Thea Hilhorst is Professor of Humanitarian Studies at the Institute of Social Studies, researching how crises, such as conflicts and climate change, are related to social inequality and global politics.
What was your first reaction when you heard about this cut?
“Unfortunately, I wasn’t surprised; it was to be expected, since it had already been announced in the General Agreement. What I found particularly painful at the time was how little response it generated. At the presentation of the General Agreement, all the attention was focused on migration, asylum and Minister Faber. Things were relatively quiet on development cooperation, even though a PVV minister was appointed there too, one who had previously indicated that she wanted to abolish development aid. Development cooperation as a political domain has apparently disappeared from people’s field of view.”
What impact will this decision have globally?
“The impact will be huge, both in the Netherlands and internationally. Global effects are hard to measure directly. It’s not as simple as ‘The Netherlands stops and deaths happen immediately’, but it will create holes in NGO programmes, such as Oxfam, Pax, you name it. They will have a better picture and be able to demonstrate concretely what the damage will be, and what it will mean for people in the countries where they operate.
“As well as the NGOs’ programmes, these cuts will also have an impact on relationships. When you destroy those, the consequences are not always immediately visible, but they are there. For example, in the form of deteriorating economic relations or reduced goodwill to do things for each other.”
Can you give an example?
“Well, the cabinet thinks migration is super important, right? When dealing with migration, it’s important to negotiate with the countries the migrants come from. If you only focus on conversations about migration without maintaining broader relationships, it becomes much more difficult. Say the Netherlands is in the running to win a big order. It’s more likely to get it if the relationship is embedded in a broader narrative. An ambassador could give a nice speech about what the Netherlands is all about. But if you strip back those international relationships too much, then other countries would no longer have an incentive to award that order to the Netherlands. So it could hurt economic relations. But it might also be about something smaller: suppose a Dutch citizen is imprisoned somewhere. Without good relationships, it’s harder to get them released.”
So this government is harming itself on the migration issue?
“Yes, there’s a link between migration and development cooperation, but it’s not clear-cut. For example, countries will be less inclined to meet the Netherlands halfway in a migration deal if we no longer do anything for them.
“It was thought that development cooperation would slow down migration to Europe. But research shows a mixed picture: a slightly higher standard of living can also mean that people actually want to migrate. If people become more educated or have more money, they see more opportunities abroad. This kind of research is difficult because people rarely migrate for purely economic reasons; conflict, weak governance and other factors often play a role.
“At the same time, it’s clear that a lack of aid increases migration flows. When refugees find themselves in a precarious situation in their region, they’re forced to travel further to seek safety. While we’re not sure what the effects of aid on migration are, we do know that people will migrate if they don’t get any aid at all.”
What direct impact will the cuts have in the Netherlands?
“International commitments, such as contributions to the UN, cannot simply be cancelled. So what’s left? NGOs. Support to NGOs is being cut disproportionately. But it’s being wrapped up in a narrative that NGOs are inefficient, which is simply not true. If the government doesn’t want to spend money on NGOs, they should just say so, instead of telling a misleading story about these organisations not being effective. That’s very damaging.”
Why exactly is it so damaging?
“By suggesting that NGOs operate inefficiently, the minister is undermining civil society. Meanwhile, support for development organisations is actually huge, and that shouldn’t be underestimated. If civil society is undermined, it could come at the cost of supporting development, and the Netherlands would become an inward-looking country. That’s a dangerous development for a small country in a big world.”
Is that support really that high? I didn’t see it reflected in voting behaviour in the recent elections.
“If people voted on this issue alone, the political landscape would look very different. NGOs have huge numbers of supporters. Someone at Oxfam Novib told me that they alone have more donors than the membership of all political parties combined! We’re really engaged with the world. We see this in primary schools, and in the willingness to take action for Giro 555, for example. The Netherlands can be proud of that, and it’s very important to hold on to.”
Isn’t development aid a neo-colonial way of imposing our Western ideals? And in that light, perhaps it’s not such a bad thing to spend less money on it?
“It’s not like the Netherlands goes to a country and says ‘knock off the LGBTQ discrimination’. It’s often linked to international agreements to which the countries we work with have independently committed. These are topics that organisations in those countries are already working on, otherwise there would be no fertile ground for discussions.
“It’s also important to embed the theme in a wider web of relationships. If you only harped on about LGBTQ rights or gender equality, you might offend people. You have to address those themes with care. Assisting with cultural change is very nuanced and complex and you can indeed go wrong quickly. But doing nothing anymore is also not a solution. We owe it to these countries to at least do something.”
What do you mean by that?
“Poverty in some countries is linked to our wealth, both historically through colonial ties and through current economic structures. We bear responsibility for that. This becomes even more evident with climate change: countries like Bangladesh are hit hard, with millions of people losing their homes or land to floods, even though they contributed little to the causes. These are people who have never been on an airplane, who do not have a washing machine and eat little meat because they can’t afford it. But they’re the direct victims of climate change. And that climate change is caused by rich countries – by us. Structural, equitable solutions to social inequality and climate change are needed. That takes time. Until those solutions are in place, development cooperation remains crucial.”
The minister argues that NGOs should be better able to fend for themselves. What’s your view?
“Surely we don’t fund NGOs for the sake of the organisations’ survival, or because it makes Dutch people feel good? We fund them because these organisations do good things for target groups that we as a country consider important. That may interest this government less. If so, they should say so explicitly. Right now, I get the feeling that some sort of lightning rods have been put up, diverting attention to the idea that NGOs are inefficient or lack support. Whereas it should be about what we want to achieve with development cooperation, and what kind of budget we need for that.”
What do you think about this government choosing to cut development cooperation in the first place?
“The Netherlands should comply with international agreements. The norm is to spend 0.7 per cent of gross national product on development cooperation. With these cuts, we’re sinking far below that. At the same time, we’re committing to the NATO standard of 2 per cent on defence. That’s a choice.”
In the Letter to Parliament, the minister stated that she wants to focus on three themes: health, women’s rights and fair trade. What do you think of these themes?
“They’re not bad, but there are things missing. Why is there no focus on water management, when the Netherlands has so much to offer in that area? And where is climate adaptation, a theme that is crucial right now?
“I’m also worried about humanitarian aid, even though the minister says she’s setting aside money for that. Globally, there’s too little aid available. This is partly because international humanitarian law, which obliges countries to protect civilians and allow aid through in times of conflict, is being structurally violated. A glaring example is Israel blocking aid to Gaza, with few international consequences. Or Sudan, where entire refugee camps are being massacred.
“The erosion of development cooperation has direct consequences for humanitarian aid. Without investment in agriculture and irrigation, drought leads to hunger, which in turn means more humanitarian aid is needed. But humanitarian aid is meant for emergencies, not as a permanent solution. Recovery requires stable facilities such as local hospitals. And stable health care depends on regular aid.”
What do you think this cut means for the future of Dutch development cooperation?
“If you break down institutions, you can’t easily rebuild them. We need to keep institutions on their feet as much as we can. That’s obviously what NGOs are trying to do. Not one of them is throwing in the towel. Instead of just hoping for better times, we must work for better times.
“Human rights and international humanitarian law were established after World War II to prevent a repetition of the atrocities of that war. Values such as human rights, conflict prevention and peace efforts are crucial here. If the Netherlands abandons them, which is what is happening with these cuts, we are contributing to a global trend of allowing more conflict and inequality. Do we want to live behind high walls with snipers to protect our own prosperity, or do we want to build a future based on mutual respect? We need to recognise that we depend on each other. They depend on us, but we also depend on them.”
