The world of development aid has been put into upheaval, reducing US global assistance commitments since President Donald Trump’s working orders on 25 January. It has become a matter of life and death for those people on the ground. For example, a leading wellness hub in Uganda, where LGBTQ+ patients (gay, gay, bisexual, transgender and other sexual and gender minorities), which depends on the US-funded HIV programs-now-now the form of funding Is left in Limbo. In countries where abortion remains criminal, US-supported maternal health services have long provided an important security trap-one that can disappear overnight. The decline moves far from Africa; Human programs in Yemen, Afghanistan and Gaza are now in danger of collapse as donor commitments
The writing was on the wall
But to be fair, global aid flow changes did not begin with Trump – their orders have just intensified an existing trend. Even before the intervention of the White House, the writing was on the wall. The leading western donors were already wrestling with increasing political opposition for donor fatigue, domestic cost-lively crisis and foreign aid. Once the rich countries are now being investigated, arguments are being done, restructured-and, in many cases, reversed. In countries where far-wisted strength or influence has been achieved, the aid budgets are among the first that have been slipped or allocated for domestic priorities.
Principal Research Fellow at ODI Global, Nilima Guljani said in its latest report that eight rich countries announced more than $ 17 billion in the cut in official development assistance (ODA) in 2024, with three more signaling and cuts in the next five years. Hui. These figures have not yet included the cuts associated with Trump’s orders, such as a 90 -day stagnation on US withdrawal and US aid expenses from the World Health Organization (WHO).
Has the world reach ‘summit aid’?
According to him, it is an indication that the world can reach “summit aid”, it is becoming difficult to ignore. The Netherlands plan to cut € 8BN from their aid budget in four years, while funding for civil society organizations will shrink to € 1BN between 2025 and 2030, in which the policy makers are looking to transfer responsibility on the private sector. . Meanwhile, active conflict aids are re -shaping the priorities. Ukraine has now become the largest recipient of international assistance as Western governments withdraw funds towards military and human support. In addition, in a country like Britain, 28% of the assistance now leads to hosting refugees, making Britain the greatest recipient of its own aid budget. The pattern is spreading – at least seven donor nations now domesticly allocate a quarter of their assistance, covering the cost for transportation, shelter and training for refugees.
At the same time, economic pressure is increasing. Citizens are rapidly raising questions on helping abroad, while their own countries are facing rapid economic difficulties. They want accountability for their tax dollars spent on these companies. Only nine donor nations recorded budget surplus last year, while two-thirds of the European Union countries are cutting expenses. Foreign aid is seen as an alternative luxury, with increasing deficit, increasing the cost of living and increasing climate crisis.
It seems that the era of generous, undisputed assistance flow from the West may end well. Whatever replaces remains uncertain – but the bets cannot be more for those who trust it. Global aid experts say we are slipping towards a post-ed world, where selfishness replaces solidarity.
Blurred lines
A post-ed world, if all of this is physical, does not mean the end of development aid by rich countries. This indicates a change to the new trends of global engagement. For some time, the lines between the ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries are becoming increasingly blurred, and the charity is being rejected rapidly as the donor-rasid model of aid, as it is argued that The traditional argument for assistance has reached itself. As new donors emerge, such as China, UAE and India, they provide direct assistance under bilateral agreements.
no strings attached
Unlike Western donors, India does not classify its assistance as “aid” but “development cooperation” based on mutual gains, shared development and economic stability. The beauty of Indian aid is that unlike Western donors who often attach political or economic conditions to help, its development is aid-operated, respecting the sovereignty of the recipient countries. India is engaged in associate efforts between developing countries, mainly in the global south, to promote economic development, technical support and development through mutual exchange rather than relying on traditional Western aid. Officers call it south-south cooperation. India thus emerged as a prominent partner rather than a donor, focusing on capacity-making, infrastructure and business partnership.
Under the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) program, it provides training in IT, healthcare, governance and entrepreneurship to thousands of professionals in Africa, Asia and Latin America. India’s Pan-African e-network provides telemedicine and tele-education services to African countries using Indian expertise. Lines of India’s credit programs finance major projects, such as railways, roads and power plants in the entire Africa, Latin America and Asia. In addition, India has expanded billions in concessional loans, especially in Africa, in the Caribbean and Pacific Island countries. Its supply of vaccines, medical aid and emergency relief to countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh and Maldives was highly effective. During Covid-19, India’s vaccine friendship initiative provided millions of vaccine doses to developing countries when the Western nations were accumulating them for the future needs of their own people.
Chinese aid diplomacy
China with its deep pockets has no doubt as a prominent donor in the global south. But its foreign aid strategy is considered deeply connected with its geopolitical ambitions, economic expansion and global impact. Unlike Western donors, which often assist in governance reforms or human rights conditions, China’s approach is practical, infrastructure-operated and large-scale unconditional. Through its belt and road initiative (BRI), Beijing has put billions in roads, ports and energy projects, especially in Africa, Latin America and Asia. While this investment has rapidly developed in many recipient countries, it has also given rise to allegations of debt-to diplomacy, where struggling nations, such as Sri Lanka and Zambia, to stop strategic property or revaluation loan on the terms of Beijing. Has been forced. Unlike India’s South-South cooperation model, which focuses on capacity-building and local ownership, China’s aid is the state-led, top-down, and often Chinese companies and workers are as much as That is not more and more, more than the recipient countries.
But despite all criticisms, China’s aid model is highly attractive to many governments in the global south. Unlike Western aid, which is slow -moving and entangled in bureaucracy, Chinese financing is fast, large -scale and large -scale political intervention. Beijing also fills gaps that traditional donors often ignore, such as large -scale infrastructure financing and high -risk investment projects.
Generous UAE
The UAE has also emerged as a leading country in spreading assistance for needy countries. Its foreign aid strategy is inspired by a mixture of humanism, geopolitics and economic diplomacy, which makes it one of the world’s most generous donors relative to its GDP. Unlike Western donors, the UAE prefer regional stability and strategic economic participation, which focuses a lot on the Middle East, Africa and South Asia. Its assistance is often highly flexible, from emergency human relief in struggle areas such as Yemen and Gaza to long -term infrastructure and development funds in Africa and South Asia. Its model of development aid is developing from traditional charity to strategic statecraft.
A more equitable world?
There are other players like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The rise of these new donors has forced Western countries to reconsider their approach, moving beyond traditional assistance conditional and bureaucratic models. In response, they are searching for more flexible financing mechanisms, increasing private sector participation and offering more tax incentives to encourage the rich individuals. At the same time, they are identifying the need to make more recipient-operated assistance to local priorities rather than externally applied to the externally designed programs. Nevertheless, whatever adjustment they make, the reality is that global South-wide China’s infrastructure model, India’s South-South Cooperation, or Gulf Strategic Strategic Strategic East of Global Assistance Architecture, Shifting already, shifting, shifting Power and decision have to be shaped again. -Far away from the major western structure for a long time. And this is not such a bad thing for recipient countries.
(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London -based senior Indian journalist who has three decades experience with Western media)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
