COP16 President Susana Muhamad. Parties to the UN Biodiversity adopted decisions to implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Credit: IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin/Mike Muzurakis.
BLOOMINGTON, U.S.A & ROME, Feb 28 2025 (IPS) – The second round of the UN Biodiversity Conference, COP16, concluded in the early hours of Friday, February 28 in Rome, with an agreement to raise the funds needed to protect biodiversity.
COP16 was suspended in Cali, Colombia, in 2024 without any major financial support decision to support biodiversity conservation. But in the second round of the conference in Rome, Italy, governments agreed on a financial strategy to address the action targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), which was adopted in 2022 with the aim of closing the biodiversity finance gap.
In a final document, all parties to the biodiversity convention agreed to mobilize resources to close the global biodiversity finance gap and achieve the target of mobilizing at least 200 billion dollars a year by 2030, including international flows of USD 20 billion per year by 2025. Which will be rising to USD 30 billion by 2030.
In the closing press briefing in the early hours of Friday, COP16 President Susana Muhamad said the Rome conference came to a successful end. “It was a remarkable achievement of being able to approve all the decisions, especially the most contentious, difficult decisions.” She said, “And not in a way that made the parties feel that they were compromising their main objectives.”
The agreement includes the commitment to establish permanent arrangements for the financial mechanism in accordance with Articles 21 and 39 of the Convention while working on improving existing financial instruments. It also includes a roadmap of the activities and decision-making milestones until 2030.
COP16 president Muhamad also said that the agreement between governments in Rome will help bring the agendas of biodiversity and climate change together. In November, Belem in the Amazon rainforest region of Brazil will be hosting the UN climate conference, COP30.
“The importance of these resolutions that have been approved in Cali and also here of the cooperation between the different conventions,” she said.
The biodiversity COP also adopted a Strategy for Resource Mobilization to mobilize the funds needed for implementation of the KMGBF. Which includes public finance from national and subnational governments, private and philanthropic resources, multilateral development banks, blended finance, and other approaches.
The Cali Fund
The Rome gathering of parties also agreed to establish a dedicated fund for fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Research (DSI), known as the Cali Fund.
The fund was launched on 26 February 2025—at least 50 percent of its resources will be allocated to indigenous peoples and local communities, recognizing their role as custodians of biodiversity. Large companies and other major entities benefiting commercially from the use of DSI are expected to contribute a portion of their profits or revenues in sectors and subsectors highly dependent on the use of DSI.
Pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, plant and animal breeding, agricultural biotechnology, industrial biotechnology, laboratory equipment associated with the sequencing and use of digital sequence information on genetic resources, and information, scientific and technical services related to digital sequence information on genetic resources, including artificial intelligence. Academic, public databases, public research institutions and companies operating in the concerned sectors but not relying on DSI are exempt from contributions to the Cali Fund.
The fund is part of a multilateral mechanism on the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources adopted at COP15 in December 2022 alongside the KMGBF.
Gina Romero is UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of assembly and of association
Gina Romero
BOGOTA, Colombia, Feb 27 2025 (IPS) – The U.S. administration has the prerogative to review and adjust public expenditure policies, including foreign aid. However, this power must be exercised responsibly, adhering to national and international legal frameworks, including the principles of human rights law.
The recent decisions by the Trump administration to freeze federal grants and loans, including foreign aid, have raised serious concerns about the implications for local, national and international associations.
These measures, which followed executive orders aimed at “reevaluating” U.S. foreign assistance and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, risk undermining the freedoms that are vital to democratic societies.
In a letter sent to the USG, 35 UN experts indicate that the freeze on funding and stop work orders has been described as a drastic measure that could have a far-reaching impact on the ability of individuals and organizations to advocate for and protect human rights.
The decision to stop work on federal projects, including critical programs funded through foreign aid, is having an immediate effect on vulnerable communities and human rights defenders worldwide. The ripple effects are particularly severe for marginalized groups who depend on these resources for essential services like healthcare, education, access to food and housing.
These measures also disproportionately affect organizations working on gender equality, LGBTIQ issues, reproductive rights, and poverty alleviation, which are already underfunded and face significant challenges in the global South.
The implications of these measures affect different type of associations, including small and medium-sized businesses, not-for-profit entities, civil society organizations, universities, faith-based groups, and even scientific research institutions that rely on U.S. funding to carry out their work.
The speed and scale of the funding freeze have left these entities unable to fulfil their missions. Some have already been forced to lay off staff, suspend vital programs, and even close their doors, leading to the shrinking of civic space in countries where they have long been key players in advocating for democracy, human rights, and sustainable development.
The Need for Proportionality, Transparency, and Legal Compliance
While the goal of effective public expenditure is commendable, its success depends on a transparent and inclusive process that is in line with legal standards, including international human rights law. These measures, which were implemented with little consultation or clear communication, have not adhered to the principle of proportionality, which is enshrined in both domestic and international law.
The absence of transparent guidelines, accountability mechanisms, respect for due process, and avenues for appeal is troubling, especially when the measures have such wide-reaching consequences.
International human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is a signatory, guarantees the right to freedom of association. This right not only protects the ability to form associations but also to carry out the activities for which those associations were established.
The freedom to access resources is a critical component of this right, as it enables organizations to seek, receive, and use resources from a variety of sources, both domestic and international. When funding is denied, it effectively denies organizations the means to operate, undermining their ability to fulfil their missions.
The freeze on U.S. funding, without due process or clear guidelines, is in direct conflict with these principles. The lack of clarity on how decisions are made or how organizations can challenge them undermines the rights of associations.
Furthermore, the failure to involve stakeholders—including U.S. civil society organizations—in the decision-making process is a violation of the principles of democratic governance and transparency.
The Global Impact of U.S. Funding Decisions
The far-reaching consequences of the funding freeze are most acutely felt in countries where U.S. aid supports critical initiatives in areas such as healthcare, education, peacebuilding, and human rights protection.
For example, programs addressing sexual and reproductive health are at immediate risk of cessation. Similarly, efforts to combat gender-based violence, support displaced communities, and provide education to marginalized groups are being disrupted.
In addition to these humanitarian concerns, the freeze also threatens to derail long-standing initiatives aimed at promoting democracy, good governance, and the rule of law. U.S. foreign aid has long been a pillar of support for civil society organizations that monitor elections, promote anti-corruption efforts, and advocate for human rights protections, among others.
The suspension of funding to these programs undermines not only the work of these organizations but also the broader goal of promoting democratic values worldwide.
The U.S. government’s decision to cut funding to programs that address discrimination—particularly those related to DEI initiatives—has sparked additional controversy. These measures have the potential to undermine efforts to protect individuals from workplace discrimination and ensure equal access to opportunities.
By targeting DEI programs, the administration is signalling a shift away from policies designed to address structural inequalities, which could have long-term negative effects on social justice worlwide.
The Stigmatization of Civil Society Organizations
Another concerning consequence of these decisions is the stigmatization of associations managing and receiving U.S. funding. The administration’s rhetoric has painted many civil society organizations as threats to national security.
This kind of stigmatization is dangerous because its fosters hostility toward groups that are engaged in legitimate advocacy for development, human rights and democratic governance.
Also, it places these organizations—and their staff—at risk of harassment, intimidation, and even physical violence, particularly in countries where civil society organizations are already under threat. Stigmatization is the entry door for repression and violence.
This pattern of vilification has serious consequences. As I noted in my more recent report to the UN General Assembly, negative narratives about civil society organizations and other associations deepen the stigmatization of activists and organizations, leading to increased repression, physical attacks, and online harassment.
These dynamics create an environment in which activists and civil society organizations are seen not as contributors to public good but as enemies.
The Path Forward: Upholding Human Rights and Civil Society
The decision to freeze funding may have been motivated by a desire to ensure more effective public spending, but it risks doing lasting damage to civil society. The lack of transparency, failure to follow due process, and disregard for international human rights law make these measures problematic.
To ensure that the U.S. upholds its commitment to human rights and the freedom of association, it is imperative that the U.S. government must urgently comply with the recent court orders, pay invoices, reconsider the impact of its freeze on foreign aid and federal grants and to compensate for the damage done. Besides, future decisions regarding foreign aid and public funding be made with greater clarity, accountability, and respect for the rule of law.
The U.S. must also recognize that associations in general and civil society organizations in particular are critical to the realization of human rights. These organizations play an essential role in advocating for the protection of fundamental freedoms, including the rights to health, education, and social justice.
Freezing funding and issuing stop work orders without clear and transparent procedures not only undermines these organizations but also threatens to dismantle vital systems of support for marginalized communities.
It is crucial that the U.S. government ensures that future funding decisions are made with respect for international human rights standards, that organizations are able to access the resources they need to carry out their work, and that the right to freedom of association is upheld.
In conclusion, the freeze on U.S. funding represents a significant threat to the functioning of civil society organizations and to the protection of human rights globally. While the government’s decision to review public expenditure is within its rights, the approach taken thus far raises serious concerns about transparency, proportionality, and adherence to international human rights law.
To avoid further harm, the U.S. must prioritize the protection of civil society, uphold the right to freedom of association, and ensure that any policy changes are made in a manner that respects the fundamental freedoms on which democracy depends.
Civil society organisations and community leaders at the Finance in Common Summit 2023. Credit: Sebastian Barros/Forus
CAPE TOWN, South Africa, Feb 24 2025 (IPS) – As public development banks gather for the Finance in Common Summit (FiCS) in Cape Town, South Africa, civil society and community activists from across the world are demanding a shift to a community-led, equitable, and human rights-based development approach, that prioritise people and planet over profit, and a reform of the global financial architecture.
“With more than 10 % global investment flowing through them each year, public development banks hold immense responsibility—not only to fund infrastructure and development but to do so in a way that is just, inclusive, and sustainable. Development that does not listen to the voices of the people it affects is not true development; it deepens inequalities, harms ecosystems, and leaves communities behind. True development is not done for communities, but with them”, says Mavalow Christelle Kalhoule, Chair at Forus.
Since its first edition in 2020, civil society has been playing a critical role at FiCS in ensuring public development banks are accountable to the people they serve, and in amplifying the voices – too often ignored – of communities in the Global South who are most directly affected by development projects.
“Over the next few days, the world’s public development banks will be patting themselves on the back for all the good they’re doing around the world. But all that glitters is not gold. Way too often these institutions are replicating a neocolonial and neoliberal approach, dividing the world between those to be sacrificed and those to benefit from the sacrifices”, says Ony Soa Ratsifandrihamanana, Africa Regional Coordinator at the Coalition for Human Rights in Development.
Civil society organisations and community leaders at the Finance in Common Summit 2023. Credit: Sebastian Barros/Forus
Amidst rising inequality, debt crises, and the climate emergency, public development banks must move beyond rhetoric and commit to concrete, transformative actions. This is why over 300 civil society groups have joined forces to bring their demands at FiCS, calling on development banks to champion a new era of development finance, placing human rights, community leadership, and environmental sustainability at the core of all financing decisions.
“The world is passing through the most critical and testing times of its history and once again the solutions are being imposed without the consent, participation and engagement of citizens at large and representative civil society in particular. This is the time to think, reflect and act out of the box, and this opportunity of coming together at FiCS should not be considered business as usual,” says Zia ur Rehman, Secretary General and Director at the Asia Development Alliance.
In a context of shrinking civic space and increasing attacks against the human rights movement, development banks should also play a more decisive role to make sure people can actively and safely participate in decision-making processes and consultations.
“While development banks acknowledge the importance of civil society engagement, their frameworks often fall short in implementation, resulting in limited access to information, tokenistic public participation, and a lack of accountability for reprisals against activists,” says Manana Kochladze, Strategic Area Leader – Democratization and Human Rights at CEE Bankwatch Network. “There is a pressing need for development banks to collaboratively develop a unified and proactive approach to safeguarding and expanding civic space”.
More than 60 civil society organizations and community activists will also join the Summit in-person, to share their first-hand testimonies on the actual impact of development projects. From renewables in Kenya to green hydrogen projects in Chile, too often projects presented as sustainable are displacing local communities, polluting the environment, and failing to ensure that the benefits trickle down to those most in need.
Civil society organisations and community leaders at the Finance in Common Summit 2023. Credit: Sebastian Barros/Forus
“When decisions are made without the input of local voices, finance becomes an instrument of exclusion, perpetuating inequality and undermining true progress. We demand a comprehensive overhaul of global financial structures that prioritizes community rights. A shift to people-led finance will enable genuine economic transformation, lifting up every individual and fostering resilient, inclusive growth that benefits society as a whole,” says Ndeye Fatou Sy, Programs Manager at Lumière Synergie pour le Développement (Senegal).
The Lesotho Highlands Water Project, for instance, provides water to South Africa in exchange for royalties and generation of hydropower for Lesotho, but has led to devastating socio-economic and environmental impacts. Hundreds of families have been involuntarily resettled and more than 30,000 people lost their cropland and grazing land, with a particular impact on women.
“As we gather at the Finance in Common Summit, we remind public development banks that front-line communities should not bear the cost of development. Public development banks must create and use independent accountability mechanisms to hear directly from local communities and ensure that their land, livelihoods, and environment are protected,” says Robi Chacha Mosenda, Senior Associate at Accountability Counsel.
Civil society and community representatives participating at the Summit will also present viable and alternative solutions, such as small-scale and renewable energy solutions that are led by Indigenous communities themselves.
“Any form of financing by multilateral development banks should start with support to community-led planning initiatives that ascertain that decisions on energy alternatives centre the rights of affected persons and communities”, says Mwebe John, Africa Finance Campaigner at Recourse. “Multilateral development banks are investing more money than ever into renewable energy, but the scale and kind of projects matters if these investments are going to truly power people and protect the planet. Community-led projects are popping up everywhere – from rooftop solar in India, to micro hydropower in Indonesia, and rural mini grids in Rwanda and Tanzania. These are the types of projects to be supported,” adds Federico Sibaja, IMF Campaign Manager at Recourse.
These stories show that it is key for development banks to use FiCS as an opportunity to step out from their echo chamber, listen to those who are bearing the brunt of their investments, and strengthen the dialogue with civil society.
Lorena Cotza is Communications Lead, Coalition for Human Rights in Development
Leaders of the 15 member states of the Caribbean Community concluded their 48th meeting on February 21 with commitments to tackle growing climate change and food security challenges, education and trade reform, while declaring crime and violence a public health concern.
Press Conference to mark the end of the 48th Regular CARICOM Heads of Government Meeting (L-R) CARICOM Secretary General Dr. Carla Barnett, Prime Ministers Philip Davis (Bahamas), Dr. Keith Rowley (Trinidad & Tobago), Mia Mottley (Barbados), Andrew Holness (Jamaica) and President Dr. Irfaan Ali (Guyana).
DOMINICA, Feb 24 2025 (IPS) – CARICOM leaders wrapped up a crucial meeting on February 21, reaffirming their commitment to tackling pressing regional challenges with unity and resolve. From crime and security to education, trade and climate change, the leaders highlighted the need for decisive action amid global uncertainties.
Education Transformation
Barbados’ Prime Minister and CARICOM Chair Mia Mottley told the press that the leaders agreed to establish a CARICOM Educational Transformation Commission—a body that will move the region’s education systems beyond outdated foundations.
“We all accept that our educational systems are not fit for purpose. They were designed for a colonial period with a hierarchical system that only served a few, not all of our people. If we are to be able to ensure that we produce citizens fit for the time, with the appropriate social and emotional learning targets, we must move now,” she stated.
Over the coming weeks, the commission’s Terms of Reference and composition will be finalized, marking a major step in reshaping regional education policies.
Violence and Crime: Existential Threats
Outgoing Trinidadian Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley, attending his final CARICOM Heads of Government meeting, highlighted the increasing crime surge across the region, particularly the rise of gang violence in some countries.
“We agreed that the changing nature of crime is such that action and acts of violence in the public space in certain instances must now be regarded as acts of terrorism. We are talking here about indiscriminate shooting in a public place where perpetrators endanger all and sundry.”
The leaders endorsed the classification of crime and violence as a public health issue and committed to appointing a high-level representative on law and criminal justice to design a strategic plan for modernizing the region’s criminal justice system.
Critical Climate Change Concerns
Another existential threat that leaders are grappling with is climate change.
Representing small island states that contribute minimally to global emissions but face disproportionate vulnerability to its impacts, the CARICOM leaders voiced their frustration with unmet promises by major polluters.
“For several years we attempted to see how we could shake up those who are pledging and committing to live up to their pledges and commitments. They decided to come up with a new regime called the New Collective Quantified Goal,” said Bahamian Prime MInister Philip Davis, adding, “All I can say is that we should continue our advocacy to ensure that not only is finance available to small island developing states but also to ensure that there will be easier access and timely release of funds once a request is made.”
A Changing Trading Environment
Meanwhile, Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness addressed concerns over shifts in United States trade policy and their potential impact on regional economies.
“We must be prepared. We cannot approach this with panic and we should accept that with these changes the concern should not only be disruption in the normal routine of trade, but that there could also be great opportunities for the region.”
Holness announced that CARICOM will conduct a comprehensive review of its trade relations with the U.S., aiming to deliver a policy direction within the next few months to support regional governments.
Mounting Food Security Worries
Guyanese President Irfaan Ali warned of escalating food security issues due to rising global food prices, bird flu outbreak and increased logistics costs. The region faces a 20% decline in U.S. egg production, leading to a 70% price hike, adding further strain.
“Increased climate-related challenges, increased transportation and logistics costs, and uncertainty in tariffs and trade rules will have a significant impact on the cost of food globally and in our region,” Ali stated.
Ali said that if Brazil is affected by these challenges, it could lead to major problems with pricing and supply for the region. In response, CARICOM is exploring alternative supply routes and strategies to enhance regional capacity against a potential major shock in the global market.
The Dream of Stability—and Elections—in Haiti
The crisis in Haiti remained a focal point of discussions. Prime Minister Mottley reaffirmed CARICOM’s dedication to stabilizing the nation.
“This last incarnation of the Haiti situation goes back to the gas riots of September 2022. It has been an unacceptably long period of time to bring stability and relief to the people of Haiti. You will appreciate that there are some matters that are delicate at the discussion stages, but suffice it to say CARICOM expresses solidarity with the government and people of Haiti that we will work with the United Nations and all of the other friends of Haiti to be able to ensure that Haiti is in a position to have its elections in a fair and free way.”
Martinique’s Potential Associate Membership
In a historic move, CARICOM leaders signed an agreement with France and Martinique, paving the way for the French territory to become the newest associate member of CARICOM, pending ratification by the French government. If approved, Martinique will join Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands in this capacity.
The way forward
The meeting concluded with a renewed commitment to collective action and regional unity.
Like she did two days before at the meeting’s opening ceremony, the CARICOM Chair underscored the importance of a united CARICOM taking action towards a sustainable future.
“Now, more than ever, unity is crucial for overcoming the shared challenges posed by the world,” Prime Minister Mottley said.
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 24 2025 (IPS) – The UN’s human rights agenda is in danger of faltering since the Geneva-based Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) is planning to “restructure” the office, under the moniker OHCHR 2.0.
But this proposal, if implemented, would result in the abolition of the Special Procedures Branch, established by the Human Rights Council (HRC), to report and advise on human rights from thematic and country-specific perspectives.
The question remains whether or not the HRC will give its blessings to the proposed restructuring. Currently, there are more than 46 thematic mandates and 14 country-specific mandates.
The Special Rapporteurs (who are also designated “independent UN human rights experts”) cover a wide range of thematic issues, including investigations into extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, racism and xenophobia, human rights in the Palestinian territories, right to freedom of opinion and expression, rights of the indigenous peoples, violence against women, human rights of immigrants, among others.
Ian Richards, an economist at the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and former President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations, told IPS the staff of the Special Procedures Branch play an essential role in supporting the work of the special rapporteurs.
He said former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described their work as the jewel in the crown of the UN human rights system.
“We know that some of their recent work has created pushback. There is a belief is that they are being penalized for this”.
“The High Commissioner for Human Rights “hasn’t accepted to meet with the staff union to discuss this, which is unusual. We hope he will change his mind,” said Richards.
Some of the Special Rapporteurs have been vociferously critical of member states, including Israel, on war crimes charges in Gaza, and also countries in the Middle East and South-east Asia, like Singapore and Saudi Arabia, for continuing to enforce the death penalty.
In a press release last week, two Special Rapporteurs said Singapore must urgently halt the execution of Malaysian national Pannir Selvam Pranthaman for drug trafficking.
“We have repeatedly** called on Singapore to halt executions for drug offences which are illegal under international human rights law on several grounds,” the experts said.
“We reiterate that under international law, only crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing meet the threshold for the death penalty,” the experts said. “Mandatory death sentences are inherently over-inclusive and inevitably violate human rights law.”
“There is no evidence that the death penalty does more than any other punishment to curb or prevent drug trafficking,” they said.
The experts warned that the rate of execution notices for drug-related offences in Singapore was “highly alarming”. They noted that eight people have already been executed on these charges since 1 October 2024, a period of just four and a half months.
Speaking off-the-record, a UN source told IPS the staff of the Special Procedures Branch fear the “re-structuring” is being done in order to reduce the effectiveness and voice of the Special Rapporteurs. And the High Commissioner’s refusal to consult with the union may be evidence of this, he said.
“As you may be aware, the special rapporteurs, and one in particular, have been vocal on the issue of Gaza, which has generated complaints from a number of member states to the High Commissioner. To seek a second term, he needs their support”.
According to the UN, Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts/Working Groups are independent human rights experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Together, these experts are referred to as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council.
Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. While the UN Human Rights office acts as the secretariat for Special Procedures, the experts serve in their individual capacity and are independent from any government or organization, including OHCHR and the UN.
Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR. Country-specific observations and recommendations by the UN human rights mechanisms, including the special procedures, the treaty bodies and the Universal Periodic Review, can be found on the Universal Human Rights Index https://uhri.ohchr.org/en/
The Office of the High Commissioner is being funded by the UN regular budget and voluntary contributions.
But UN Special Rapporteurs are not paid a salary by the United Nations. They receive funding primarily through logistical and personnel support from the Office of the High Commissioner.
They often also receive additional funding from private foundations and NGOs like the Ford Foundation and Open Society Foundations, which can raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest due to the source of funding.
Special procedures cover all human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political and social as well as issues relating to specific groups. Special procedures mandate-holders are either an individual (called a Special Rapporteur (SR) or Independent Expert (IE)) or a Working Group (WG) of five members, according to the UN.
As part of their mandates, special procedures examine, advise and publicly report on human rights issues and situations. They conduct thematic studies and convene expert consultations, contribute to the development of international human rights standards, engage in advocacy and provide advice for technical cooperation.
Upon the invitation from Governments, they visit particular countries or territories in order to monitor the situation on the ground. Special procedures also act on individual cases and concerns of a broader, structural nature by sending communications to States and other entities in which they bring alleged violations or abuses to their attention.
Finally, they raise public awareness of a specific topic through press releases or other public statements. Special procedures report annually to the Human Rights Council; the majority of the mandates also report annually to the General Assembly
In 2024, OHCHR received a total of US$268.9 million in voluntary contributions. As in previous years, the overwhelming majority of voluntary contributions came from Member States and International organizations including the European Commission and UN partners.
Daniel D. Bradlow is Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
In a powerful appeal to the world’s largest economies during the G20 Summit, November 2024, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for urgent climate action and reform of international institutions, warning that current systems are failing to meet global challenges. Credit: UN Photo/Gustavo Stephan
PRETORIA, South Africa, Feb 19 2025 (IPS) – US president Donald Trump’s recent actions seem designed to reassert American power and demonstrate that it is still the dominant global power and is capable of bullying weaker nations into following America’s lead.
These actions demand a response from the rest of the international community that mitigates the risk to the well-being of people and planet and the effective management of global affairs. My research on global economic governance suggests that history can offer some guidance on how to shape an effective response.
Such a response should be based on a realistic assessment of the configuration of global forces. It should seek to build tactical coalitions between state and non-state actors in both the global south and the global north who can agree on clear and limited objectives.
The following three historical lessons help explain this point.
The US was also losing confidence in its ability to sustain the international monetary order it had established at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944.
In addition, the countries of the global south were calling for a new international economic order that was more responsive to their needs. Given the concerns about the political and economic situation in the US and the relative strength of the Soviet bloc at the time, this seemed a realistic demand.
In August 1971, President Richard Nixon, without any international consultations, launched what became known as the Nixon Shock. He broke the link between gold and the US dollar, thereby ending the international monetary system established in 1944. He also imposed a 10% surcharge on all imports into the US.
When America’s European allies protested and sought to create a reformed version of the old monetary order, US treasury secretary John Connolly informed them that the dollar was our currency but your problem.
Over the course of the 1970s, US allies in western Europe, Asia and all countries that participated in the old Bretton Woods system were forced to accept what the US preferred: a market-based international monetary system in which the US dollar became the dominant currency.
The US, along with its allies in the global north, also defeated the calls for a new international economic order and imposed their neo-liberal economic order on the world.
The second cautionary lesson highlights the importance of building robust tactical coalitions. In 1969, the International Monetary Fund member states agreed to authorise the IMF to create special drawing rights, the IMF’s unique reserve asset.
At the time, many IMF developing country member states advocated establishing a link between development and the special drawing rights. This would enable those countries most in need of additional resources to access more than their proportionate share of special drawing rights to fund their development.
All developing countries supported this demand. But they couldn’t agree on how to do it. The rich countries were able to exploit these differences and defeat the proposed link between the special drawing rights and development.
As a result, the special drawing rights are now distributed to all IMF member states according to their quotas in the IMF. This means that most allocations go to the rich countries who do not need them and have no obligation to share them with developing countries.
A third lesson arises from the successful Jubilee 2000 campaign to forgive the debts of low-income developing countries experiencing debt crises. This campaign, supported by a secretariat in the United Kingdom, eventually involved: civil society organisations and activists in 40 countries a petition signed by 21 million people and governments in both creditor and debtor countries.
These efforts resulted in the cancellation of the debts of 35 developing countries. These debts, totalling about US$100 billion, were owed primarily to bilateral and multilateral official creditors.
They were also a demonstration of the political power that can be generated by the combined actions of civil society organisations and governments in both rich and poor countries.
They can force the most powerful and wealthy institutions and individuals in the world to accept actions that, while requiring them to make affordable sacrifices, benefit low-income countries and potentially poor communities within those states.
What conclusions should be drawn?
We shouldn’t under-estimate the power of the US or the determination of the MAGA movement to use that power. However, their power is not absolute. It is constrained by the relative decline in US power as countries such as China and India gain economic and political strength.
In addition, there are now mechanisms for international cooperation, such as the G20, where states can coordinate their actions and gain tactical victories that are meaningful to people and planet.
But gaining such victories will require the following:
Firstly, the formation of tactical coalitions that include states from both the global south and the global north. If these states cooperate around limited and shared objectives they can counter the vested interests around the world that support Trump’s objectives.
Secondly, a special kind of public-private partnership in which states and non-state actors set aside their differences and agree to cooperate to achieve limited shared objectives. Neither states alone nor civil society groups alone were able to defeat the vested interests that opposed debt relief in the late 1990s. Working together they were able to defeat powerful creditor interests and gain debt relief for the poorest states.
Thirdly, this special partnership will only be possible if there’s general agreement on both the diagnosis of the problem and on the general contours of the solution. This was the case with the debt issue in the 1990s.
There are good candidates for such collaborative actions. For example, many states and non-state actors agree that international financial institutions need to be reformed and made more responsive to the needs of those member states that actually use their services but lack voice and vote in their governance.
The institutions also need to be more accountable to those affected by their policies and practices. They also agree that large corporations and financial institutions should pay their fair share of taxes and should be environmentally and socially responsible.
The urgency of the challenges facing the global community demands that the world begin countering Trump as soon as possible. South Africa as the current chair of the G20 has a special responsibility to ensure that this year the G20, together with its engagement groups, acts creatively and responsibly in relation to people and planet.
