In a stark warning regarding the future of international humanitarian assistance, Jan Egeland, the secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), has urged China and India to increase their contributions to foreign aid. Speaking from the NRC’s Oslo headquarters, he expressed concern over potential plans by NATO nations to escalate military expenditure at the expense of vital humanitarian funding, calling this a “major strategic mistake” that could have lasting repercussions.
The Changing Landscape of Aid
Egeland’s comments come amid a backdrop of shifting priorities in global aid distribution. The NRC, one of the world’s foremost humanitarian organisations, has faced significant challenges in recent years, particularly following drastic cuts to US foreign aid under the previous administration. “Until recently, the US was our largest donor, followed closely by Norway. But overnight, funding was frozen, leading to chaos in our operations,” Egeland stated, highlighting the reduced capacity of the NRC, which has seen its workforce shrink from 15,000 to 14,000.
Despite indications of renewed US support for foreign aid, uncertainty remains regarding future funding levels. Major initiatives, including vital cash assistance for war-affected individuals in Ukraine and support for bakeries in Sudan, have been permanently cut for 2026 after experiencing numerous disruptions in 2025.
A Call for Greater Accountability
Egeland emphasised the need for a broader critique of foreign aid contributions, particularly from industrialised nations in Asia. He pointed out that beyond Japan and South Korea, countries like China and India have made minimal contributions to global humanitarian efforts. “It’s imperative that we not only scrutinise the US but also countries like China and those in Southeast Asia,” he urged. Egeland questioned how India could achieve a successful moon landing yet fail to provide aid for humanitarian operations in Sudan, while Russia allocates vast resources to conflict rather than relief.
He also noted Norway’s remarkable position as the ninth-largest global donor of humanitarian aid, a reflection of its commitment to allocate one per cent of its gross national income (GNI) towards foreign assistance—far exceeding the UK’s current commitment of just 0.3 per cent.
The Consequences of Military Spending Over Aid
Egeland voiced serious concerns over the implications of NATO countries diverting funds from foreign aid to military spending, particularly in response to the ongoing conflict with Russia. “While it’s understandable that nations feel threatened, neglecting the needs of vulnerable populations worldwide will lead to regret,” he warned. The proposed target of five per cent of GDP for defence spending is unprecedented, reminiscent of wartime expenditures.
He stressed that maintaining foreign aid is not merely an act of charity but is in the strategic interest of wealthier nations. The consequences of neglecting global humanitarian needs could lead to instability and increased migration pressures, as seen during the European migration crisis sparked by the Syrian civil war.
The Climate Crisis and Humanitarian Aid
Egeland also addressed the intertwined challenges of the climate crisis and humanitarian assistance. He highlighted the hypocrisy of leaders who advocate for climate action while simultaneously cutting aid for climate-related initiatives. “Despite the rhetoric, funding for those most affected by climate change is decreasing,” he said, referencing the UK’s recent announcement of steep cuts to climate aid.
He underscored that without adequate support for those suffering from the impacts of climate change and conflict, the world risks repeating the humanitarian disasters of past decades. “We are prioritising the needs of those at imminent risk of famine while neglecting vast communities in distress,” he said, expressing grave concerns about the potential for widespread suffering if aid cuts continue.
Why it Matters
The future of global humanitarian aid hangs in the balance as nations grapple with competing priorities. Egeland’s call for greater responsibility from emerging powers like China and India is a crucial reminder that addressing the world’s most pressing crises requires collective action and commitment. As funding dwindles and military spending rises, the risk of humanitarian catastrophes increases, threatening not only the most vulnerable populations but also global stability and security. The international community must recognise that investing in humanitarian aid is essential to fostering a more stable and equitable world.