The threat of indifference to poverty, environmental damage and disease – and what it will take to reinvent international solidarity

The collapse of western funding for international aid–for both emergency humanitarian operations and official development assistance (ODA)–is a major blow. The dramatic consequences for the neglected populations are the result of the structural weaknesses–evident for years [1]–of an economic model of international aid and development whose obsolescence is now plain for all to see. What is particularly dramatic, however, is the abrupt, non-negotiated manner in which the procedures and targets of the withdrawals have been determined.

The “four temptations” inherent to the financial system in force to date [2]–and now unashamedly embraced by the new US administration–are obvious: the “western-centrism” of the donor countries; the “neo-liberal approach” to international aid where each contributing state chooses which countries to help; the “security concerns” about payments which are governed by strict control procedures to prevent such payments falling into the hands of the enemies of donor countries in conflict areas; and the “temptation to withdraw” funding whenever donor countries experience a major upheaval (Covid-19, economic crises, the rise of nationalism and isolationism, etc.). These trends converge to generate a volumetric insufficiency and suspicions of political soft power in the countries contributing to the annual budgets [3].

Of course, this is a disaster for international aid and development actors themselves, both in terms of feeling responsible for abandoning the activities developed in the field, and in terms of the redundancy plans that have already hit some of the organisations. Some of these organisations will clearly not survive the current events: even those with little or no reliance on USAID (the US development agency whose aid was ordered frozen for 90 days) will potentially be affected by the knock-on effects of the withdrawal of the leading donor country.

Du lundi au vendredi + le dimanche, recevez gratuitement les analyses et décryptages de nos experts pour un autre regard sur l’actualité. Abonnez-vous dès aujourd’hui !

Scaling back aid in an interdependent world

Even before the United States announced its cuts, other countries had begun to scale back their international aid and development budgets. These include France [4], the UK, Germany and Belgium, to name a few we already know of.

Organisations for which the “generosity of the public” (which accounts for around 20% of annual humanitarian aid funding) [5] is a major component of their resource structure will not escape the consequences either.

The economic rebalancing and political tensions resulting from some of the Trump administration’s decisions are indeed likely to have industrial and social repercussions in all the countries that were once privileged partners of the United States, particularly among the members of the European Union. Experience shows the effects that the erosion of certain national parameters can have on the donation processes of the individual donors who support non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Individual donors will have to prioritise a wide range of crises that are now being neglected by government funding, and compassion will then be a matter of personal choice.

The tension looming everywhere as a result of increasing trade restrictions may have economic and social repercussions, which in turn may lead to higher expectations among the general public and redirect donations toward local, national or family forms of aid and development.

Some political groups are starting to question the legitimacy and validity of ODA, which recently prompted the director of the Agence française de développement (AFD) to speak out specifically in defence of the actions of the organisation [6].

The richest countries are gradually developing a dynamic that shows an insane indifference to poverty, environmental degradation and the zoonoses that can result from the abuse of our primary forests. Yet no border can act as an illusory and impenetrable Maginot line to curb the worldwide dangers that define the interdependencies of today’s globalised world [7].

We cannot be indifferent–neither in Europe nor in North America–to all the forms of abuse inflicted on our planet (and soon to be compounded by the revival of a mutilating and predatory extractive industry), nor to the survival strategies underlying current and future massive population movements, nor to the conflicts that these different mechanisms can generate.

The danger of losing interest in equality of opportunity

Two figures immediately reveal the huge gap that already exists in terms of global inequality. The global ODA envelope, provided by OECD countries, amounted to $230 billion in 2023, when “migratory remittances”–sums transferred by migrants to their countries of origin–stood at $830 billion, of which $650 billion were sent to low- and middle-income countries [8]. These sums are a lifeline for the poorest populations. They reflect the inseparable balance of survival between here and there.

Yet we are being encouraged to accept the idea that, despite these border-free interdependencies, we, in the richest countries, could lose interest in the various mechanisms that are destroying equality of opportunity throughout the world; that an unabashed reaffirmation of “everyone for themselves”, in terms of both consumption and global solidarity, could henceforth serve as a new, unabashed political mantra; and that this would have no long-term consequences for lasting peace…

Therefore, in a world where, by 2100, the population of Africa could represent 40% of humankind, we risk major turmoil if we turn our backs on the reality that is unfolding [9]. On that continent (and in other places where major vulnerabilities exist), we cannot shy away from showing concern for others–out of a sense of realism if not generosity.

Together, we must resist the strategy of every man for himself and the law of the strongest promoted by the new leaders of the United States and their affiliates. We must also strive to invent a new model free of the four founding temptations of the existing system, which grew out of the Second World War and the process of decolonisation. This implies creating the conditions for a significant increase in the number of contributing countries for government funds, as well as a diversification of sources for private funds. A new distribution of creative and decision-making power within the governance of a system in need of rebuilding is thus essential. In the aftermath of the current crisis, new battles are emerging to radically overhaul the strategies and methods of international solidarity.

A version of this article originally appeared under a different headline in Alternatives Humanitaires. It was translated by Derek Scoins for that publication.

Pierre Micheletti ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.