance the books; the government is putting politics above the lives of the world's most vulnerable communities."
The 333 MPs who voted in favor of the cuts "should know that blood is on their hands," said Daniel Willis, campaigns and policy manager at Global Justice Now. "Today, claims of Global Britain ring hollow."
Conservative leaders who spoke out against the cuts included former Prime Minister Sir John Major, who slammed Johnson's Ministry of Defense for funding a "national yacht" amid the withdrawal of aid--and former Secretary of State for Brexit David Davis.
"Such a choice is morally reprehensible," David said of the plan. "Let's be clear about it: morally reprehensible."
The results of Tuesday's vote, Global Justice Now said, represents "a deliberate attack on the idea of internationalism."
"A truly shameful day," tweeted the organization.
Global aid groups rebuked the Tory-led U.K. government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Tuesday for approving a plan to slash overseas aid spending by PS4 billion ($5.5 billion) per year, with critics saying the cuts would result in disastrous consequences for the world's poorest people, including millions of children, in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic.
Johnson's plan was met with outrage from some members of his own Conservative Party, but only 24 Tories ultimately voted against the proposal.
A number of Tories who had originally said they disapproved of the plan to cut international spending from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income eventually joined most of the party in supporting the proposal after accepting a compromise from chancellor Rishi Sunak, stating that the cuts will be reversed once government debt is decreased and the country no longer has to borrow to fund daily spending--"a position the UK has not been in since 1970," OpenDemocracy reported.
"MPs should not be fooled," tweeted Global Justice Now ahead of the vote. "Unless they vote against the aid cuts today, this government will never reverse them."
Under the plan, aid to Syria could be cut by two-thirds; to Libya by 63%; to Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo by 60%; and to South Sudan, where millions are facing famine, by more than half.
Stark warnings were issued by international charities following the vote, including Kirsty O'Neill, executive director of policy, advocacy, and campaigns for Save the Children.
"Children will die as a result," O'Neill said simply.
"We have seen already the immense damage caused in some of the world's poorest and most fragile countries--from 40% cuts in aid for Yemen to 85% cuts in British support for family planning," she added. "The vote today means that the cuts will not stop there. Faced by the biggest humanitarian crisis in a generation, the U.K. has stepped back when it needed to step up, and the consequences will be felt for years to come."
In April, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) said the funding being withheld this year by the U.K. would have prevented 250,000 maternal and infant deaths, 14.6 million unplanned pregnancies, and 4.3 million unsafe abortions.
The UNFPA's condemnation was echoed Tuesday by Global Action for Peace and Security, which had called on MPs to reject the aid cuts and warned they would "have devastating and disproportionate impact on millions of women and girls."
Some charities noted that pulling back billions of dollars in aid each year represented a reversal of Johnson's campaign pledge to lead a "Global Britain."
Describing the vote result as "a disaster for the world's poorest people," Oxfam Great Britain chief executive Danny Sriskandarajah warned that amid the coronavirus pandemic, "aid is needed more than ever."
"We are seeing a yawning gap between the rhetoric of 'Global Britain' and the reality of a government breaking its promises to the world's poorest and further undermining the U.K.'s credibility on the international stage," Sriskandarajah said. "These cuts won't balance the books; the government is putting politics above the lives of the world's most vulnerable communities."
The 333 MPs who voted in favor of the cuts "should know that blood is on their hands," said Daniel Willis, campaigns and policy manager at Global Justice Now. "Today, claims of Global Britain ring hollow."
Conservative leaders who spoke out against the cuts included former Prime Minister Sir John Major, who slammed Johnson's Ministry of Defense for funding a "national yacht" amid the withdrawal of aid--and former Secretary of State for Brexit David Davis.
"Such a choice is morally reprehensible," David said of the plan. "Let's be clear about it: morally reprehensible."
The results of Tuesday's vote, Global Justice Now said, represents "a deliberate attack on the idea of internationalism."
"A truly shameful day," tweeted the organization.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.