The next prime minister will be confronted with a daunting in tray, but the Nato summit Keir Starmer will attend before he leaves No 10 underlines that no issue will be more important than national security.
The UK, alongside other alliance members, has rightly made ambitious pledges to boost defence spending, but the government lacks a full analysis of the threats the UK faces and – in one crucial respect – its actions risk putting our country in greater danger.
This weakness is ministers’ silence on the national security consequences from the huge cuts to the overseas aid budget, despite that investment being identified correctly by former military leaders as our first line of defence.
That silence should end under the new prime minister, who must find both more money for defence and to protect the overseas development budget if we are to fulfil the primary responsibility of government to protect the security of both its citizens and its borders.
Remember that, while the resignation of the defence secretary, John Healey, dominated the news, this government also previously lost Anneliese Dodds, the then-cabinet minister responsible for international development in a dispute over funding – and that she also resigned for very good reasons.
An inquiry by MPs and peers who sit alongside me on the National Security Strategy (NSS) joint committee heard powerful evidence of the risks to the UK’s strategic interests from removing development aid, evidence that cannot be ignored as future spending decisions are made.
The HALO Trust, whose invaluable work clearing explosives helps countries recover from conflict to prevent further instability that could threaten the UK, warned the cuts neglect non-military interventions that are often most effective at creating peace, as part of a balanced security strategy.
Our inquiry also heard, from Rose Goettemoeller, a former Nato deputy secretary general, that Chinese and Russian influence will grow in the Global South if the UK and other European powers copy the US in shutting down conflict prevention programmes.
There is already evidence that the withdrawal of US aid from conflict zones has led to armed battles and the rise of extremism as weak governments are undermined – a mistake the UK must not repeat.
In short, the government should adopt our committee’s recommendation that it carries out “a full and robust assessment of the national security risks of reducing the Official Development Assistance budget”.
It is deeply worrying that no such analysis has taken place since the aid cuts were announced more than one year ago – and that the government has apparently contemplated further reductions to the budget, without knowing the impact of the first round of cuts now being implemented.
This failure epitomises the central weakness in last year’s National Security Strategy, which focuses almost exclusively on boosting hard power while having little to say about preventing conflict and instability in the first place, or about the importance of soft power.
Our committee’s conclusion is that soft power is a crucial source of UK influence and security abroad, and that allowing key assets such as the BBC World Service and the British Council to wither will have “direct security consequences”.
The NSS failed to mention the Integrated Security Fund (ISF), which was set up to confront emerging crises by linking defence, diplomacy, and development work – a programme now losing 45 per cent of its aid money.
Projects to combat the rise of extremism in fragile countries including Sudan, Somalia, Tunisia and Jordan have been halted, a stark consequence of such a huge reduction in funding. A top civil servant at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office stated there is no ISF programme in Africa anymore - despite the obvious threats to Europe’s security.
Ministers must listen to the expert warning from some of our most senior former military chiefs – including Field Marshal Lord Richards, Major General James Cowan and General Sir Nick Parker – that “Britain’s security does not begin at our border”, but by preventing and confronting threats before they reach our shores.
The new prime minister should assess the real-world impact of taking 40 per cent out of our development budget – and rule out further cuts until we know what damage is being done. Our national interest depends on it.
Lord Boateng is a former Labour cabinet minister, current member of the House of Lords and part of parliament's Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy
This article was produced as part of The Independent’s Rethinking Global Aid project
Andy Burnham faces his first big test… on immigration
Has Angela Rayner shown Andy Burnham has a woman problem?
Sir Keir has left a fiscal mess for Andy Burnham to clean up
The island in Pakistan where 45C heat puts pregnant women and babies in danger
Burnham under pressure to rule out welfare cuts to fill £5bn defence budget black hole
Disasters Emergency Committee launches urgent appeal following ‘catastrophic’ Venezuelan earthquake
