UN Conference Seeks Foreign Aid Rally as Trump Cuts Bite
Spain will host a UN conference next week seeking fresh backing for development aid as swingeing cuts led by US President Donald Trump and global turmoil hinder progress on fighting poverty, hunger and climate change.
French President Emmanuel Macron, South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa and Daniel Noboa of Ecuador will headline the around 70 heads of state and government in the southern city of Seville from June 30 to July 3.
But a US snub at the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development underlines the challenges of corralling international support for the sector.
Joining the leaders are UN chief Antonio Guterres, more than 4,000 representatives from businesses, civil society and financial institutions, including World Bank head Ajay Banga.
Such development-focused gatherings are rare -- and the urgency is high as the world's wealthiest countries tighten their purse strings and development goals set for 2030 slip from reach.
Guterres has estimated the funding gap for aid at $4 trillion per year, reported AFP.
Trump's evisceration of funding for USAID -- by far the world's top foreign aid contributor -- has dealt a hammer blow to humanitarian campaigns.
Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium are among the other rich nations that have announced recent aid cuts as economic and security priorities shift and national budgets are squeezed.
From fighting AIDS in southern Africa to educating displaced Rohingya children in Bangladesh, the retreat is having an instant impact.
The UN refugee agency has announced it will slash 3,500 jobs as funds dried up, affecting tens of millions of the world's most vulnerable citizens.
International cooperation is already under increasing strain during devastating conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, while Trump's unpredictable tariff war plunges global trade into disarray.
Debt burden
Reforming international finance and alleviating the huge debt burden under which low-income countries sag are key points for discussion.
The budgets of many developing nations are constrained by servicing debt, which surged after the Covid-19 pandemic, curbing critical investment in health, education and infrastructure.
According to a recent report commissioned by the late Pope Francis and coordinated by Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz, 3.3 billion people live in countries that fork out more on interest payments than on health.
Critics have singled out US-based bulwarks of the post-World War II international financial system, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, for reform.
Seville represents "a unique opportunity to reform an international financial system that is outdated, dysfunctional and unfair", Guterres said.
At a preparatory meeting at UN headquarters in New York in June, countries except the United States unanimously agreed a text to be adopted in Seville.
The document reaffirms commitment to achieving the 2030 UN sustainable development goals on eliminating poverty, hunger and promoting gender equality.
It focuses on reforming tax systems, notably by improving the Global South's representation within international financial institutions.
The text also calls on development banks to triple their lending capacity, urges lenders to ensure predictable finance for essential social spending and for more cooperation against tax evasion.
The United States said it opposed initiatives that encroach on national sovereignty, interfere with international financial institutions and include "sex-based preferences".
Lack of ambition?
While the European Union celebrated achieving a consensus, NGOs have criticized the commitment for lacking ambition.
For Mariana Paoli, global advocacy lead at Christian Aid, the text "weakens key commitments on debt and fossil fuel subsidies -- despite urgent calls from the Global South".
"Shielded by US obstructionism, the Global North continues to block reform. This isn't leadership -- it's denial."
Previous failures by rich countries to keep their promises have eroded trust.
After promising to deliver $100 billion of climate finance a year to poorer nations by 2020, they only hit the target in 2022.
Acrimonious negotiations at last year's UN climate summit in Azerbaijan ended with rich countries pledging $300 billion in annual climate finance by 2035, decried as too low by activists and developing nations.
Independent experts have estimated the needs upwards of $1 trillion per year.
Spain will be the first developed country to host the UN development finance conference. The inaugural edition took place in Mexico in 2002, followed by Qatar in 2008 and Ethiopia in 2015.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Missile exchanges may have ended — but questions remain
As befits 21st century diplomacy, US President Donald Trump announced a complete and total ceasefire between Iran and Israel on social media, congratulating 'everyone' for this, especially himself. After regrettable violations within the first few hours of the truce, which needlessly caused more loss of life, the deal to end this 12-day war seems to be holding. It is probably the first good news for the region in months, as both sworn enemies have given way to pressure exerted by Washington and are holding fire, at least for now. Until the ceasefire was agreed there was a danger the region might become embroiled in a long war of attrition. Now that the missile and drone exchanges have ended, one inevitable question is whether this costly affair could have been prevented — not just as a hypothetical exercise, but as a lesson in how to avoid another military confrontation between two of the most powerful militaries in the region. Could diplomacy have achieved the same, or even better, results, without inflicting death, destruction, and psychological scars on both combatants? The build-up to these 12 days of hostilities began more than a quarter of the century ago, and some might argue as far back as 1979 when the Iranian revolution rather artificially marked Israel, for its close relations with both the toppled shah and the US, as an enemy. History will look back at this deep enmity and might struggle to find objective reasons for it. Initially this hostility served the revolution as a tool for consolidating its hold on power at home and suppressing opposition. In turn, it also helped to propel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to power as Israel's defender against the Iranian threat, both conventional and potentially nuclear. Time will possibly reveal how close Iran was to assembling a nuclear bomb, and most analysts agree that the US decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal in 2018, during Trump's first term, removed the shackles from Iran's uranium enrichment program, bringing it closer to weapons grade. It is hardly believable that the Tehran regime should have invested such huge resources only for civilian use. It is also the case that in forming and leading the so-called axis of resistance, Iran, through its proxies in the region, posed a threat to stability sufficient to eventually merit a response. Ultimately, despite being a source of major disruption, even a lethal one in the case of Hamas, and to a lesser extent Hezbollah, it could not match Israel's military capabilities, especially when the latter was backed by the US and other allies. On this occasion, Netanyahu managed also to lure Trump to act against his instincts and use military force. For the US leader the dilemma was between maintaining his posture as a president who brings an end to wars, and the temptation to deliver an almost risk-free strike against Iran's main nuclear sites after Israel's air force had eliminated the country's air defense capabilities. Could diplomacy have achieved the same, or even better, results? Yossi Mekelberg The latter then gained the upper hand, enabling Trump, in a matter of days, to potentially inflict a decisive blow against Iran's nuclear program, especially in Fordow, where it is believed more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60 percent was stored, and then lean on both sides to stop the hostilities. When both violated the ceasefire, Trump was furious, telling the media in no uncertain terms that 'we basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what ... they're doing.' Yet, his criticism of Israel was far more robust, including a demand that Netanyahu order its pilots to return from another mission immediately. Allowing Iran a symbolic attack on US military bases in Qatar without any loss of life permitted an act of theater that allowed Tehran to save face after weeks of humiliation during which it lost many of its military chiefs and top scientists, exposing the level of Israel's penetration to nearly every government department, scientific institution, and military command. Nevertheless, Israel's vulnerability was also exposed by its failure to sufficiently protect its civilian population, revealing a severe shortage of adequate shelters as their enemy hit hospitals, the main international airport, and even oil refineries in Haifa. What emerged quickly was the difference between the open-ended conflict that Israel embarked on and Washington's priorities. Israel had many far-reaching objectives beyond Iran's nuclear program, including degrading its conventional military power, and instigating regime change. For Trump, however, it was simply about setting back the nuclear program and returning to the negotiating table. The war with Iran gave Netanyahu a new lease of life. A man who had barely talked to the Israeli media or mixed with people in public, especially since Oct. 7, suddenly could not stop himself from doing both, including visiting sites that were hit by Iranian missiles. But 21 months after the massacre, incapable and unwilling to take responsibility, he still has not visited the communities that were destroyed there. Yet the destruction caused by Iran gave him much-needed justification to continue the war before Trump put a stop to the conflict, and the photo-ops were exactly what he needed considering his high level of disapproval among voters. After this brief bout of fighting, Netanyahu's Likud party is doing slightly better in the polls, which might tempt him to call a snap election, but in the meantime, he will have to convince Israel's voters that the outcome of this war justified the unprecedented terrifying 12 days that they endured. Can he, together with Trump, also translate military achievements into a diplomatic success, one that ensures both that future uranium enrichment is limited to what is needed for civil use, and that Tehran ceases its meddling in the affairs of other countries? This remains an open question, but the next task for Israel's prime minister is to explain to the electorate why the war in Gaza is still raging and 50 hostages are still in captivity.
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Senior official says Home Office staff alarmed by ‘absurd' Palestine Action ban
LONDON: A senior British civil servant has described a 'tense atmosphere' inside the Home Office department following Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's recent announcement that the protest group Palestine Action is to be banned under anti-terror laws, it was reported on Saturday. Cooper on Monday confirmed plans to proscribe the group under the Terrorism Act, a move that would make membership or support a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. It would mark the first time a non-violent protest movement is classified alongside banned terrorist organizations such as Daesh and Al-Qaeda and some far-right groups. A senior Home Office official, speaking anonymously, said concern over the decision was widespread within the department, The Guardian newspaper reported. 'My colleagues and I were shocked by the announcement,' they said. 'All week, the office has been a very tense atmosphere, charged with concern about treating a non-violent protest group the same as actual terrorist organisations like Isis (Daesh), and the dangerous precedent this sets. 'From desk to desk, colleagues are exchanging concerned and bemused conversations about how absurd this is and how impossible it will be to enforce. Are they really going to prosecute as terrorists everyone who expresses support for Palestine Action's work to disrupt the flow of arms to Israel as it commits war crimes? 'It's ridiculous and it's being widely condemned in anxious conversations internally as a blatant misuse of anti-terror laws for political purposes to clamp down on protests which are affecting the profits of arms companies,' they added. The decision to proscribe comes after four people were arrested following a break-in at RAF Brize Norton airbase, where Palestine Action activists sprayed red paint on two military aircraft. The group said the protest was in response to Britain's role in 'sending military cargo, flying spy planes over Gaza and refuelling US and Israeli fighter jets.' In a statement, Cooper said the protest was part of a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action.' Palestine Action responded by saying: 'Proscription is not about enabling prosecutions under terrorism laws — it's about cracking down on non-violent protests which disrupt the flow of arms to Israel during its genocide in Palestine.' The move comes amid wider civil service unrest over UK policy on Gaza. Earlier this month, more than 300 Foreign Office officials signed a letter warning the government risked complicity in Israeli war crimes. In response, the department's top civil servants told signatories: 'If your disagreement with any aspect of government policy or action is profound, your ultimate recourse is to resign from the civil service. This is an honourable course.' The proscription order will be laid before Parliament on Monday and could come into effect by the end of the week. When asked for comment by The Guardian, the Home Office referred to Cooper's original statement.
Asharq Al-Awsat
3 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Thousands Protest Bulgaria's Euro Adoption and Call for Referendum
Days before Bulgaria was expected to become the 21st member of the eurozone, opponents of the move geared up Saturday for a final battle to change the schedule. Thousands of protesters gathered on a central square in downtown Sofia to protest government plans to adopt the euro and to demand a referendum on the new currency. The European Union has given the green light for Bulgaria to adopt the euro starting Jan. 1, The Associated Press reported. The protesters, led by civic groups, nationalist and pro-Russian parties known for their opposition to the euro, declared that after the rally they intended to set up a tent camp on the central square, dubbed 'Town of the lev,' after the name of the national currency. On a platform for speakers hung a huge banner that read 'The battle for the Bulgarian lev is the last battle for Bulgaria.' The leader of the pro-Russian Vazrazhdane party Kostadin Kostadinov told the protesters that the country will be stripped of its currency. 'Someone else will decide how we spend our money, the Bulgarian budget will be approved by the European Central Bank," he said. 'This is an anti-state coup, this is treason.' Kostadinov announced that lawmakers from Germany, Lithuania, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary have joined the event to support the protest. Ahead of the demonstration, Vazrazhdane submitted in Parliament a motion for a vote of no confidence in the current government, accusing it of failing to undertake necessary reforms to restore stability to public finances and working for the forceful adoption of the euro. Parliament will vote on the motion next week, but the pro-EU government coalition is expected to survive. The Balkan country joined the European Union in 2007 and is now on the final stretch of its accession to the eurozone. The last institutional hurdle is the approval from both the European Parliament in Strasbourg and the Economic and Financial Affairs Council in Brussels, scheduled for July 8. These steps come after the European Council gave its clear endorsement of Bulgaria joining the eurozone on Jan. 1, 2026. During its almost two decades-long EU membership, Bulgaria has been plagued by political instability and corruption that have fueled euroscepticism among its 6.4 million citizens. Now, scores of false claims by opponents of the eurozone have been published on social networks feeding fears of economic changes that they say could bring more poverty. Economists say joining the euro will not bring massive change to Bulgaria's economy in the short run. That's because the government has pegged the currency to the euro by law, at a fixed rate of 1 lev for every 51 eurocents.
