It is not only populists like Trump and ultraconservatives in the West that will change the international world we live in, but they will indeed set the agenda for the change and new ways of thinking in the West and globally. The COP29 Climate Change Conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, has just ended. It was not an enthusiastic and positive event, it seems, and the final amount pledged for helping developing country becoming greener, was less than expected, and several developing countries protested. USD 300 billion annually sounds quite a bit, well, even if the amount is just about a third of what was proposed before the conference. Besides, pledges do not always end up in real payments.

The agreed amount would also include the cost of running the fund, and that can easily eat up a huge chunk, as is always the case in development aid, especially multilateral aid through the UN and other such agencies. The time, too, and the cost placed on setting up conditionality rules, monitoring systems, and implementing reviews and evaluations, will give contracts for consults, and they would mostly come from the West and in each of the donor countries. Yet, it would be counted as part of the total amount to the recipient countries. Instead, I believe it is time that the donors allocate the amounts due to each of the recipient countries and cooperative programmes. The money should be transferred to the recipient countries so they can plan, implement and monitor actions themselves. If they need technical assistance from the donor countries, they should hire hat at their own discretion. But more money would then end in corruptions and in projects chosen for dubious reasons, many would argue. That is likely, of course, but more money would still reach the real purposes than if the West controlled it and had the short and long end of all disbursements, and take cuts for consultants and administration. Also, the recipient countries must set up or improve their own systems regarding public and private administration of funds in more transparent and democratic ways.

Some wealthy countries that were earlier clearly developing countries have now moved up the ladder; they have graduated, as it were, and should rather be placed in the donor group of countries, such as China and Saudi Arabia. A system of voluntary contributions to the fund from such countries is a way of solving that issue for the time being. Alternatively, instead of having a global fund, some of them may want to establish their own funds, some perhaps under the BRICS group of countries. That may well be a way although the West would then lose much of its control over the climate change and development aid policies.

Let us recall that the serious climate change and global warming situation the world is in, is mainly caused by the West during its industrialization over the last 100-150 years. The West has given some development aid to developing countries, including to former colonies. Yet, until the end of WWII, the West exploited the developing countries directly, and today structurally. Hence it is only fair that the West now pays some reparation money to the developing countries, indeed for climate change, but also for other things, and that the multinationals are curbed.

It is less likely that the relations between the Global North and the Global South this will improve with President-elect Trump, and the rising power and influence of the ultraconservative parties in the West. It stands to be seen how the future of the USA’s development aid will be, and what countries that will receive aid. Earlier, I have written about the high cost of maintaining the UN agencies and the lack of results in many development aid and other fields of their work. Trump and the ultra conservatives want to revisit those issues, which in actual fact would mean reduced government transfers to poor countries and to the UN. Nowadays, many talk about the private sector playing a greater role in development aid, and government-private sector cooperation and partnership. Alas, it is unlikely to happen, and if something will happen, it must be done in more efficient ways than the ways the UN and the bilateral donors have operated. There is certainly room for new ways, but the private sector has not yet come up with any serious and binding plans and proposals. Certainly, the multilaterals ought to play a major role in assisting the developing countries. Yet, until it becomes unacceptable to exploit the poor countries and people, without having some forms of compulsory taxes and of paying back, this remains unrealistic. The same thinking that lies behind the COP29 fund should be applied to other exploitation, indeed such of the multinationals. It is the UN’s duty to play a key role in passing rules and regulations for how the world capitalist system, with multinationals, should operate in more ethical ways.

Furthermore, when we today discuss new ways of sizeable transfers from the Global North to the Global South, it must be done so that all parties benefit in one way or the other, indeed as for climate change and better custodianship of the globe before it is too late, before the water and drought problems will become insurmountable, the glaciers have all melted, the extreme weather gotten worse, before the temperature has reached alarming high levels, and so on. As for climate change corrective measure, including the new fund, we know we are all in the same boat, well, some facing more serious problems than others. But all will benefit from actions, but politicians, international organizations, diplomats, NGOs, and so on, have not been able to create a positive understanding of this. Today, with Trump and the more ultra conservative rulers and voters, it is likely that less will be done about the climate change issues unless a positive thinking is created, yes, in a selfish world. Had we spoken more about the benefits, not only the costs, we would have had a better understanding of the issues and we would have been more positive. After all people must agree to policies and actions and see they benefit themselves, not only pay for climate change measures, indeed in the USA.

In conclusion, we should underline that there is an urgent need to support and curb climate change actions to establish more sustainable development and a better world. We should also plan for improved development aid and much larger transfers to developing countries than today, and the private sector and the multinationals must contribute more, in new, binding systems. The recipient countries must have a greater say, in spite of the risk related to misuse of funds. In the long run, though, the developing countries must develop good and trustworthy systems, protected and supported by the leaders and the people of the countries – in a fairer and more peaceful world. If we don’t succeed in this, the world will become more divided and more conflicts and wars will happen, within and between countries. It is indeed in everyone’s interest to take a more realistic, kinder and ethical view of equality and international relations.

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