To make a success of Brexit we need an outward-looking foreign policy

Earlier this week, Boris Johnson backed a new post-Brexit international development strategy, focussed on advancing British interests and increasing soft power. The Boris factor ensured it got publicity, but also likely turned many people off instantly. However, after two years of navel-gazing and getting bogged down in withdrawal negotiations, the attempt to look to the future of Britain after Brexit was a welcome relief.

The new report, ‘Global Britain: A Twenty-First Century Vision’, attempts to add some much-needed policy-based substance into a debate dominated by sloganeering. Written by Bob Seely, a Conservative member of the foreign affairs select committee, and James Rogers, a strategist at the Henry Jackson Society thinktank, it at least recognises that international development will be essential to turning ‘global Britain’ from hot air and bluster to a tangible reality.

Where I believe it goes wrong is in calling for a cut to the budget, the merging of government departments and pulling out of the OECD’s forum of major international donors. It has been widely reported that Penny Mordaunt, Secretary of State for International Development, wants to dilute or abandon the 0.7% target. I objected to an arbitrarily fixed target when it was introduced, because I thought it would lead to waste and risked becoming a spending ceiling when the budget should be flexible.

It did however undoubtedly send a positive message and, at this point, abolishing it would be perceived as further evidence that Britain is turning inwards. The same goes for pulling out of the OECD forum. It’s bad politics, pure and simple.

Boris Johnson appeared on the BBC’s Today programme and said, “people around the world are going ‘wow – they’ve made this incredible decision to go global’.” This was widely ridiculed, and quite right too. Whatever one thinks of Brexit it undeniably has an appalling image across the world. This has been compounded by the woeful state of our political system. Let’s not make it worse.

I would have no objection in principle with the Department for International Development being merged into an enlarged Foreign Office if it wasn’t for Brexit. Brexit has already had a majorly disruptive effect on the government and aggravated an existing problem of high turnover of ministers and civil servants. It seems to me to be the wrong time to go through a major reorganisation and risk losing experience, skills and knowledge in the process.

The report does at least attempt to open a discussion about how development aid is spent. Too often critics focus on how much is spent, or question the merits of spending anything beyond basic humanitarian aid. There is clear correlation between being a Brexit supporter and believing we should cut or eliminate foreign aid, with the mantra of ‘trade not aid’ typifying a poor understanding of both aid and trade.

Increasing trade with a developing country isn’t as easy as signing an agreement and shaking hands. A Free Trade Agreement is useless if the country we want to increase trade with has underdeveloped infrastructure such as ports, airports, roads, railway and information and communications technology.

That’s why the agreement to support the dualling and improvement of the existing Port Reitz and Moi International Airport access roads in Mombasa, Kenya should be applauded. We need much more of this.

If anything, we should be willing to spend more on international development to increase our global engagement. In fact, one benefit of Brexit will be the ability to improve UK international development strategy by coordinating our trade, aid, defence and foreign policies. This should lead to a more effective foreign policy with clearer objectives.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Seely and Rogers calling for the purpose of our development policy to be expanded from “poverty reduction” to include “the nation’s overall strategic goals”. Humanitarian aid is good in and of itself, but there is nothing wrong with advancing British interests in ways that are mutually beneficial, that is after all the taxpayer’s money has been spent.

Trade facilitation should be a key part of our international development strategy, from developing infrastructure to helping developing countries improve their regulatory culture to meet global and European standards. If we use development funding to reduce barriers to trade, we can increase the prosperity of the beneficiary while providing opportunities to British business. Teach a man to fish to allow him to provide for his family sustainably, and then we will be there to sell him fishing rods and tackle.

The idea to broaden the definitions of aid spending to include peacekeeping will surely face objections but diverting some funding into security and defence is eminently sensible. The defence budget is badly stretched and has faced deep cuts over the last decade – why not maintain and expand the humanitarian efforts of the army and navy via the aid budget?

If we spend wisely and strategically, the reputation of aid spending will improve. The report’s suggestion that aid spending in countries with substantial military or space programmes should be ended will also help to improve public consent.

If there are to be tangible benefits to Brexit, an outward-looking, proactive and redefined foreign policy must be one of them. This means taking an active role in working multilaterally with allies and international organisations to alleviate poverty and increase prosperity across the world.

This isn’t charity, it’s ‘global Britain’ in action. International development is key to increasing our diplomatic influence, boosting our economy and advancing our interests.