The UK would benefit from pledging more sustained and committed support in this age of disinformation and global turmoil.
Two years ago, BBC Arabic radio left the airwaves after decades. Soon afterwards, Russia’s Sputnik service began broadcasting on the frequency left vacant in Lebanon. That detail illuminates a larger picture. China, Russia and others see global-facing media as central to their global ambitions and are investing accordingly — pumping out propaganda to muddle or drown out objective, independently minded journalism. These outlets are state-controlled as well as state-owned.
Meanwhile, conspiracy theories and disinformation proliferate online, attacks on press freedom intensify and the administration of US President Donald Trump is dismantling media organizations, including Voice of America and Radio Free Asia (RFA), which have been essential sources of information for audiences under repressive regimes. Official Chinese media were gleeful at what RFA president Bay Fang called “a reward to dictators and despots.”
The BBC World Service, and its accurate reporting borne of deep knowledge of places, has rarely been needed more. At its best it is a beacon of truth in times of war and crisis, as well as life-transforming for listeners in a myriad of less dramatic ways. Yet it is already scrabbling to compete with lavishly funded foreign rivals for audiences and resources. The government boosted its contribution for this year and the next, but is now asking the BBC to identify tens of millions of pounds of cuts over the next few years.
Since 2014, the World Service has been primarily funded by the licence fee. However, the government contribution is mostly funded from official development assistance, which British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is slashing to increase defense spending. Even an alternative budget, with funding remaining flat in cash terms, would make deep cuts inevitable when global inflation is running at more than 4 percent.
The World Service faces tricky decisions, too. Most future users are unlikely to come via radio, but shortwave services remain central in some areas and can reach listeners even when Internet access is cut. The decision to axe Arabic radio services looked all the more ill-judged in light of wars in Gaza and Sudan. Bosses are struggling to balance the competing demands to constrain spending, ensure reach, and maintain standards of quality and depth. One pilot is a low-budget model in Polish, which would mostly repurpose existing BBC journalism.
In the long run, the BBC said that the government should fully resume World Service funding. That sounds more like a negotiating position than a serious prospect. What is absolutely clear is that it needs more money to compete, not less, and a long-term settlement. Its authority depends on the capacity and institutional memory it has established, and the fact that it is not seen to respond to the imperatives of the government of the day: it represents national values, not a politician’s fiat. Those are all imperiled when it must battle over money year by year. Once weakened, it would not easily recover.
Research conducted for the BBC found it to be the UK’s most recognized cultural export internationally — ahead of the English Premier League and British universities. Its hundreds of millions of users are more likely to favor the UK and more likely to support democracy.
The World Service is a precious and irreplaceable asset. Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan once described it as “perhaps Britain’s greatest gift to the world” in the 20th century. However, the giver enjoys rich returns, and would be foolish to squander them.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS