In the middle of a pandemic, at a time when tremendous efforts are being invested in containing the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and its disastrous economic consequences, the British government’s announcement last month of the country’s largest military spending increase in 30 years was somewhat unexpected. In the next four years, the UK’s armed forces will enjoy a further £16.5 billion ($22 billion) of investment, on top of an annual budget of £41.5 billion. In terms of preparation for future threats to the realm, the areas of investment represent a forward-looking approach, introducing cutting-edge technologies and advanced skills that are essential for modern armies. However, it is troubling that such a substantial increase in defense expenditure should be taking place at the same time as the government is breaking a manifesto promise by cutting the overseas aid budget by a third, bringing to an end the Conservative Party’s commitment to spend 0.7 percent of gross national income (GNI) on foreign aid. Foreign aid and investment in the armed forces are not mutually exclusive issues; on the contrary, they complement each other. Supporting countries and individuals to advance development could reduce the need to invest huge sums in defense, while giving an even better return on investment. In June, the British government demonstrated the diminishing importance it attaches to foreign aid by abolishing the Department for International Development (DFID) as an independent ministry and merging it with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In other words, it subordinated aid for overseas development to the diplomatic service, and by doing so lost more than 20 years of accumulated knowledge and expertise. The DFID was an independent body that supported programs that have improved the living conditions of many millions of people worldwide, while at the same time serving to enhance the UK’s soft power prowess. Increasing the UK’s defense budget, which had suffered constant decline since the end of the Cold War, was long overdue, as the armed forces are currently overstretched and, in some areas, are not equipped to counter security threats. The nature of such threats has changed dramatically, although some of these, such as state-to-state conflict, non-state actors’ militancy and even nuclear proliferation, have remained persistent if somewhat mutated. In announcing the extra defense spending, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s rhetoric far outweighed any details on how the new money will be spent, and phrases such as “end the era of retreat” or “tipping the scales of history” were a rather pathetic attempt to evoke the perceived former glory of the UK’s role in the world. Nevertheless, Johnson’s emphasis on modernizing the armed forces is forward-looking if it translates into a smart and efficient defense force and strategy. Such a force will require the introduction of pioneering technologies, including the use of artificial intelligence to counter threats originating from cyberattacks and to better enable operations in space in terms of launching satellites and rockets. In spending more on robots and autonomous systems, and building capacity to fend off threats originating from both space and cyberspace, the UK government believes it can enhance both its homeland security and Britain’s role in the world, while in the process boosting the economy and creating jobs. Despite the merits of changing track on defense spending, there is something missing from this strategic outlook, and that is how the country plans to obtain the necessary resources for it while the British economy is forecast to shrink dramatically over the next few years as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit. Furthermore, what looks like a flicker of strategic vision in terms of security and defense is being eclipsed by short-sightedness in other areas. The first of these is the threat originating from a lack of investment in addressing the root causes of homegrown militancy, which is regarded by Britain’s security forces as the No. 1 and most immediate threat to security. And second is the announced reduction in foreign aid, which is not only immoral but, in an interconnected world, will result in a security threat to the more affluent parts of the globe. There is a common misnomer that equates foreign aid with charity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aid might be charitable and help to alleviate poverty and advance the human condition in places that desperately need it, but first and foremost it serves to attain foreign policy objectives. And, when compared to investment in military hardware, it yields better and more lasting results. In a world where inequalities are on the rise, the number of refugees and displaced people are at a record high, and climate change is wreaking havoc on communities through disease, drought, floods, food insecurity and loss of land, to cut foreign aid will only exacerbate these problems and so destabilize the most vulnerable societies. This can lead to wars whose effects, as we have seen, tend to spill over into wealthy Western societies through migration and occasional political violence. What looks like a flicker of strategic vision in terms of security and defense is being eclipsed by short-sightedness in other areas. Yossi Mekelberg There is a genuine danger that, in a world ruled by a nationalist-populist and xenophobic frame of mind, where the idea of living in a “global village” has been rejected and replaced by the centrality of the individual national interest, the easiest target for budget cuts is the one that supports foreign countries, whose citizens cannot influence the donor country’s decision through the ballot box. It is not only the UK that has been trimming its foreign aid budget. In fact, only a few countries, such as the UK, Sweden, Denmark and Luxembourg, have met or exceeded the 0.7 percent of GNI target in recent years. Cutting foreign aid may resonate with some segments of society and has few adverse ramifications domestically. However, it is only when the wealthy West fully understands that foreign aid goes beyond a mere ethical stance and is not given solely for altruistic reasons, but helps to make the world a more secure and prosperous place for all by releasing the human potential for doing good, that it will be safeguarded, instead of being an easy option for cuts whenever the economy slows down. Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view