The article proposes to single out socio-humanitarian cooperation as a separate foreign policy tool. It studies the case of the UK to demonstrate the synergy between conceptual approaches and their implementation in the national legislation in providing official development assistance (ODA) and humanitarian aid as the two integral parts of socio-humanitarian policy. The authors conclude that the shift in doctrinal priorities in the area, including the prioritisation of emergency aid and individual recipients (Afghanistan, certain African states) after 2020, is confirmed by the change in London's approaches towards UN humanitarian agencies, with the pace of cuts to humanitarian aid funds being faster than the government's stated targets. Based on statistical data from 2005‒2023, the authors distinguish two periods of the UK's multilateral socio-humanitarian policy: 2005‒2020 and 2020 ‒ to the present. The first period saw the growth in London's emergency response funding being in line with the overall growth in global humanitarian needs. In the second period, despite the dramatic increase in the funds requested by UN agencies and the general degradation of the global humanitarian situation (the humanitarian appeal of the UN's main coordination mechanism, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), increased from $39 bn in 2020 to $51.5 bn in 2023, with the number of people in dire need jumping from 98 million in 2020 to 230 million in 2023), UK deprioritised practically all channels of multilateral humanitarian funding. For the second period, we show the emphasis on food aid, along with a staggering (up to 85%) reduction in other funding areas, most notably in unearmarked contributions and CERF pledges. Such a change may be explained, on the one hand, by the deteriorating food security situation in key recipient countries and, on the other hand, by the politicisation of humanitarian assistance on the part of the UK.
Read full abstract