Across Europe, governments are making hard choices. Defence budgets are rising. Migration is reshaping domestic politics. Geopolitical competition is intensifying. And in the middle of it all, development assistance is being quietly cut. The United Nations target that wealthy countries should allocate 0.7 per cent of their Gross National Income to foreign aid has for decades served as a benchmark for responsible global engagement. Today, it is under pressure in almost every capital that once championed it.
The debate is not limited to one country. Across Europe and the broader Western world, voices are calling for cuts to development aid, arguing that domestic priorities must come first. But reducing development assistance may be politically convenient in the short term while strategically short-sighted in the long term.
The 0.7 per cent target was never intended as an act of charity. It was designed to recognise interdependence in an increasingly globalised world. Stability, prosperity and security do not stop at national borders. When fragile states collapse, when poverty drives migration, or when authoritarian actors expand their influence in vulnerable regions, the consequences inevitably reach far beyond those regions themselves.
Development assistance is therefore not merely a moral obligation. It is a strategic investment in global stability.
Today, geopolitical competition has become a defining feature of international relations. In many parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America, alternative models of co-operation increasingly challenge Western engagement. This shift is not theoretical. While Western democracies scale back, alternative actors deploy tailored strategies to secure influence. China's Belt and Road Initiative logged a record $213.5 billion in global infrastructure contracts, driving massive transport and energy projects in nations like Nigeria. Simultaneously, Russia has deployed its state-backed Africa Corps to provide critical military survival packages to fragile regimes in Mali and the Central African Republic in exchange for mineral rights. These initiatives often present themselves as pragmatic alternatives to Western partnerships, which many see as bureaucratic or hesitant.
If democratic nations retreat from development co-operation, they should not expect a vacuum to remain. Other actors will step in, bringing with them different priorities, governance models and political values.
This reality makes the debate about development assistance more than a budgetary question. It is a question about influence, credibility and the kind of international order democratic societies wish to support.
Critics of development aid often raise legitimate concerns about effectiveness. These concerns should not be dismissed. Development programmes must be transparent, accountable and results-orientated. Aid that perpetuates dependency or supports corrupt institutions undermines both development and public trust.
But the solution to ineffective aid is not less engagement. It is better engagement.
Maintaining the 0.7 percent target sends an important signal that democratic nations remain committed to long-term partnerships with developing countries. It strengthens credibility in multilateral institutions and supports efforts to build sustainable economic and political systems in fragile regions.
Equally important, development co-operation provides an opportunity to promote principles that are often overlooked in the West: rule of law, open markets, accountable governance and civil society participation. These principles cannot simply be declared; they must be supported through long-term engagement.
Retreating from development co-operation would be a mistake in an era defined by geopolitical rivalry and global challenges like climate change, migration, and economic inequality. The question is not whether the world’s wealthiest nations can afford to maintain their commitments. The real question is whether they can afford not to.
The 0.7 per cent target remains a modest benchmark. For wealthy economies, it represents a small share of national income. Yet its symbolic and practical significance is considerable. It demonstrates that international co-operation still matters and that prosperity brings with it a degree of responsibility.
At a time when the international system is under pressure, maintaining that commitment is not an act of idealism. It is an act of realism.
Author: Mikael Freitag, Chair of the International Committee, Venstres Ungdom
Co-Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
Why the 0.7 Per cent Target Still Matters