By Matik Kueth
The United Kingdom has called on South Sudan to become more self-reliant and reduce its dependence on international humanitarian aid, warning that shrinking global aid budgets may limit future support.
In a statement issued on Thursday, David Ashley, UK Ambassador to South Sudan, stressed that while the UK remains committed to supporting the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity (R-TGoNU), the responsibility for meeting the needs of South Sudan’s population ultimately rests with its leadership.
“Humanitarian assistance cannot be seen as a permanent fix for South Sudan’s challenges,” Warrington said.
He highlighted the importance of peace, good governance, and transparency in aid delivery, noting that effective use of resources depends heavily on internal stability and government accountability.
“As global aid budgets come under severe strain, it is crucial that South Sudan better utilizes its resources to care for its citizens. Our support is meant to supplement, not replace, local efforts,” he added.
The statement was released alongside the announcement of £103 million (approximately $139 million) in bilateral aid from the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), aimed at tackling humanitarian needs, healthcare gaps, and education access in South Sudan.
This brings the total UK bilateral aid to the country to more than $2.7 billion since its independence in 2011.
Beyond bilateral funding, the UK also supports South Sudan through multilateral channels, including partnerships with the World Bank, GAVI, and the Global Partnership for Education.
The announcement coincides with a broader shift in UK foreign policy, as Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government moves to scale down its aid budget, from 0.5% of the country’s gross national income (GNI) to 0.3% by 2027.
The decision, intended to help boost defense spending, is projected to reduce the aid budget from £15.4 billion to £9.2 billion, the lowest since 1999.
The aid cuts have sparked criticism from humanitarian organizations, who argue the reductions could severely impact vulnerable communities worldwide, especially in Africa, where funding supports essential services like children’s education and women’s healthcare.