Why has Britain given up on soft power?

Leaving the EU disconnected the UK from regular contacts with other member states at regular meetings, as well as from being part of the EU presence in diplomatic posts around the world. It also reduced the value to the USA of the UK’s presence as a major member of the EU.

Then in 2020 Boris Johnson scrapped the UK Department for International Development, which had been a world leader in delivering poverty reduction and humanitarian relief around the world.

Having promised not to scrap DFID, he followed it with another broken promise and cut UK aid from the UN delivery of 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income to 0.5 per cent.

This caused disruption and demoralisation, and many left the service altogether.

After Boris left the stage, there was a slight hiatus when Rishi Sunak, no great supporter of UK aid, nevertheless brought back David Cameron as Foreign Secretary and Andrew Mitchell as Development Minister.

As we headed towards the election and an anticipated change of Government, there was optimism that the UK’s leadership on international development would be sustained and potentially enhanced.

But no. To shock and dismay, the Labour Government cut UK aid to 0.3 per cent.

This is now being followed by a 30 per cent reduction in the already reduced Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staffing.

The justification appears to be that without a separate development department and limited aid budget, we do not need the same number of diplomats. Yet the UK’s diminishing role in the world requires the opposite.

For example, across the Global South, the aid cuts mean in many countries – a lot of them Commonwealth members – the UK diplomatic presence is being reduced almost to a skeleton staff.

Surely, with little aid money to manage, that makes sense. Well, actually, no. First of all, as the UK retreats, China and Russia are stepping up their engagement. Secondly, without aid, the deployment of soft power is more important, and that requires diplomats engaging across society, promoting UK plc in all its dimensions.

In addition, although the US brutally closed down its development agency USAID, it is still engaging transactionally and visibly across the Global South, albeit in ways that would not meet the UK’s criteria of untied and pro-poor.

The Government says it is not all about aid or money and talks fairly about soft power. But, in turn, we are witnessing further downgrading of the UK’s former strengths. The British Council, the UK’s international agency for promoting the English language and British culture, is on the brink of insolvency, aggravated by a high-interest Covid-era loan which the Government refuses to mitigate. By contrast, the French and German equivalents are substantially better funded.

The highly respected BBC World Service, which reaches 500 million people around the world, has had to cut key language services and plead for funding to maintain others.

The logical strategy in the wake of aid cuts is to refocus the role of our embassies and high commissions, which would be more effectively delivered if we boosted our soft power.

Our diplomats should intensify trade and investment promotion, support climate change initiatives, highlight the UK's creative industries, support communities with partnerships and technical assistance, and use every opportunity to remind people of the range of qualities the UK projects and to strengthen influence where goodwill still exists. This can be achieved with only a fraction of the budget previously spent on aid and development. But it needs people on the ground.

Yet, the Government is in the process of cutting 30 per cent of the FCDO workforce while the world looks on with astonishment as Britain’s age of self-harm continues unchecked.

As I have travelled around the world, I have found unexpected wells of respect and goodwill towards the UK. But in recent years this has been replaced by disappointment and even incredulity. We undervalue our strengths, especially in large parts of Africa and Asia.

We need to recognise that many of these countries will become significant players in the coming decades and sincere and respectful mutual engagement can pay dividends – but we need to be there not to dismantle our presence.

____________________

Lord Bruce is a former chair of the International Development Select Committee, and current member of the International Relations and Defence Committee in the House of Lords.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk