UN bids to salvage global development summit after US boycott
MADRID/LONDON, June 27 (Reuters) - Scores of world leaders will be sweltering in the summer sun of southern Spain next week at a once-a-decade United Nations development financing summit aimed at curbing global poverty, disease and the worst-case threats of climate change.
Despite the scorching temperatures, though, a major chill looms over the event - the decision early this month by the United States, traditionally the world's largest aid giver and key finance provider, not to show up, opens new tab.
UN countries want to close a $4 trillion-a-year funding gap they now estimate prevents the developing world achieving the organisation's Sustainable Development Goals that range from cutting infant death rates to minimising global warming.
Critics say the promises at the heart of the conference - called the "Seville Commitment" - are nowhere near bold enough.
The measures, agreed by consensus after a year of tough negotiations, include tripling multilateral lending capacity, debt relief, a push to boost tax-to-GDP ratios to at least 15%, and shifting special IMF money to countries that need it most.
The run-up, however, has been marred by the U.S. decision to withdraw over what it said was the crossing of a number of its red lines, opens new tab, including the push to triple development bank lending, change tax rules and the use of the term "gender" in summit wording.
The European Union only joined the summit with reservations, particularly over how debt is discussed within the UN.
Speaking to reporters this week, U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed described Washington's boycott as "regrettable", especially after its "catastrophic" recent aid cuts that she said had cost lives and livelihoods.
Speaking alongside officials from summit host Spain and Zambia, which has helped organise it, she said the final outcome document, opens new tab agreed reflected both "ambition and realism" and that the U.N. would try to re-engage the U.S. afterwards.
Remy Rioux, chief executive officer of the French Development Agency, said Washington's withdrawal had not been a total surprise given Donald Trump's views. The hope is that agreements next week will allow bolder action at the UN climate talks in Brazil in November.
"We will push for the new framework... (and) its operationalisation from Seville to Belem," he added, referring to the Brazilian city that will host COP30.
Other measures to be announced include multilateral lenders automatically giving vulnerable countries the option to insert repayment break clauses into their loans in case of hurricane, drought or flood.
Another buzz phrase will be a "Global SDR playbook" - a plan where the wealthiest countries rechannel the IMF's reserve-like Special Draw Rights they hold to the multilateral banks, who then leverage them as capital in order to lend more.
Campaigners warn that it will fall far short of what is needed, especially as more than 130 countries now face critically high debt levels and many spend more on repayments than on health or education.
Aid and support from rich countries, who themselves have rising debts, is dropping too.
In March, the U.S. slashed more than 80% of programmes at its USAID agency following federal budget cuts spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk. Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden have all made cuts in recent years too.
The OECD projects a 9–17% drop in net official development assistance (ODA) in 2025, following a 9% decline in 2024.
It looks set to hit the poorest countries hardest: bilateral ODA to least developed countries and sub-Saharan Africa may fall by 13-25% and 16-28% respectively, the OECD estimates, and health funding could drop by up to 60% from its 2022 peak.
So what would be a good outcome in Seville, especially given the U.S. pull-out?
"We should make sure we are not backtracking at this point," said Orville Grey at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, referring to funding commitments. "We should at least remain stable."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘He left us with nothing': the British investors swindled by a German property firm
'He took everything, left us with absolutely nothing,' says David Middleton, one of thousands of British and Irish investors who racked up huge losses from the collapse of a German property ponzi scheme. The 72-year-old pensioner from Northern Ireland is referring to Charles Smethurst, the German-British businessman who set up Dolphin Capital in 2008, later renamed Dolphin Trust, then German Property Group (GPG), with 200 affiliated companies. In July 2020, the business filed for insolvency, owing more than €1bn to up to 25,000 investors around the world. Smethurst was convicted this month of 'serious fraud' and sentenced to six years and 11 months in prison by a regional court in Hildesheim, in northern Germany. As part of a plea bargain, he admitted to four of 27 counts of commercial fraud, filed against him by the Hanover public prosecutor's office last October, for total damages of €56m. The other charges were dropped in return for his confession to speed up the trial, which was due to run into August. Dolphin's glossy brochures promised readers double-digit returns for investing their money in a scheme that pledged to restore historic buildings across Germany – including the ruins of castle Dwasieden on the Baltic Sea island of Rügen – and turn them into luxury apartments. However, few were ever restored. Investors were mainly from the UK, Ireland, France, Singapore and South Korea and included financial institutions and individuals, many of whom lost their pension pots or other savings after regular interest payments dried up in 2019. Smethurst's fraud conviction related to €60m in investments made by the French fund manager Horizon AM, including €30m in the Pariser Strasse project in Berlin. The court heard that the building was never bought, but the funds were used by Smethurst's company to meet other obligations. He served a prison sentence for fraud between 2000 and 2003 in an unrelated case. Horizon said it was 'led to believe we were partnering with an experienced and reputable real estate developer' as Dolphin provided the firm with 'highly detailed due diligence documents' and sent regular reports wrongly suggesting projects were 'progressing as planned'. The investor was not aware of Smethurst's previous fraud conviction. 'According to findings from the insolvency administrator and the criminal investigation, a significant portion of the funds was diverted abroad to jurisdictions with strict banking secrecy, notably the British Virgin Islands and possibly the Cayman Islands,' Horizon said. 'These jurisdictions do not cooperate with European authorities, which means that the money trail goes cold. This illustrates the systemic failure of cross-border cooperation in cases of fraud, and why victims like us are left without meaningful recourse. 'We are still wondering where the money went, what remains, and whether it is still possible to recover anything to compensate Horizon and its investors.' UK individual investors told the Guardian they are angry, and fear that Smethurst will be released early for good conduct and recover the hidden funds for himself. Middleton and his wife, Janet, invested in Dolphin in 2015: his pension lump sum of £100,000 and her inheritance of £120,000. Their financial adviser, the late Alastair Hooks, told them it was low-risk and supported by the German government, Janet Middleton recalls. 'To be honest, I was nervous about it and strongly stated that as pensioners we could not afford to lose this amount of money, but again we were assured there was no risk.' After Dolphin filed for insolvency, Hooks did not return their calls, and the couple discovered he had unregistered from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in 2012. She says they have explored every avenue – even as they dealt with David being diagnosed with bowel cancer – but have not recovered any of their investment. Janet says Smethurst's sentence 'seems very lenient to me … Smethurst may well serve his sentence and even get early release for good behaviour while other people like David and I now serve a sentence in our retirement economically'. A former NHS nurse, she says the couple had been looking forward to a comfortable retirement but have had to budget their outgoings; they have not had a holiday in years and both drive 20-year-old cars. The Hildesheim court said it did not order Smethurst to make any payments to investors because it could not establish that he had personally siphoned off any funds. Justus von Buchwaldt, of the law firm BBL, the insolvency administrator who testified in June, subsequently said: 'I fear that this is only the tip of the iceberg. It is still unclear if other people were involved in this large-scale fraud and where most of the investments ended up.' Of an estimated €1.3bn of investments received by the property company, about €800m is missing. The Hanover prosecutor's office said it had investigated other company officials but could not find evidence of any wrongdoing. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion It is one of Germany's biggest investment scandals since the second world war, and the German authorities have been criticised for being slow to intervene, even though the property company stopped filing financial accounts in 2015. Alison Moncrieff-Kelly, 63, a freelance musician from Kent and former director of the Rye arts festival, was a Dolphin investor. She said: 'This seems a pathetically small price for Smethurst to pay for such heinous and convoluted levels of crime. Where's the money gone is the big question … and six years 11 months doesn't touch the sides.' Most of the listed buildings acquired by GPG were never redeveloped and left derelict. Von Buchwaldt at BBL has sold 20 of 75 properties so far, for more than €87m, and has yet to distribute the proceeds to investors. Those sold include castle Dwasieden, a listed former brewery in Bad Aibling in Bavaria and a period villa in Fürstenberg/Havel in Brandenburg. The property sales are expected to take years as the legal situation is often complex. Almost 8,000 creditors have filed claims with BBL against the collapsed property group, out of an estimated 15,000 to 25,000 investors globally. Von Buchwaldt has said BBL would work with the UK's FCA, Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). Debbie Kay Randles, 67, invested £25,000 in Dolphin in 2015 and, like others, has also lost money in other investment schemes. She paid £6,000 to a financial claims company in an attempt to recover her Dolphin investment, but 'they just disappeared'. She even enlisted a private detective to track down the claims firm. 'It's just been an absolute ongoing nightmare,' she says. 'I've not got a lot left, so I'll just keep working, probably until I'm 75, and then retire.' A former TSB employee, she now works for a window blinds business and lives in York. Moncrieff-Kelly says the trial 'doesn't address this issue of how incredibly badly regulated financial affairs are in the UK … I don't know if it's happening so much in any other country in the world.' She points to the 'middlemen' – financial advisers who are typically paid commission of 20% to 30% and 'kept that money' despite 'selling a fraud'. She invested in Dolphin after her financial adviser suggested it. Moncrieff-Kelly has recovered about half her £80,000 investment – money she inherited from her late mother – from the FSCS, with the help of a claims company that took the other half as payment. The FSCS says it has paid compensation to more than 1,900 customers in relation to Dolphin/GPG investment products, and a further 150 people have open claims. Compensation may have been triggered in relation to unsuitable financial advice that customers were given. It says it cannot put a figure on the compensation paid because it includes payouts for other investment losses. The SFO declined to comment while the FCA said it could not comment on individual firms. 'People don't understand the trauma and the damage that [fraud] has done,' says David Middleton. 'People think [with] white collar crime, slick City crime, there's no victim. There is a victim.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Abstruse yet monumental: the scope and impact of the US supreme court's birthright citizenship ruling
The US supreme court opinion on Friday in a case challenging Donald Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship doesn't actually rule on the constitutionality of the president's order. That question – of whether the president can do away with a right guaranteed by the the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution – is still being debated in the lower courts. Instead, the supreme court focused on the question of whether individual district court judges could block federal policies nationwide. The decision is both abstruse and monumental, experts say. It doesn't immediately change anything about how citizenship is granted in the US, and it profoundly shifts the ways in which the federal courts work. To help understand the implications of the ruling, the Guardian spoke with Efrén Olivares, vice-president of litigation and legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, a non-profit advocacy group. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. First, what exactly does the supreme court's ruling mean, today, for immigrants across the US who are expecting parents? The immediate impact is null. The supreme court explicitly said for the next 30 days, the executive order ending birthright citizenship will not go into effect. The right to citizenship by birth in the United States continues. Anyone born today, tomorrow, next week, two weeks from now in the US will be a citizen. We can anticipate that before those 30 days run out, there will be another ruling from one of the trial courts or district courts that will shed more light on this issue long-term. Does this mean that states and immigrant rights' groups that have sued over Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors will have to change how they are challenging the policy? There were three lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals and organizations against this executive order. All three were seeking to enjoin – which means stop – the enforcement of this executive order. Because it's an executive order of national scope, the rulings of the lower courts in these cases were national in scope, right? Then, the supreme court chimed in and said that is inappropriate for a court to block a policy nationwide, and that a court's ruling should only apply to the plaintiffs or parties right in front of them. So now, those challenging the order may move to seek a class certification, essentially to pursue a class-action lawsuit. Already, the immigration aid groups Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project have filed an amended complaint seeking class-action relief in their challenge to Trump's birthright citizenship order. Class-action litigation has existed for years, and what that means is that now the party in front of the court is asking the court to rule not just on its own behalf, but also on behalf of everyone else similarly situated. The class-action suits are most commonly used in cases where people are seeking monetary relief – for example, in instances where there are defects in car manufacturing. In that type of case, anyone who bought this type of car between X and Y dates would be entitled to compensation. The supreme court ruling could now make class-action litigation much more common. How might the supreme court's ruling here impact other immigration cases? Because up to this point, federal judges' authority to freeze policies across the US – with so-called 'nationwide injunctions' – has served as a powerful check on executive power. It has been used to block policies instituted by both Democratic and Republican administrations. What is ironic is that the supreme court has been perfectly fine with nationwide injunctions in the past. For example, justices enjoined the Biden administration's cancellation of student loans. And they had no problem with a nationwide injunction in that case. This latest ruling on injunctions will affect any case that challenges a policy with national implications. We are particularly tracking the deployment of federal or military troops to do immigration enforcement, and continuation of unlawful, discriminatory enforcement of immigration laws on the basis of race. But this ruling will impact lots of cases. It can be immigration policy, it can be an environmental policy, it can be a voting rights policy – all of those things are regulated at the federal level. So now, if federal policy is challenged, unless it is challenged in a nationwide class-action lawsuit, a lower court's ruling would only apply in the state or states where that policy is challenged? Yes, we may have a patchwork of rulings that vary depending on what state you live in. One of the challenges to the birthright citizenship order, for example, was brought by individuals and organizations in Maryland, DC and Massachusetts. If that case is successful, but you live in Nebraska or Wisconsin or Texas, you may not have the same rights to citizenship as if you are in Maryland, DC or Massachusetts. That is totally inconsistent with our system of law for 250 years. In the supreme court's majority opinion, justice Amy Coney Barrett even alluded to the infeasibility of citizenship rules being different in different states. She summarizes the plaintiffs' argument that ''patchwork injunction' would prove unworkable, because it would require [the states] to track and verify the immigration status of the parents of every child, along with the birth state of every child for whom they provide certain federally funded benefits'. And she ultimately writes that courts can issue injunctions to ensure that a victorious plaintiff receives 'complete relief'. What exactly does that mean? I think they're trying to leave the door open for nationwide injunctions to be OK in certain contexts, and it's unclear what those contexts will be. If you have a national, nationwide class action, a nationwide injunction is the only way to give relief to everyone in the class. Still, in practice, I am worried that the language of the ruling lends itself to inconsistent applications based on the court's or the judge's political ideologies.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Starmer urged to act after Trump threatens Commonwealth ally Canada
Keir Starner is facing calls to act after Donald Trump cut off talks with Canada and threatened the Commonwealth country with more trade tariffs. Just weeks before president Trump is due to meet King Charles, Canada's official head of state, on a visit to the UK, he claimed he had 'such power' over the country but added 'I'd rather not use it.' In a move that caused market turmoil amid fears of a renewal of Trump's trade war, he said he would tell Canada the levies they will have to pay on goods entering the US '....within the next seven day period.' The call for Starmer to intervene comes after a similar diplomatic row exploded earlier this year when the PM declined to back Canada against Trump's ambitions to turn it into the 51st state of the USA. A Conservative MP in Canada and a former ambassador were among those to criticise the UK prime minister for failing to stand up for their country. The latest attack on Canada comes at a a difficult time for the Labour leader. He is hoping to woo President Trump on a historic second state visit to the UK in September, when he will meet the King, a keen champion of the Commonwealth. Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said: "Once again, Donald Trump has shown contempt for his allies by continuing his damaging war on trade. With such an unreliable partner in the White House, the government needs to strengthen our economy, by establishing a bespoke UK-EU Customs Union, and work closer with our European and Commonwealth allies to create a coalition of the willing to end Trump's trade war." SNP MP Stephen Gethins said: 'The Trump project, just like Brexit, is about throwing up barriers to trade with our partners that will cost jobs and damage public finances. The UK needs to be building bridges with states like Canada and the EU that will help deliver sustainable economic growth. There have to be serious questions around the Labour government's judgement over the offer of a state visit to Trump.' The latest row erupted over Canada's plans for a digital services tax. In a post on Truth Social, the president complained that he had 'just been informed' of the move, which could leave some American technology companies with large bills. Trump called the plans 'a direct and blatant attack on our Country.' 'They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also,' he wrote, added that as a result the US was 'hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately.' Trump later claimed the US has 'a great relationship with the people of Canada' but that its government, headed by the former governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, had made things 'very difficult'. He added: 'We don't want to do anything bad, but ... economically ... we have such power over Canada. I'd rather not use it, but they did something with our tech companies today, trying to copy Europe.'
