From the polycrisis to the crisis of common sense

International cooperation – while not always perfect and often driven by national self-interest – has achieved much both multilaterally and bilaterally. The emergence of the UN in the post-war period signalled the creation of a body in which all countries discuss and develop solutions to common problems as equals. Through various specialised agencies, the UN occupies itself with all global problem areas; international treaties such as the Paris Climate Agreement or the Sustainable Development Goals created a common framework in which to tackle urgent problems facing humanity.

Bilateral international development cooperation – which emerged in the context of decolonisation and was at first closely bound up with Cold War geopolitics – has been changing incrementally over the years: it is now less top-down, more broad-based and embedded in local settings. Among other things, it has helped bring about substantial improvements in the fields of health, maternal mortality or education, and led to the wider global entrenchment of issues such as human rights, gender justice or the advancement of democracy. 

Of course, both multilateral and bilateral cooperation have long been showing signs of ailing (such as steadily increasing fragmentation and red tape). They have never managed to rid themselves entirely of Western dominance, but are nonetheless part of a global system of values founded on peace, universal human rights, international solidarity and global justice. And it is these very values together with the diverse accomplishments of international cooperation that are now in jeopardy.

International cooperation in crisis

While the global polycrisis escalates, a growing number of countries are entrenching themselves behind (very short-term) national self-interest, rising military expenditure, and drastically cutting international cooperation resources. In addition, for years now there has been an insidious reassignment of resources earmarked for poverty reduction. This is evident in a variety of ways: 

• While the majority of OECD donor countries are still a far cry from allocating the UN-prescribed 0.7 per cent of their gross national income (GNI) to international cooperation, an ever-growing portion of "development funds" never leaves the donor country. Spending on the care of asylum seekers in donor countries – which the OECD Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) has ruled can be attributed to Official Development Assistance (ODA) – is making up a steadily growing portion of ODA. That portion rose from 6.9 per cent in 2021, to 13.1 per cent in 2024.
• Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, massive amounts of money have been repurposed away from the poorest countries and towards Ukraine. The share of those funds in ODA was 0.5 per cent in 2021, and 7.4 per cent in 2024.
• Steadily increasing amounts of funds are flowing into various private-sector instruments (including tied aid), which benefit middle-income countries first and foremost.

In the context of growing right-wing populist tendencies which at the moment are reaching a high point under Donald Trump's second term in office, the current crisis is seemingly much more than a temporary worsening of the funding situation. It represents a turning point as regards the policy aims, value orientation and institutional foundations of international cooperation. The principle whereby richer countries assist poorer ones in their development endeavours is being fundamentally questioned. International cooperation guided by shared values, poverty alleviation and multilateralism is gradually giving way to a paradigm rooted in domestic policy considerations and also economic and security self-interest.

And where does the "Global South" stand?

Just as the "West" as a unit is becoming increasingly fictitious, the "Global South" has long been just that. China, which is still in part regarded as a "developing country" in the UN system, is itself a major player in international cooperation. The same goes for the Gulf States or Turkey; countries like India or Brazil are themselves also simultaneously recipient and donor countries. The growing relevance of "non-traditional donors" is also evident in a series of new multilateral bodies (e.g., the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank, AIIB or the New Development Bank, NDB) which, unlike many "traditional" bodies such as the World Bank or the IMF, are not dominated by the West.

The world powers are courting Angola as a transit country for raw materials; this does not benefit the poorest. © Tommy Trenchard/Panos Pictures

It is no surprise therefore that many of the poorer and poorest countries, which are struggling under the weight of an unfair Western-dominated, global financial and economic system, are turning increasingly away from the West and opting instead to cooperate with other donor countries like China or Russia. And while the collapse of international cooperation is likely to cost millions of lives, several African heads of state have indicated that this upheaval has been "long overdue" (President Hichelima, Zambia) and must be seen as a sign that it is time for greater self-reliance (President Mahama, Ghana). From civil society in the “Global South”, calls are also growing louder for reforms to international cooperation and for a more equitable regulatory environment that would enable poorer countries to devote their resources to their own development.

Old wine in new wineskins?

Experts are agreed that the dismantling of USAID has heralded a new age of international cooperation. They are not in agreement, however, on the approaches being recommended for solving the current crisis. Whereas most European development agencies are increasingly embracing the "private sector mobilisation" maxim, global civil society networks are discussing much more fundamental structural reforms.
 

For despite all the successes of international cooperation, there is an unquestionable need for reform – with regard to ever-greater fragmentation, increasing red tape, and also the localisation and decolonisation of IC. The current crisis of international cooperation should therefore be taken also as an opportunity to re-conceive and redesign existing structures. 

While the number of official development players more than doubled between 2000 and 2020 (from about 212 to 544), the financial scale of individual transactions has diminished appreciably. Today, many recipient countries are dealing with more than 150 different agencies most of which dictate their own administrative terms instead of being guided by the systems in recipient countries. Better cooperation among all players is urgently needed in this context, as is the systematic alignment of all development players with the needs and administrative systems of recipient countries (country ownership).

The growing clamour for the decolonisation and localisation of international cooperation must, at last, also be heard. This requires not just the urgent reform of leading multilateral bodies like the IMF, World Bank, the OECD Development Assistance Committee or the UN Security Council in order to strengthen the voice of "developing countries", but also reforms to bilateral development cooperation in the area of localisation. This calls for the elimination of complex bureaucratic requirements that hamper local development players in accessing funds and implementing projects and programmes simply and efficiently. Also needed are targeted reflection and the systematic elimination of power imbalances in the decision-making and implementation structures of individual players. 

Shaping equitable North-South relations

In addition, international cooperation expenditure represents just one of many global financial flows. According to UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Africa loses 89 billion dollars annually through illicit financial flows – this is twice the total amount of international cooperation with the continent. The key factors at play are tax evasion and the commodity sector. This drain on resources severely impacts the poorest countries by robbing them of the tax base that would enable them to fund education and health systems. At the same time, many poor countries are highly indebted. According to UNCTAD, 61 countries classified as 'developing' by the UN are spending over 10 per cent of their public revenue for debt servicing. In some countries it is as much as 30-40 per cent, which is considerably more than they spend on health and education.

Mitigating worldwide poverty and hunger will therefore require much more than just international cooperation – it will also take equitable foreign, economic and financial policies which ensure that rich countries no longer live at the expense of poor ones. 
International cooperation is in turmoil – globally and in Switzerland. Even though key institutions continue to dodge thoroughgoing structural reforms, instead delegating the responsibility to the private sector, there are ever growing calls for new, truly value-based international cooperation as equals. What is desirable is international cooperation that is embedded in broader, modernised foreign, economic and financial policies. In the light of the global and steadily worsening crises, and also the progressive political slide to the right, it now seems more crucial than ever for a nationally and globally coordinated civil society to emerge and firmly oppose these trends by clearly adhering to democracy, human rights and international cooperation.