Once-in-a-decade UN conference on development aid kicks off in Spain
The once-in-a-decade event will be held from Monday to Thursday, aiming to address pressing global concerns, including hunger, poverty, climate change, healthcare, and peace.
At least 50 world leaders gathered in Seville, including UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Kenyan President William Ruto.
More than 4,000 representatives from businesses, civil society and financial institutions are also participating in the fourth edition of the event.
But the group's most significant player, the US, is snubbing the talks following President Donald Trump's decision to slash funding shortly after taking office in January.
In March, US State Secretary Marco Rubio said the Trump administration had cancelled more than 80 percent of all the USAID programmes.
Moreover, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France are also making cuts to offset the increased spending on defence, being imposed by Trump on NATO members.
But the series of cuts to developmental aid is concerning, with global advocacy group Oxfam International saying the cuts to development aid were the largest since 1960.
The UN also puts the growing gap in annual development finance at $4 trillion.
'Seville Commitment'
The conference organisers have said the key focus of the talks is restructuring finance for the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted at the last meeting in 2015 and expected to be met by 2030.
But with shrinking development aid, the goals of reaching the SDGs in five years, which include eliminating poverty and hunger, seem unlikely.
Earlier in June, talks in New York produced a common declaration, which will be signed in Seville, committing to the UN's development goals of promoting gender equality and reforming international financial institutions.
Zambia's permanent representative to the UN, Chola Milambo, said the document shows that the world can tackle the financial challenges in the way of achieving the development goals, 'and that multilateralism can still work'.
However, Oxfam has condemned the document for lacking ambition and said 'the interests of a very wealthy are put over those of everyone else'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
By sacrificing Palestine, Europe betrays itself
'Law is interpreted for friends and applied to enemies,' Italian statesman Giovanni Giolitti once said. There are few better examples of this than the way the European Union bends over backwards to avoid addressing Israel's severe breaches of international law and the terms of its association agreement with the bloc. On May 20, the EU's Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) voted to conduct a review of whether Israel was denying Palestinians' human rights by preventing humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. A month later, the same body concluded: 'There are indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.' Indications … On June 26, EU heads of government at a European Council meeting concluded that they 'noted' those indications and invited the FAC to 'continue discussions' in July. It is understandable that some initially welcomed the vote to review the EU-Israel Association Agreement back in May. It is only human to hold on to anything that gives hope that action will finally be taken to protect the human rights of the Palestinian people. Unfortunately, the entire 'debate' over the EU-Israel Association Agreement is simply a sham. It does not represent serious action on by the EU to address the atrocities Israel is committing in Gaza and elsewhere in the occupied Palestinian territory. It deflects growing criticism by giving the impression that the EU may finally be thinking of doing something. More importantly, it distracts from the obligations which the EU and its members are legally bound to fulfil. Human rights pretences Twenty months into Israel's devastating war in Gaza, Israel's breaches of human rights and international law are so extensive that there can be no doubt about their relevance to the EU-Israel Association Agreement. They are so numerous that they must be organised into categories to capture the depth and breadth of destruction wrought onto every aspect of life in Gaza. Israel has been accused of intentionally creating conditions calculated to destroy the possibility for Palestinian life in the Strip, which amounts to genocide. This includes domicide and the laying to waste of Gaza's urban landscape; medicide – systematically dismantling the healthcare system; scholasticide – destroying schools, universities and libraries; ecocide – wiping out Gaza's agriculture and nature; econocide – the devastation of Gaza's economy; and unchilding – making childhood impossible. More than 90 percent of Gaza's population, or 1.9 million people, have been displaced, and in the past three months alone, over 600,000 people have been displaced again, as many as 10 times or more. A full blockade was imposed by the Israelis since March 2, and meagre aid deliveries were reinstated only in late May. Famine is widespread; 66 children have died of starvation, and more than 5,000 were hospitalised with acute malnutrition in May alone. Under pressure from European public opinion, which is increasingly rejecting European support for Israel, the EU finally decided to do something. But that something involved a fair bit of talking and – so far – no action. The bloc decided to vote on reviewing the EU-Israel Association Agreement. But this was nothing out of the ordinary because all association agreements should be subject to regular reviews, which can trigger either advances or scaling back the depth and breadth of relations. In fact, those who called for the vote knew very well that suspension of the agreement requires a unanimous vote by 27 member states, which is currently impossible. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and member states, such as Germany, Italy and Hungary, have made crystal clear their unwavering support for Israel. In these circumstances, hoping for a unanimous vote to suspend the agreement is close to delusional. A qualified majority vote might suspend parts of the agreement on trade, but that is the most one can hope for. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Union's commitment to human rights and 'fundamental values'. Instead, public invocations by governments and officials of Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which states that all areas covered by the agreement itself 'shall be based on respect for human rights', are no more than empty rhetoric. In reality, the EU never intended for these human rights conditionalities to be taken seriously. It is easy to see why; it never specified by what criteria human rights should be assessed, and it chose not to make these assessments routine, compulsory, and public. In this way, the EU leaves itself enough space to claim it values 'human rights and fundamental values' while, in fact, 'interpreting away' its own rules to avoid having to take any significant action. Empty rhetoric Some European states have decided to take individual action, but what they have done has been just as meaningless as the EU agreement review. The United Kingdom suspended trade talks with Israel, but not trade. Its recent communique alongside France and Canada was trumpeted as 'tougher' than the EU's statements. Yet, the communique opposes only Israel's 'expansion of military operations in Gaza': It takes issue only with the extension and intensification of Israel's assault, not with the devastation wrought upon the Strip so far. Nor does it mention the war crimes Israel has been accused of, or declare a commitment to uphold the International Criminal Court's (ICC) arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. In fact, despite the UK summoning Israel's ambassador after its 'tough' joint statement with France and Canada, it continued its surveillance flights over or close to Gaza's airspace, which are suspected of gathering intelligence for the Israeli army. France, for its part, declared it would recognise a Palestinian state in June. June came and went without recognition. In October 2023, Spain claimed that it stopped selling weapons to Israel. In May, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez declared, 'We do not do business with a genocidal state.' And yet, a Barcelona-based think tank revealed recently the existence of more than 40 contracts between Spanish state institutions and Israeli defence companies. Germany, France, the UK and Italy also continue to supply weapons in breach of the spirit of international law. Legal obligations If European governments were serious about responding to Israel's crimes, they could do that by simply abiding by their legal obligations under the various EU treaties and international law. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Lisbon Treaty require the bloc to embed respect for 'democracy, human rights and fundamental values' into all EU policies. This is why all association agreements have human rights conditionalities in the first place. The Genocide Convention imposes a preventive duty to use 'all means reasonably available' to prevent genocide. Already in January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accepted that Palestinians' right to be protected from genocide may be being violated. The actions EU states can take include, but are not limited to: halting arms contracts with the Israeli government and Israeli companies; suspending intelligence cooperation; and cutting commercial, cultural and research exchanges with and funding for Israeli private and public institutions on occupied Palestinian land. They should also support the rigorous application of international law, including backing the case against Israel at the ICJ and enforcing arrest warrants issued by the ICC. Currently, the EU is in flagrant violation of its legal duties and its own rules. That is a direct consequence of decades of ignoring gross abuses by Israel and other associated states, including Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt. No amount of 'interpreting' law or hiding behind procedure can mask the fact that the EU is in flagrant violation of its legal obligations and the spirit of its own rules. It has a track record of ignoring continued human rights abuses in associated states, including Israel, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Jordan. This track record has reached an ignominious peak since October 2023. Inaction on Gaza reveals the limits of Europe's commitment to its self-proclaimed values: by sacrificing Palestine, Europe betrays itself. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Obama, Bush decry ‘travesty' of Trump's gutting of USAID on its last day
Former United States Presidents Barack Obama and George W Bush have delivered a rare open rebuke of the Donald Trump administration in an emotional video farewell with staffers of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Obama called the Trump administration's dismantling of USAID 'a colossal mistake'. Monday was the last day as an independent agency for the six-decade-old humanitarian and development organisation, created by President John F Kennedy as a soft power, peaceful way of promoting US national security by boosting goodwill and prosperity abroad. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ordered USAID to be absorbed into the US State Department on Tuesday. The former presidents and U2 singer Bono – who held back tears as he recited a poem – spoke with thousands in the USAID community in a videoconference, which was billed as a closed-press event. They expressed their appreciation for the thousands of USAID staffers who have lost their jobs and life's work. Their agency was one of the first and most fiercely targeted for government cuts by Trump and his billionaire ally Elon Musk, with staffers abruptly locked out of systems and offices and terminated by mass emailing. Trump claimed the agency was run by 'radical left lunatics' and rife with 'tremendous fraud'. Musk called it 'a criminal organisation'. Obama, speaking in a recorded statement, offered assurances to the aid and development workers, some listening from overseas. 'Your work has mattered and will matter for generations to come,' he told them. Obama has largely kept a low public profile during Trump's second term and refrained from criticising the seismic changes that Trump has made to US programmes and priorities at home and abroad. 'Gutting USAID is a travesty, and it's a tragedy. Because it's some of the most important work happening anywhere in the world,' Obama said. He credited USAID with not only saving lives, but being a main factor in global economic growth that has turned some aid-receiving countries into US markets and trade partners. The former Democratic president predicted that 'sooner or later, leaders on both sides of the aisle will realise how much you are needed'. Asked for comment, the State Department said it would be introducing the department's foreign assistance successor to USAID, to be called America First, this week. 'The new process will ensure there is proper oversight and that every tax dollar spent will help advance our national interests,' the department said. USAID oversaw programmes around the world, providing water and life-saving food to millions uprooted by conflict in Sudan, Syria, Gaza and elsewhere, sponsoring the 'Green Revolution' that revolutionised modern agriculture and curbed starvation and famine. The agency worked at preventing disease outbreaks, promoting democracy, and providing financing and development that allowed countries and people to climb out of poverty. Bush, who also spoke in a recorded message, went straight to the cuts in a landmark AIDS and HIV programme started by his Republican administration and credited with saving 25 million lives around the world. Bipartisan blowback from Congress to cutting the popular President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known as PEPFAR, helped save significant funding for the programme. But cuts and rule changes have reduced the number getting the life-saving care. 'You've showed the great strength of America through your work – and that is your good heart,' Bush told USAID staffers. 'Is it in our national interests that 25 million people who would have died now live? I think it is, and so do you,' he said. Bono, a longtime humanitarian advocate in Africa and elsewhere, was announced as the 'surprise guest' and was wearing shades and a cap. He jokingly hailed the USAID staffers as 'secret agents of international development' in acknowledgment of the nature of Monday's unofficial gathering of the USAID community. Bono recited a poem he had written to the agency about its gutting. He spoke of children dying of malnutrition, a reference to millions of people who Boston University researchers and other analysts say will die because of the US cuts to funding for health and other programmes abroad. 'They called you crooks,' Bono said, 'when you were the best of us.'
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Why is Ukraine withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines?
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has announced his country might soon quit the Ottawa Treaty banning antipersonnel landmines amid his country's war with Russia. 'Russia has never been a party to this convention and uses antipersonnel mines with extreme cynicism,' he said on Sunday. This was not a mere rhetorical flourish. In August 2023, Russian soldiers booby-trapped the bodies of their fallen comrades as they retreated to kill the Ukrainian sappers who discovered them. Ukraine needs to even the battlefield, Zelenskyy said, because 'antipersonnel mines … very often have no alternative as a tool for defence.' What is the special role of antipersonnel landmines? Why are they banned in many countries? Why is Ukraine leaving the treaty now, and what will that allow it to do in its own defence? What is the Ottawa Treaty? The Ottawa Treaty of December 1997 is formally known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. The treaty has been ratified by more than 160 countries and is part of the body of international law enshrined in the United Nations. As its name suggests, it aims to abolish landmines. Major powers like China, Russia and the United States have never signed it although the US did agree to stop stockpiling antipersonnel landmines under President Barack Obama, a move reversed by his successor Donald Trump. The rationale behind banning landmines is that they are indiscriminate killers. 'Landmines distinguish themselves because once they have been sown, once the soldier walks away from the weapon, the landmine cannot tell the difference between a soldier or a civilian – a woman, a child,' said Jody Williams, who coordinated the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which led to the Ottawa Treaty. 'While the use of the weapon might be militarily justifiable during the day of the battle, … once peace is declared, the landmine does not recognise that peace,' Williams said when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997. 'The war ends. The landmine goes on killing.' They are not the first weapons to be banned. Chemical agents were banned after World War I in the Geneva Convention of 1925 because the use of chlorine gas by the Germans had led to devastatingly painful injuries. Zelenskyy has accused Russia of violating the ban on chemical weapons use as well, a charge Moscow has rejected. How will leaving the Ottawa Treaty help Ukraine defend itself? The treaty prohibits the use, production and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines. Ukraine, which ratified the treaty in 2005, has already returned to their use. In November, the US supplied Ukraine with landmines. At the time, this was because of a drop in Russian use of mechanised armour and an increase in the use of foot soldiers. 'They don't lead with their mechanised forces any more. They lead with dismounted forces who are able to close in and do things to kind of pave the way for mechanised forces,' then-US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said, explaining the decision. 'So that's what the Ukrainians are seeing right now. And they have a need for things that can help slow down that effort on the part of the Russians.' Leaving the treaty will allow Ukraine to produce and stockpile landmines. The move points towards a scaled-up and more permanent use. The effectiveness of landmines became apparent in June 2023 when Ukraine launched a counteroffensive intended to take back swaths of Russian-occupied territory. The counteroffensive failed largely because Russian defenders had dug themselves into trenches but also because they had planted minefields that went on for several kilometres before their positions. Russian Major General Ivan Popov, commander of the 58th Combined Arms Army of the Southern Military District, said Russian minefields played a 'very important role' in defeating the initial Ukrainian advance. NATO's then-Military Committee chief, Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, confirmed that mines had been a major obstacle. By July, Ukraine had abandoned efforts to punch mechanised columns through Russian defences and focused on wearing Russian defenders down over time. Why is Ukraine leaving the Ottawa Treaty now? Ukraine's move comes amid a spate of departures from the treaty. Poland and the Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – announced in March that they would leave the treaty, saying the security situation in the region has 'fundamentally deteriorated'. Finland followed the following month to 'prepare for the changes in the security environment in a more versatile way'. All share a border with Russia or with Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave wedged between Poland and Lithuania on the Baltic Sea. 'There is a bunch of countries that are already going out from the Ottawa agreement on using these kinds of landmines. It's normal,' said Victoria Vdovychenko, a defence expert at Cambridge University's Centre for Geopolitics. 'It means that these countries are prioritising their national security and they are prioritising that it can be used in the context of potential warfare,' she told Al Jazeera. Keir Giles, a Eurasia expert at the think tank Chatham House, told Al Jazeera these countries being a party to the Ottawa Treaty was a way of proving their political credentials to join Western clubs, such as NATO and the European Union. 'They had to sign up to prove membership of the club,' he said, 'and so were reluctant to do anything which didn't have them as the most forward-leading, liberal, progressive members of that club.' 'Anybody that wanted to sign up to doing what seemed right in the eyes of the global liberal elite would have done things like this whether or not it made long-term strategic sense,' Giles said, 'persuaded, of course, by NATO that they wanted to focus on expeditionary operations and Russia would never be a problem again.' The timing of the Eastern European countries' departure is related to threat assessments shared by NATO countries. NATO's Bauer said in January 2024 that NATO needed to prepare for war with Russia and NATO members were living in 'an era in which anything can happen at any time, an era in which we need to expect the unexpected, an era in which we need to focus on effectiveness'. At the same time, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said a Russian attack on Germany was no longer ruled out. 'Our experts expect a period of five to eight years in which this could be possible,' he said. Since then, other eastern NATO members have said Russia poses a threat to their security. Another element to the timing is the intensified Russian use of combined drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities, particularly Kharkiv, Kyiv and Odesa. That implied that Russia may be preparing to drive the ground war towards parts of Ukraine that are currently far from the front lines, Vdovychenko said. 'We are not talking about the front lines. We are talking actually about [rear] areas and even the residential areas of Ukraine, so not so-called red line cities or communities but actually yellow cities and communities, which means slightly farther from the red line zones,' she told Al Jazeera. In recent months, Ukraine has also faced several renewed Russian attempts to open new fronts in its northern regions of Kharkiv and Sumy.
