SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
labour party
'To Appease Trump,' UK Labour Government Cuts Foreign Aid and Boosts Military Spending
"It is a day of shame for Britain," said Global Justice Now.
Feb 25, 2025
Ahead of his first meeting at the White House since U.S. President Donald Trump began a second term in office, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Tuesday announced that the U.K. government would significantly boost military spending—and pay for the increase by cutting foreign aid—following repeated demands from Trump that European countries pay more for the defense of the continent.
The announcement, said human rights group Global Justice Now, represented "politics at its most base," with Starmer apparently bowing to pressure from the U.S. president—a move that is likely to lead to increased suffering in the Global South as developing countries are projected to lose millions of dollars in assistance.
"To appease Trump, he will cut aid to its lowest level in a generation, forcing the poorest to pay so he can push taxpayer money into the coffers of arms corporations," said Nick Dearden, director of the group.
In order to increase military spending, he pointed out, the Labour government could introduce policies such as a wealth tax—supported by nearly two-thirds of Britons—or "scrapping white elephants like Trident," the U.K. nuclear program.
"Instead, Starmer has taken it from the mouths of the hungriest people in the world," said Dearden. "It is a day of shame for Britain."
Under the new spending plan, Starmer said military spending will be increased to 2.5% of economic output by 2027, rising to 3% by the next government's term, which would begin in 2034 at the latest.
The country will spend £13.4 billion ($17 billion) more per year on defense between now and 2027, while overseas development aid spending will be reduced to 0.3% of gross domestic product (GDP), down from 0.5%.
In 2023, the U.K. spent £15.34 billion ($19.4 billion) on foreign aid.
"It will damage efforts to tackle global health needs and pandemics. It will add to economic instability internationally. The impacts will have direct consequences for children and families in the U.K. as well as around the world."
Starmer said he was not "happy to make" the decision, but stressed that "the defense and security of the British people must always come first."
But in addition to being "a betrayal of the world's most vulnerable children," saidMoazzam Malik, CEO of Save the Children, the aid cuts will also harm "the U.K.'s national interest."
"By jeopardizing the U.K.'s partnership with countries across the world and international organizations, it signals a withdrawal from efforts to tackle climate change, global poverty and inequality, and conflict and humanitarian needs," said Malik. "It will damage efforts to tackle global health needs and pandemics. It will add to economic instability internationally. The impacts will have direct consequences for children and families in the U.K. as well as around the world."
"This decision comes at a time when global solidarity has never been more important," Malik added. "Other countries will watch the U.K.'s decision and are likely to follow suit in reducing commitments to international collaboration. It will undermine aspirations to build a 'rules-based order' that is so essential for the U.K.'s long-term security and prosperity. It will make the world a more dangerous place for children now and in the future."
Trump has frequently, falsely claimed that the U.S. has provided the majority of international support to Ukraine as it faces Russia's war on the Eastern European country. European countries have provided more than €132 billion ($138 billion) to Ukraine since January 2022 while the U.S. has provided just over €114 billion ($119 billion).
Malik noted that Starmer pledged to "stand with Ukraine" earlier this week.
"Now he's serving notice on the support needed by the country's children, who have been forced from their homes, seen their schools bombed and lived in fear for three years," he said. "Through U.K. aid, we all help protect children facing the worst the world has to offer. We have every reason to be proud of it and the government should fearlessly protect it."
Since Trump took office again, his billionaire backer, tech mogul Elon Musk, has used his Department of Government Efficiency to make massive cuts to federal agencies, effectively dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Romilly Greenhill, chief executive of Bond, a network of international aid groups in the U.K., called the Labour government's announcement "a shortsighted and appalling move by both the prime minister and Treasury," noting that former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson already cut foreign aid down from 0.7% of the GDP.
"Slashing the already diminished U.K. aid budget to fund an uplift in defense is a reckless decision that will have devastating consequences for millions of marginalized people worldwide," said Greenhill. "Following in the U.S.'s footsteps will not only undermine the U.K.'s global commitments and credibility, but also weaken our own national security interests. Instead of stepping up, the U.K. is turning its back on communities facing poverty, conflict, and insecurity, further damaging its credibility on the global stage."
Former U.K. International Development Secretary Clare Short toldLabourList that cutting foreign aid to fund the military could irrevocably damage Starmer's center-left party.
"I am afraid that, in many respects, this is simply not a Labour government," said Short. "The coalition of voters that have supported Labour since its foundation, low-income people, the morally concerned middle class, internationalists and supporters of the United Nations and international law, will splinter and the traditional Labour Party will be destroyed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
37 Groups Demand Foreign Secretary Clarify UK Definition of 'Genocide'
David Lammy's recent comment to Parliament, the coalition said, "at best, has injected a deeply troubling ambiguity in respect of these pivotal issues in light of the mass atrocities perpetrated against civilians in Gaza."
Nov 05, 2024
Fallout over remarks that David Lammy, the U.K.'s secretary of state for foreign, commonwealth, and development affairs, recently made to the House of Commons about the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip continued on Tuesday with a letter from 37 rights organizations.
"We call on the foreign secretary, as a matter of urgency, to make a statement clarifying the government's understanding of i) genocide in international law; ii) the scope of the U.K.'s international obligations pursuant to the Genocide Convention and Rome Statute; and iii) what steps must be taken to fulfill such obligations," the coalition wrote.
The groups pointed to an exchange between Lammy, of the Labour Party, and Conservative Member of Parliament Nick Timothy on October 28, when the foreign secretary said that the way words like genocide are being used now "undermines the seriousness of that term."
Israel faces a South Africa-led genocide case at the International Court of Justice over its 13-month assault on Gaza, which has killed at least 43,391 Palestinians and wounded another 102,347, according to officials in the Hamas-governed enclave. The ICJ initially ordered Israel to "take all measures within its power" to uphold its obligations under the Genocide Convention in January.
Lammy's response to Timothy last week, "at best, has injected a deeply troubling ambiguity in respect of these pivotal issues in light of the mass atrocities perpetrated against civilians in Gaza," the coalition argued Tuesday. He "chose to undermine international law and answer in opposition to the International Court of Justice."
"If Labour is indeed the party of international law, Foreign Secretary David Lammy must align with, rather than undermine, the courts."
Despite Lammy's suggestion, the Genocide Convention contains no numerical threshold and "is clear that the crime of genocide is not only perpetrated through mass killing," the groups noted, highlighting Israeli attacks on food production, water infrastructure, healthcare facilities, and civilian housing, shelters, and camps.
In northern Gaza, "Palestinian civilians are being killed through starvation and dehydration, disease, deprivation of lifesaving medical intervention, and constant bombardment and targeting by weaponized drones," they wrote. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres "has warned of the ethnic cleansing of Gaza by Israel while the U.N. Commission of Inquiry has concluded that the Israeli authorities have committed the crime against humanity of extermination of part of the civilian population in Gaza through direct and indirect means."
"These assessments raise the specter of genocide and support the findings of other experts who have long concluded that genocide is taking place," the coalition continued. "This makes it imperative for the foreign secretary to revisit his comments and to clarify the government's understanding of the crime of genocide."
Amichai Stein, a correspondent for state-owned Israeli broadcaster Kan, said on social media Tuesday that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced "the division of the northern Gaza Strip into two parts has been completed, and we getting closer to the complete evacuation of the northern part from civilians and terrorists: 'This time there is no intention to allow the residents of the northern Gaza Strip to return to their homes and that humanitarian aid will regularly enter the southern Gaza Strip.'"
In other words, as Drop Site News' Ryan Grim put it, "Israeli media reporting that the IDF is declaring northern Gaza effectively ethnically cleansed, not even a hint of pretense now that it's Election Day" in the United States.
While the U.S. has repeatedly faced global condemnation for arming Israel over the past year, the rights coalition on Tuesday focused on the U.K. government, emphasizing that "to the extent that the ICJ has already ordered provisional measures, the U.K. is on notice that a plausible risk of genocide exists, triggering third-state responsibility."
Signatories to the letter include ActionAid U.K., Christain Aid, Council for Arab-British Understanding, Democracy for the Arab World Now, Gender Action for Peace and Security (GAPS), Global Justice Now, Jewish Network for Palestine, Medical Aid for Palestinians, Quakers in Britain, and War on Want.
GAPS director Eva Tabbasam toldMiddle East Eye that the language used to describe the war in Gaza "is essential to recognize the suffering of Palestinians and consider all possible actions the U.K. has to contribute to stopping what is a plausible risk of genocide."
"If Labour is indeed the party of international law, Foreign Secretary David Lammy must align with, rather than undermine, the courts," Tabbasam said. "He should have already done so months ago when the court first published this language, but the second best time is right now."
Separately, War on Want on Tuesday published an analysis detailing how "Israel is committing genocide of the Palestinian people" and arguing that "the U.K. government is failing to uphold international law, and is complicit in Israel's crimes, as it continues to export weapons and technology used by Israel against the Palestinian people."
"Palestinians have long struggled for their rights and for justice. During the 1947-8 ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine—the Nakba (Arabic for 'catastrophe')—around 750,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes and lands by armed groups, to live under Israel's system of apartheid," the group noted. "Israel has carried out its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, unlawful occupation, apartheid, and blockade of Gaza—the ongoing Nakba—with impunity and has now escalated its actions into genocide."
The London-based organization is also circulating a petition in response to the foreign secretary's remarks from last week, which says in part: "David Lammy is misleading parliament and the U.K. public. He must tell the truth—that this is genocide—and immediately take action to stop the genocide, and the U.K.'s complicity."
Other responses to Lammy's comments have included public criticism from What Is Genocide? author Martin Shaw and dozens of public figures in the Arab British community demanding an apology.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Groundbreaking UK Climate Win Shows Why Elections Matter
On Wednesday Ed Milliband, the new Labour energy secretary, announced that the government would not back the companies that want to develop two huge new North Sea oilfields.
Aug 30, 2024
I’m pretty sure this newsletter will be obsessing over the American election between now and November—it is the most crucial contest in the crucial years, after all. But this has already been a year of democracy around the globe with half the world’s people going to the polls, and the results have so far been not as bad as they might have been—Prime Minister Narendra Modi rebuked in India, the far right checked in European elections and in France, and a smashing victory for Labour in the U.K., which is already yielding serious climate benefits.
On Wednesday Ed Milliband, the new Labour energy secretary, announced that the government would not back the companies that want to develop two huge new North Sea oilfields. This takes a bit of explanation, so bear with me. Oil giants Shell and Equinor want to develop the vast Jackdaw and Rosebank oil fields. The Tory government backed these projects, even though it led former Energy Secretary Chris Skidmore to resign from the party. In June, a court ruled that the environmental review for the projects was insufficient, because, crucially, the companies had failed to account for the emissions not just from the oil wells themselves, but from the eventual combustion of that oil in cars around the world. These so-called Scope 3 emissions are obviously the key problem with new gas and oil projects, but the industry has worked hard to keep them off the table—and after the court ruling the then-Tory government announced they would back those companies in court. Now the new sheriff, veteran environmentalist Milliband, has said no.
The fight isn’t over—the companies are appealing the court rulings. But here’s my prediction: This will be one of the first large oilfields that humans decide to leave in the ground because of climate concerns.
I say this because Labour has just won its massive majority, and can now govern for as much as five years before they have to face the voters again. Let’s say they don’t call a new election along the way and govern until 2029; with the massive growth in renewable energy now firmly underway, I don’t think that there will be the appetite among financiers for new oil fields then. They’ll certainly try—as Desmog Blog pointed out Thursday, a leading candidate for the new head of the beleaguered Tory party, Tom Tugendhat, has been merrily collecting money from various oil interests and is plumping for new North Sea drilling. But I think that by the time he or someone likes him returns to 10 Downing Street, the moment will have passed.
Here’s how the Tory MP for East Surrey and shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho put it on Twitter Thursday morning:
The final blow for the North Sea. No other major economy is taking this approach to its domestic energy supply.
She’s right that it’s groundbreaking, but she’s wrong that it’s entirely novel. Yes, too many rich countries continue to pump out hydrocarbons for export—tiny Tuvalu called out its Pacific neighbor Australia today for its endless willingness to serve as coal and gas merchant to the world. But there are signs of seismic shift. Remember that last fall in Dubai the world’s governments agreed in Dubai that the time had come to “transition away” from fossil fuels. A few weeks later the Biden administration paused approval of new LNG export terminals, which if it became permanent would in effect keep some serious portion of the gas in the Permian Basin of the southwest permanently underground. That is an even bigger climate bomb than North Sea oil, and though the pushback from fossil fuel interests has been fierce the White House has so far kept its nerve—and the basic issue (along with the ferocious justice impacts on Gulf communities) is the same Scope 3 emissions. It’s just too much carbon and methane to let loose in the atmosphere.
I fear that America’s noble stand may not last. In the wake of the Harris victory I’m working hard to help achieve, I think a lame duck session of Congress might well adopt the proposal from Big Oil Sens. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and John Barasso (R-Wyo.) to trade permitting reform that will help expand renewables with new permits for those LNG facilities. I hope they don’t; important as those permitting reforms are, this one is a bad deal, as a new Sierra Club report released Thursday makes clear:
The LNG projects that would likely be immediately subject to the 90 day review deadline if this bill passes would have climate-damaging emissions equivalent to 154 coal-fired power plants. For comparison, as of August 2024, there are 145 coal plants left in the entire U.S. that don’t have a retirement date by 2030. When looking at all the projects that DOE is likely to review in the coming years, the climate toll goes up to that of 422 coal plants.
There are, again, two equally important and interlinked parts of the climate fight: keeping fossil fuels in the ground, and building out renewable energy to replace that locked-away coal, gas and oil. And the fight is unavoidably global.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular