The attack on the United States Agency for International Development is an invitation to wake up to the rest of the world

Open the newsletter to watch the White House for free

Your guide to what the American elections mean 2024 for Washington and the world

The writer was a permanent secretary of the Ministry of International Development from 2008-2011 and led a review of the international development of the United Kingdom government

The brutal destruction of the American Agency for International Development by the Trump administration is misleading and short -sighted and will have severe consequences for millions of poor people around the world. It is a more extreme version of the decision made by Boris Johnson in 2020 to integrate the UK Ministry of International Development with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the imposition of huge discounts. However, it will lead to worse results – damage to a reputation, loss of American soft power, and destroy the ability to address global problems that inevitably leak into national beaches.

Unlike the Trump administration urged to rethink its approach, what should the rest of the world do in response to this? In the short term, the most urgent issue is to save the lives now at risk given that the United States represents 40 percent of the world’s human spending. Such spending represents about 10 percent of total aid in 2012. Global conflict means that by 2023 this number rose to 25 percent.

Even without the destructive policies of the Trump administration, the other pillars of international aid – support for poverty reduction and financing of global public goods – were mature to rethink. Developing countries have long complained that the current system does not respond to their needs and does not give them a suitable voice. Among the traditional donors with aid, financial restrictions and weak international solidarity support means that aid budgets are under pressure.

But global flows to developing countries are at all levels ever. New donors such as China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates have become Players are increasingly importantOften with clear geological or commercial targets.

In addition to new sources of assistance, what is spent on it changes. In addition to high spending on humanitarian crises, spending on global issues such as climate and refugee costs has doubled-from about 37 percent of a total of 60 percent between 2017-2021. As a result, the pressure is increasingly pressed to reduce poverty in the country.

How can the international development system look better? First, we need a fundamental repair of the human system to make it more efficient and response, while bringing new donors to provide stable and predictive financing. More investment in preventing conflicts and crises in the first place will be more effective than trying to respond after people’s lives and livelihoods have been destroyed.

Secondly, the country’s poverty reduction may be achieved more through multilateral institutions that can provide loans on widespread conditions. Of course, dual donors will always have partnerships with major countries. But it is better to hand over heavy lifting on financing the United Nations sustainable development goals through development banks that have budgets that you can benefit from, thus providing donors with more uproar in a bacter. This approach will also help calm the local masses who are frequent in financing public services abroad when those in the home are extended.

The third column of the system – global public commodities – has grown quickly over the past decade, partly due to the presence of political support to combat climate change and democracy in many countries and because there is the appetite for the private sector for investment. This is welcome, but what we have now – for example, More than 80 different boxes To tackle climate change, all of which are very small to move the telephone connection – not a system. Now it will be a suitable moment to radically repair climate financing for more efficiency and size. It will also be a suitable time to admit that helping developing countries adapt to climate change – whether in floods, changing weather patterns, or the need for new crops, energy sources or health -harmful effects – a challenge of basic development and additional benefits supporting low -income countries .

The international aid crisis in the United States should be Clarion’s call to the rest of the world. important New thinking It begins and needs to continue, with or without the American government, in a new development structure that brings together all stakeholders, and to mobilize new sources of financing and promote current institutions. The ash policies in the Trump administration may rise to a new consensus on international development. One is a tried, more fair and more effective.