President Trump’s administration has frozen the spending of development aid through the government’s aid agency USAID for three months so that its overall work and results can be evaluated. Well, life saving humanitarian aid shall go on, it is said, and it is also expected that most of the transfers to Israel and Egypt will continue, and those two countries have received up to fifty percent of American development aid, mostly for the military. It is estimated that the USA in total donates about one-third of all development aid by the OECD countries, and as much as forty percent of humanitarian aid implemented by international and local NGOs, but much of it comes back to the donor through purchases of goods and services, and salaries for staff. Although the American aid is big, it is only about 0.25 percent of the USA’s GDP, while the UN advises that countries should spend at least 0.7 percent on development aid. Some European countries, such as Norway, donate one percent of its GDP on aid, and many other countries donate in the same range. China and several Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, are major donors of development aid, but are usually not counted in the international statistics under OECD.

In theory, the America freeze of aid is supposed to be three months, but many USAID staff members have already been laid off, although challenged by the courts. Also, American aid through other agencies, such as NRC, the Norwegian Refugee Council has led to closing of humanitarian aid programme in some twenty countries, including in Ukraine in areas where people are entirely dependent on aid. If the USAID freeze will last longer than the said three months, international and local NGOs will have to find new ways of financing their activities. In his election campaign, Trump said in his election campaign that he wanted to slim and make more efficient his government, not the least in the field of aid. Yet, recipients of aid could have prepared for the current situation and sought alternative funding – and perhaps, the Trump orders may not last for as long and be as drastic as said. But changes in aid must come, and it is a fact, too, that government aid is costly and that results are often not very good. We must soonest implement changes otherwise the aid programmes will become more unpopular in the donor countries, and the private sector is not taking on new responsibilities, also not in a fairer trade system.

Historically, the system of Western countries donating development aid was set up in the mid and late 1940s and beginning of the 1950s, following the end of WWII, and colonies began to gain independence. The new system led to the establishment of the United Nations, with the World Bank (IBRD), IMF, and dozens of specialized UN agencies and programmes, and a large number of independent organisation and institutions. The Western countries’ national aid agencies, such as Norad, Sida, Danida of the Scandinavian countries, became essential arms of those small, wealthy countries’ foreign policy programmes, which would otherwise had aless significant place and importance internationally. The two first chiefs of the UN, Trygve Lie and Dag Hammarskjöld were from Norway and Sweden.

The Scandinavian countries are small, but have managed to reach high reputation and respect for their humanitarian and development aid work, often focusing on human rights and democracy issues, and speaking up for the poor countries and the poor people. In the late 1960s and the 1970s, those countries together with other countries, played active roles in the quite radical initiatives of the UN for a New International Economic Order (NIEO), which would have given the world’s international economic system an entirely different outlook had it been implemented; UNCTAD was created as a secretariat in Geneva. Also, there was an initiative for a New World Information and communication Order (NWICO), with a secretariat at UNESCO. Many larger countries and organizations were not in support of these approaches, which would have given the poor countries and people a better chance to become equal partners in the international system. The USA, the World Bank, and many other countries and organizations were against the initiatives, but would sometimes do lip-service to them. It is a fact that the international cooperation system created after WWII was indeed on the premises of the West and the winning powers of the war; even today, the United Nations permanent members of the Security Council, with veto power, are made up of the following five countries: the USA, the UK, France, China, and Russia (that time, the Soviet Union).

In should be underlined that the West’s development aid has not been in a magnitude and quality to make real change in the poor countries and their international relations. I believe that the transfers from the Global North to the Global South would have had to be manifold in order to come close to making a real difference, and being a true compensation for the exploitation during the colonial time and the decades after – till this very day. Today, we discuss lack of impact of the development aid, but it was never really meant to have a real impact so that the countries could be empowered and stand on the same level as the rich countries. True, sometimes the bilateral and multilateral humanitarian and development aid relieved the worst suffering, but again, to a lesser extent than the information workers wanted the public to believe. Today, we are outraged about Trump’s actions against the USAID. However, we should for long have been outraged about the low transfers from the rich countries to the poor countries, and we should have been concerned about the poor results aid and made required changes, not just let it drift.

As much as I am against Trump’s sudden action, having myself worked with aid, refugee issues, and development studies much of my life, I still believe Trump’s approach can lead to improvements, and maybe it was a necessary wake-up call for all of us so the international UN and aid system can be entirely renewed. No, I don’t expect Trump and his administration to design a new and fair world order; that is for the rest of us to do, those who have knowledge and experience, and the right intentions. The developing countries will be essential in these efforts but without the efforts, too, of the West and newly industrialized countries, not the least China. And through it all, we must be sceptical to the intentions and analysis of all.

Again, taking an optimistic view on Trump’s strange but important statements and actions regarding humanitarian and development aid, I believe they can wake us up so change can be implemented. It is high time, eighty years after the end of WWII, when the current international system was created. We need a new system that can be more peaceful, with less structural and direct violence and war, fostering greater equality between and within countries. The Global North and the Global South cannot continue to be different worlds. After all, there is one world with enough resources and competence for all, if we set up systems to share and establish a new world order in support of it. Trump and other populists and conservative forces may actually become useful for us, but it is not they, but the rest of us who must design and implement the change. We have a golden opportunity to begin the job now.

Atle Hetland
The writer is a senior Norwegian social scientist with experience from university, diplomacy and development aid. He can be reached at atlehetland@yahoo.com