By Themrise Khan
IF the Global South today feels it is reacting to the current aid debacle rather than driving the response to it, that is as much of their own making as it is of the more powerful Global North. Recipient nations have been made to believe they are unable to function without external support, and it is a line they bought unequivocally as long as the money flowed in.
This learned dependence is why we need to push for the end of foreign aid. Not a reset. Not a reimagining. Not reform. Simply the end.
Let me clarify what that means. It does not mean that the flow of funds from North to South should completely stop. It means that cooperation for economic and social development, democratic governance, and humanitarian support, should not come from the silo we call “foreign aid”. It must – and always should have – come from a mutual exchange of goods and services between countries. This applies to both the exchange of economic, cultural, and social goods and services – what we term “development aid”, as well as the exchange of solidarity and mutual assistance – what we term “humanitarian aid”. The former exists as part of every country’s national growth, while the latter emerges when a country is in distress. Both have been co-opted by the foreign aid industry, when they have legitimate grounds for being nationally supported and managed.
If the Global South wants to reclaim these and make good on its claims of using the Donald Trump-induced aid cuts as an opportunity for self-reliance and a liberation from long-running dependence on external financiers, here are six key actions they can take – and should have taken a long time ago:
Create negotiating/leveraging opportunities with donor countries
By not contributing any human or financial capital to any form of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), Global South countries have had no say in either framing their own development priorities or in how received funds have been utilised. In calling for the end of foreign aid, countries must also call for the end of the one-sided flow of funds. Any form of external funding for development and/or humanitarianism provided by the Global North must align with a two-way relationship. This could involve contributing a percentage of funds by the receiving country based on their GDP and/or financial capacity, or providing returns on investment by providing similar goods, e.g. human capital, tradeable goods, to the donor country in exchange for the funds. This would obviously vary country by country depending on economic ability, but it would give both sides decision-making and negotiating power as well as some financial buffer if funding were to abruptly end.
Support domestic civil society with domestic funding
Civil society is one of the key accountability mechanisms countries have to ensure equality and justice, which is exactly why they remain in the line of fire of many Global South governments. Foreign aid is one of the reasons used by Global South governments to discredit pro-justice organisations domestically. While this applies to groups that are a direct creation of foreign aid – e.g. international NGOs and those they fund – the backlash has spilt over to organisations that are independent of this system. It is these latter organisations, which consist of social movements, labour unions, gender/identity-based groups, political activists, etc., where the future of Global South social, economic, and political activism lies. But due to state backlash, which can border on violence, it is also the hardest. Yet the key is in giving greater voice to these groups through international advocacy and domestic fundraising.
Emphasise trade and bilateral relations instead of multilateralism
Regional and inter-provincial trade barriers need to be dismantled to allow countries to expand trade avenues beyond traditional partners and explore new markets. For instance, reports estimate that removing inter-African trade barriers could bring in $20 billion to African countries. This could be complemented by building regional/domestic industry in specific sectors, such as agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing, to grow domestic revenue and avoid dependency on imports. For instance, lifesaving programmes such as PEPFAR were not just funded by the United States: The drugs provided were largely produced by American and European pharmaceuticals, profiting their economies. If Trump’s trade tariffs are to have any useful impact, it is for the Global South to push for coalitions that allow them to produce commodities for their own markets.
Expand domestic philanthropy
Philanthropy and charity exist in every country. It is not only limited to the Global North. In the 2023 Global Philanthropy Tracker report, 16 of the 47 countries monitored belonged to the Global South. Most countries have a long history of giving either religiously or socially, which has allowed education, health, and humanitarian initiatives to be scaled nationally. Wealthy family foundations, corporate social philanthropy, and diaspora contributions have played a large part in accumulating these funds. While none of this should be romanticised, Global South governments should create appropriate or conducive frameworks that allow domestic charitable contributions and philanthropic organisations to scale up their work for development. This will allow the domestic revenue market to expand considerably.
Re-evaluate military spending versus development spending
Most Global South countries are annually increasing their military budgets as opposed to spending on social services. For instance, SIPRI data shows that military expenditure in Africa in 2024 rose by 3% from 2023. Likewise, Mexico’s military spending rose by 39% in 2024 from the previous year. Mexico’s research and development expenditure on the other hand, has remained fairly constant as a percentage of GDP. This has severely skewed domestic resources away from social services that could otherwise be easily provided. This is not about demilitarisation (which would be ideal), but about depoliticising budgetary allocations towards people and not war.
Reduce their debt burden
While the IMF has consistently kept Global South countries in a spiralling debt cycle, this is not just about debt forgiveness. True, the debt burden on the Global South is too immense to pay back. But this is also about efficient spending and revenue generation to avoid further debt. While the Global North should advocate for debt forgiveness, the onus of avoiding extractive trade and fiscal relations with the Global North lies squarely on the Global South. As does prioritising the needs of its citizens over the wealth accumulation of its elites. This could be achieved if their investment priorities were aimed towards generating greater revenue (equitable and enforced taxation, expanding markets, corporate sector regulation, etc.) and greater domestic investment (human capital, upskilling, education, etc.).
Time to act now
These are not new ideas by any means. Their implementation, however, has been suppressed both by the Global North’s hegemony over resources and geopolitics, and by elite capture in the Global South, as well as by post-colonial mismanagement. This makes it incredibly difficult to achieve them in the short run. But given the current global economic and political chaos, the Global South has to realise that it must rectify whatever mechanisms it has left with which to fight poverty, inequality, and resource extraction – before it loses hold of them entirely.
–––––
The New Humanitarian puts quality, independent journalism at the service of the millions of people affected by humanitarian crises around the world. Find out more at www.thenewhumanitarian.org.
