Why Defence and Aid Are Two Sides of the Same Coin

Few Telegraph readers would criticise recent increases in UK defence spending. If you do, you might be reading the wrong paper. State-on-state aggression is back—our hard power matters, and it’s long overdue for an upgrade.

With the Treasury under pressure, many readers also welcome the idea of diverting funds from the often-questioned overseas aid budget. Too many dubious projects, too much money lost to corruption—why send taxpayers’ money abroad when there are pressing needs at home?

It’s an understandable reaction, especially given past failures. No wonder the British public—and loyal Telegraph readers—have grown cynical about foreign aid. But that’s only part of the story.

Since the days of Napoleon, Britain has built a reputation for stepping up when others step back—to challenge authoritarianism, defend freedom, and rally others to do the same. It’s who we are. It’s why a strong defence posture remains in our national DNA.

Yet today’s threats are not as straightforward. We live in an interconnected, rapidly changing world, and many of the dangers we face - cyber-attacks, pandemics, extremism - cannot be tackled by tanks, ships, or fighter jets alone. This is where soft power comes into play: the ability to influence global behaviour through attraction and persuasion, rather than coercion - something we see increasingly from authoritarian regimes like China and Russia.

Thanks to our history, global reach, and international standing, Britain is uniquely placed to wield soft power effectively. Strategic overseas engagement allows us to prevent threats before they escalate and helps vulnerable nations resist the coercive influence of Russia and China—particularly across Africa.

Let’s consider this from a strictly British perspective: Does terrorism not threaten our economy? Do cyber-attacks and ransomware not harm UK businesses? Doesn’t instability abroad lead to migration and asylum pressures at home? These challenges are best tackled at their source.

When funding is cut and programmes are withdrawn, we create deeper, costlier problems down the line.

For example, Migration. It remains one of the top concerns for UK voters, but the focus is overwhelmingly on managing the symptoms, not addressing the causes. The conversation is all about what happens at the border, not why people are fleeing in the first place. That’s where wise soft power  can make a difference - by shifting attention upstream and supporting smarter, more sustainable solutions.

To believe UK security is solely about hard power is to misunderstand today’s threat landscape. Effective, well-targeted international aid is a form of soft power. When used wisely, it promotes good governance, supports education, strengthens institutions, and stabilizes fragile states. This reduces extremism, slows mass migration, and improves global public health—vital in our fight against pandemics.

Overseas Aid is not charity; it is an investment in global stability that pays dividends for Britain’s security and prosperity.

Soft power does not replace hard power—it complements it. As U.S. General Jim Mattis once put it: “If less you spend on aid the more ammunition I have to buy.” The British public is right to demand stronger defences. But if you’ve read this far, perhaps you’ll also see the risks of slashing our aid budget—and how Britain’s hard and soft power are two sides of the same security coin.

Perhaps what we really need is a warrior like General Mattis overseeing the purse strings—to ensure those ‘dubious projects’ become a thing of the past.

-END-

First Published in The Telegraph 23rd April 2025.