South-South Cooperation in the Face of ODA's Collapse

By Javier Surasky




You don’t need to be an engineer to know that building a skyscraper starts with laying a strong foundation to support its structure. The taller the building and the shakier the ground, the more effort you need to put into the base.

Since the United Nations was founded, international development cooperation (IDC) has been envisioned as a grand edifice, stacking commitments one on top of another and bearing the weight of lofty ideals: promoting equity, fighting poverty, sharing responsibility for the planet, fostering human flourishing, and driving sustainable economic growth, among others.

The reality, however, is that these goals can’t be achieved through international cooperation alone. Worse, they’ve been piled up without laying a solid foundation to make meaningful progress toward them.

Built on shaky ground—where short-term priorities and narrow-minded agendas dominate—the material used to hold this edifice together has been, almost exclusively, non-binding political promises. In other words, commitments to act without consequences for failing to follow through.

Now, a tectonic shift in global politics is cracking the foundation of IDC, threatening to bring the whole structure down. This isn’t just about Trump, the U.S.-China rivalry, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or the rise of artificial intelligence. The responsibility is shared between developed and developing countries alike.

While we’ll focus on the reactions to this upheaval in developed countries, it’s only fair to point out that developing nations have failed to unite in a cohesive front, adapt their demands to today’s global realities (their current agenda looks more like 1950 than the world we live in now), or leverage their limited power to shape international cooperation. The push for a New International Economic Order and a New International Information Order was the last real attempt in that direction.

Developed countries, for their part, didn’t just turn the idea of “development” into an elusive carrot dangled before the Global South, equating it with an outdated notion of progress. They also pursued development policies that steered a largely compliant developing world down paths that prioritized their own interests and needs. International solidarity was reduced to humanitarian aid, and the promise of transformation gave way to crisis management.

Always unstable, making long-term programs and plans nearly impossible, Official Development Assistance (ODA) from the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC)—the elite club of donor nations—treated the needs of the developing world with the same disregard colonialism showed to colonized peoples. Entire societies were turned into mere objects serving the interests of the colonizer-turned-donor.

This lack of regard for those societies and their needs, coupled with the blatant and persistent failure to honor promises, reached its peak when DAC countries decided to count in-country refugee support as ODA. This is an absurdity and a direct contradiction of their own definition of ODA, which requires that ODA flows have “the economic development and welfare of developing countries as their main objective.”

Thus, the IDC building was constructed without proper support, with blueprints altered on the fly, and using substandard materials. It was only a matter of time before structural flaws became undeniable.

Today, those flaws are impossible to ignore. The provisional ODA figures for 2024 from the OECD indicate a 7.1% decline in combined ODA from DAC members, which has fallen to 0.33% of their GNI, with projections of even steeper declines in the coming years—the most significant drop in ODA history.

Donor countries are increasingly aligned in facing a future marked by shaky policies and shrinking resources, driven by past crises and forecasts of global economic slowdown.

  • The U.S. dismantles USAID, announcing initial foreign aid cuts of approximately $60 billion, withdraws from the World Health Organization, and halts funding for nearly 20 multilateral organizations.
  • The Netherlands plans to cut €350 million in 2025, rising to €550 million in 2026 and €2.4 billion annually from 2027, with a total reduction of €8 billion over four years. Add to that €1 billion less for civil society funding between 2025 and 2030.
  • In 2025, Germany cuts €937 million from its Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and €836 million from its Foreign Office. Humanitarian aid is halved, from €2.23 billion to €1.04 billion. The 0.7% ODA/GNI target vanishes from the governing coalition’s agreement for the first time in 30 years.

Smaller donors are jumping on the bandwagon:

Switzerland cuts its ODA by CHF 110 million in 2025. Belgium aims to reduce its ODA by 25% over five years, starting in 2025. Sweden announces annual cuts of €291 million from 2026 to 2028. Finland reduces its ODA by 25% between 2024 and 2027. The list of countries cutting ODA continues to grow.

Faced with this reality, the Global South has limited options, but all of them hinge on reviving the solidarity that once fueled the Non-Aligned Movement and the G77. Although also under strain, South-South Cooperation must become a tool for turning that solidarity into action. The South needs to unite, bring an updated common agenda to every forum, and maximize its limited power resources. It’s also time to rethink Triangular Cooperation, carefully assessing its potential to create unwanted dependencies and ensuring it doesn’t undermine the priority of South-South Cooperation in crafting a strategy tailored to the South’s needs.

The challenge for the South—to speak with one voice, recognize each other as equals, foster open internal dialogue free from external interference, build consensus, and address disagreements—has reached a new level of urgency. If our leaders aren’t up to the task, it’s time for their democratic replacement and for decisive action from non-governmental sectors, working across multiple levels, with data-driven approaches and shared short, medium, and long-term plans.

There is no other option for the South but to reclaim the energy of solidarity in action. These are times for planting seeds, for turning away from fragile skyscrapers and getting back to working the soil, so we can one day reap the fruits of our own labor.