**
In a move that has sparked significant backlash, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been accused of hypocrisy over recent cuts to the UK’s funding for the United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP). The reduction of support by one-third, from $610 million (£448 million) in 2024 to $435 million (£319 million) last year, comes in stark contrast to Starmer’s earlier promises to prioritise the fight against global hunger. Critics, including former international development minister Michael Bates, warn that this decision could have dire consequences for vulnerable populations around the world.
Starmer’s Pledge vs. Reality
Upon taking office, Starmer attended a G20 summit in Brazil where he pledged to prioritise efforts to combat suffering and starvation. However, the recent cuts to international aid have raised eyebrows and led to accusations that his administration is failing to uphold its commitments. Bates, who has been vocal in his criticism, noted that starvation is increasing dramatically, not just in the UK but across several nations, including France, Germany, and the United States.
“If this was just a UK story it would be bad enough,” Bates remarked to The Guardian. “But we are seeing it is a French story, it is a German story and a US story. All these countries are cutting. There will be a time lag, but this will cost lives. We have a responsibility to protect these lives.”
The Broader Context of Aid Reductions
Last year, the UK government convened a conference focused on starvation and malnutrition in Afghanistan, a country where nearly 23 million people are in need of aid, with 12 million suffering from extreme food shortages. The WFP has had to shut down 298 relief sites in the nation, highlighting the severe impact of reduced funding on humanitarian efforts.
Flora Alexander, Executive Director of the International Rescue Committee (IRC) in the UK, expressed concerns about the implications of such budget cuts. “With the aid budget at its lowest in decades, every pound must go where it saves lives and tackles the root causes of crisis,” she stated. “That means prioritising fragile and conflict-affected states, where needs are greatest and where smart investment can help reduce the pressures that force people to leave their homes.”
A Global Hunger Crisis Looms
As the situation unfolds, the United Nations has raised alarms about a looming hunger crisis affecting 55 million people in Central and West Africa. In particular, Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, and Niger are facing catastrophic levels of food insecurity, with approximately 15,000 individuals in Nigeria at risk of famine for the first time in nearly a decade. The dramatic rise in hunger levels across these regions underscores the urgent need for sustained investment in international aid.
Starmer’s administration has faced criticism not only for cutting aid but also for redirecting funds towards initiatives aimed at curbing illegal immigration from Bangladesh. This decision has been met with disapproval from foreign ministers and charitable organisations alike, who argue that humanitarian aid should take precedence in a time of escalating global crises.
Why it Matters
The reduction in UK aid funding poses a serious threat to vulnerable populations worldwide, particularly in regions already grappling with conflict and deprivation. As the global community confronts rising hunger levels and humanitarian crises, the UK’s commitment to international aid will be scrutinised more than ever. The implications of these funding cuts extend beyond immediate aid—failure to address the root causes of hunger and suffering risks destabilising entire regions, leading to increased migration and further humanitarian challenges. In a world where millions are at risk, the decisions made by national leaders carry profound consequences for the lives of those in need.
