Britain’s Failure to Stand up for International Law in Gaza is ‘Shameful’, Says Tony Blair’s Former International Development Secretary

The following is an edited extract from Clare Short’s Compass report: ‘New Horizons: Reconsidering Britain’s Role in the World‘ which you can read in full here.

As UK influence and respect across the world has shrunk, our rhetoric has become more grandiose, with constant claims of ‘world-beating’ global leadership.

But in a world marked by escalating crises — climate change, inequality, authoritarianism, and conflict — Britain has failed to recognise how far our international influence has diminished, and has not yet come to terms with the fact that acting as a perpetual lieutenant to the United States of America is not an honourable or useful contribution to the challenges the world now faces.

Britain urgently needs to redefine its purpose on the world stage. Our current focus on increased defence spending, trade interests, and arms sales is deeply insufficient and our failure to stand up for international law in Gaza and Lebanon is shameful. Instead, we must prioritise issues that matter most: climate action, international health cooperation, and sustainable development.

To do so, we need to reverse the damage done to international development — a key pillar of Britain’s role under the last Labour government. The Johnson and Sunak administrations devastated this legacy by slashing budgets and dismantling the Department for International Development (DfID), which played a pivotal role in building global partnerships for development and sustainability.

That joint effort reduced extreme poverty in the world from one-third of humanity to 10%, but very sadly it is now rising again. The abolition of DfID by the Tories and the merging of development responsibilities into the Foreign Office was therefore deeply damaging. Given the context of the Covid emergency, when the Government was spending an extra £400 billion on schemes to help the UK through the crisis, this destructive policy was clearly not led by the need to cut spending but by an ideological hostility to development.

‘Bernard Henri Lévy’s ‘Israel Alone’ is Nationalism Dressed in Humanist Clothes’

The French intellectual’s book on October 7 and the Gaza war reveals the failure of some of Israel’s defenders to see Palestinian suffering 

Adam Barnett

The abolition of DfID led to a loss of valuable expertise and signalled a shift away from Britain’s commitment to international development. The Labour Party’s reluctance to re-establish DfID or even revive the Office of Development Assistance within the Foreign Office is deeply disappointing. Labour must urgently re-establish DfID as a cabinet-level department if it is truly committed to a joined-up, internationalist strategy for tackling the climate crisis and addressing global poverty.

Much of the discourse around development frames it as charity—a moral obligation to aid the world’s poor. While inequality is indeed a moral challenge, there is also a need to improve the balance of life opportunities across the world if we are to have any chance of creating a sustainable future. The changes that are needed require much more than aid. A sustainable future demands large-scale investment in renewable energy, public transport, healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

We also need fairer trade agreements, environment agreements, tax arrangements, controls over money laundering, restrictions on arms sales, and a greater focus on conflict prevention and resolution. Funding is needed but it is not just a question of how much. Money can be spent well or badly. The UK’s aid budget, once used effectively, has been spread thinly across various departments and is often badly spent. The decision to fund refugees from the development budget means that spending on refugees is at the expense of the global poor. 

Moreover, UK funding should not primarily be distributed by UK NGOs, but wherever possible used to strengthen the systems and capacity of recipient countries, building their capacity to tackle their own challenges There are too many actors in development. The current fragmented system—with each donor country running its own programs— comes with the burden of excessive administrative overhead, taking valuable time and resources away from the countries’ critical development work.

All the poorest countries were, in the recent past, colonised and exploited, and left with government structures and economic arrangements that were distorted and undermined by the extractive focus of colonialism. Africa, the world’s poorest continent, is particularly vulnerable. The UN projects that by 2050, Africa’s population will double to 2.5 billion, constituting a quarter of the global population. The continent is already suffering the ravages of climate change and this will only get worse.

Mass displacement and conflict are inevitable unless we act now. We need a concentrated and well-organised international effort to help the continent prepare for the challenges that are coming. Without the expertise and influence of a dedicated development department, Britain is poorly positioned to contribute meaningfully to this effort. Moreover, without a strong advocate in cabinet and across Whitehall for sustainable development in government, there will be no challenge to the FCO, MoD and intelligence agencies’ fixation and deep entanglement in their role as lieutenants to the US. 

Britain’s reconsideration of its role in the world should not be about attempting to revive past glories. It must be focused on finding the most effective way to collaborate with other nations to address the world’s pressing challenges. The urgent need to build a more sustainable and equitable world order is daunting, but failure to act will endanger all of humanity.

Britain can and should play a meaningful role. By focusing on climate action, development, and international cooperation, the UK could regain the respect of the global community and contribute to a future we can all take pride in.