Published on 11 March 2025
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] Collective opinion, « Il faut un nouveau pacte mondial pour financer l’aide humanitaire internationale », Le Monde, 17 juillet 2023. – 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]Anne-Cécile Robert, 0,03% ! Pour une transformation du mouvement humanitaire international, Le Monde diplomatique, https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2021/03/ROBERT/62861 – 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 crisis, 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]Fatou Elise Ba et Jean-François Corty (dir.), « L’aide internationale, instrument d’émancipation ou de contrôle? » Revue internationale et stratégique, n° 134, été 2024, … Continue reading
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 American cooperation agency, whose aid has been frozen for 90 days) funding will potentially be affected by the knock-on effects of the withdrawal of the leading donor country.
Even before the United States announced its cuts, other countries had begun to scale back their international aid and development budgets: France,[4]Philippe Ricard et Julien Bouissou, « En France, la chute des aides au développement consterne les ONG et complique encore la diplomatie présidentielle », Le Monde, 14 novembre 2024. UK, Germany and Belgium, to name a few we already know about.
Organisations for which the “generosity of the public” (which accounts for around 20% of annual humanitarian aid funding[5]Development Initiatives, Falling short? Humanitarian funding and reform, 2024, p. 12, … Continue reading) 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 process 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 towards local, national or family forms of aid and development.
Not least because 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 he leads.[6]Rémy Rioux, « L’Europe est fière de sa place dans le monde du financement du développement », podcast, RFI, 26 février 2025, … Continue reading
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]Cahier de Parole, « Le défi de la sécurité globale », n° 4, février 2022, https://www.editionsparole.fr/produit/4-le-defi-de-la-securite-globale
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 the current and future massive population movements, nor to the conflicts that these different mechanisms can generate.
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]Dilip Ratha, « Les envois de fonds des migrants ont ralenti en 2023 – et cela mérite toute notre attention », blog Banque mondiale, 26 juin 2024, … Continue reading 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, given 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, there can be no question – unless there is major turmoil to come – of turning our backs on the reality that is unfolding.[9]“Forecast of the world population in 2024 and 2100, by continent”, Statista, 13 February 2025, https://www.statista.com/statistics/272789/world-population-by-continent On that continent (and 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 to 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 and 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 then 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 therefore essential. In the aftermath of the current crisis, new battles are emerging to radically overhaul the strategies and methods of international solidarity.
Slightly adapted version of the same article by the author, published by our counterparts at The Conversation, on 9 March 2025, under the title “La fin des programmes d’aide internationale des États-Unis (et leur baisse ailleurs) : une folle indifférence aux malheurs du monde” (with the agreement of the author and The Conversation)
Translated from the French by Derek Scoins
