Rekindling global solidarity: power, politics, and the future of international cooperation

Are we witnessing the demise of international solidarity and cooperation? Not entirely, but the pillars are undeniably shaking. A growing number of (mainly Western) governments are redefining foreign policy objectives: slashing aid budgets; withdrawing support from multilateral bodies and global commitments such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement, and the International Criminal Court; watching severe human rights violations being perpetrated, without taking any measures, and scaling back resettlement programmes. A new world order seems to be taking root, in which self-interest rather than solidarity is becoming the norm.

Dismantling the old order, bit by bit

On his first day in office (20 January 2025), under the motto ‘America First,’ President Trump signed an executive order suspending all US foreign development assistance for three months to allow his administration to reflect on the future of US foreign aid. The justification? Claims of inefficiency and misalignment with American interests among existing aid projects. Four months later, amid legal battles over the president’s authority to halt payments on nearly $2 billion in previously signed US Agency for International Development (USAID) contracts, the humanitarian and development landscape looks bleak: over 80% of USAID programmes have been officially cut. Given that US funding accounted for 40% of humanitarian aid globally in 2024, with a third of that allocated to health programmes, the consequences of such decisions are likely to be severe.

Yet, this is not an isolated case. It reflects a broader trend already underway in other donor countries, albeit less abruptly. Projections suggest this trajectory may result in a 29% reduction in overall aid by 2027. As the traditional aid paradigm falters under the pressure of shifting political priorities and intensifying nationalism, the entire international cooperation architecture finds itself at a crossroads. In this moment of global flux, we ask: Is this the end of global solidarity, or the beginning of its reinvention? Our aim here is not merely to analyse current failures, but to spark deeper reflection on how this crisis should catalyse the redesign of a more inclusive and future-oriented global cooperation framework that centres people, not politics.

A tale of imperfect solidarity

Foreign aid has long been a contentious issue, shaped by evolving political narratives, public attitudes, economic imperatives, and deeply entrenched perceptions among donor and recipient countries. It has undeniably supported development, humanitarian relief, and human rights advancement. But it has also been used as a tool of influence, instrumentalised by donor governments, multilateral bodies, private actors, and occasionally by receiving governments. Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals remains “alarmingly insufficient,” prompting criticism over the coherence, commitment, and effectiveness of government efforts, especially those from high-income countries, towards Agenda 2030.

Moreover, development cooperation is still weighed down by a top-down, often paternalistic approach reminiscent of colonial power dynamics. Many recipient nations view aid and cooperation as a contemporary extension of historical control, which too often reinforces dependency instead of fostering autonomy. This is particularly evident across Africa, where foreign aid is frequently aligned with donors’ strategic interests rather than the actual needs of recipient communities. Such dynamics have generated growing scepticism and even resentment, with calls for a paradigm shift toward genuinely equal partnerships.

Simultaneously, public sentiment towards international cooperation in donor countries has been influenced by nationalist political leaders, who increasingly question the rationale behind supporting foreign nations amid domestic crises, despite foreign aid making up less than 1% of most governments’ budgets. Unsurprisingly, surveys reflect waning support for such aid among Western taxpayers who see aid as ineffective or widely misused. Foreign aid must evolve to stay relevant. It must abandon outdated colonial frameworks and embrace future-focused models rooted in mutual accountability, sustainability, and locally driven solutions.

Shattered or transforming? The future is here

Despite the current turbulence, new paradigms are taking shape. Countries in the Global South are spearheading alternative models, driven by economic shifts, innovation imperatives, and growing disillusionment with traditional aid structures. China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the work of its International Development Cooperation Agency (CIDCA), along with broader cooperation between BRICS countries, are challenging Western hegemony in development aid. Meanwhile, alternative funding streams, such as remittances, private investments, foreign direct investments (FDI), and Islamic financing, have surpassed official development assistance (ODA) in many regions. More importantly, countries outside the West have mobilised independently on global concerns like climate, human rights, and peace, often pushing for stronger accountability within existing international frameworks.

Localisation, too, is gaining traction. Though initiatives like the 2016 Grand Bargain – an agreement between humanitarian donors and aid organisations aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of humanitarian action, with a strong focus on increasing the role of local organisations – and the 2018 Charter for Change – an initiative that intended to practically implement changes towards localization – have brought wider recognition to this trend, progress remains sluggish. For example, only one donor met the Grand Bargain commitment to target 25% of humanitarian assistance to local organisations, and only 5% of current humanitarian funding goes directly to local and national organisations,  as donors continue to prefer channelling funds through intermediary organisations. As a result, grassroots actors are increasingly calling for direct funding mechanisms to bypass bureaucracy and politically influenced donor pipelines.

The African Union’s 24th Extraordinary Session of the Executive Council responded to recent aid cuts by urging member states to invest more in domestic solutions. Ghana’s 2025 national budget already includes plans to offset health sector shortfalls caused by USAID cuts. A power shift is underway, but the question remains: Who will shape the next chapter of global solidarity?

Opportunities for a new order

As the world faces converging crises — climate change, economic disruption, and geopolitical instability, to name a few — building a more just and effective development model is more urgent than ever. Based on our areas of focus, we propose four key considerations to guide the future of global solidarity.

Putting people at the centre: True reform starts with localisation. Local actors ensure contextually informed solutions, promote enhanced sustainability, contribute to decolonising the sector and rebalancing power dynamics, and can be as much as 32% less costly than international actors.  To move forward, we must reorient systems to prioritise the experiences, aspirations, and priorities of those most affected by global crises. This demands not just funding reform, but also structural transformation in how programmes are designed, implemented, and evaluated.  To move forward, we must reorient systems to prioritise the experiences, aspirations, and priorities of those most affected by global crises. This demands not just funding reform, but structural transformation in how programmes are designed, implemented, and evaluated.

Redefining priorities across the ‘Global Majority’: The ‘Global Majority’, a term that refers to “people who are Black, Asian, Brown, dual-heritage, indigenous to the global south, and or have been racialised as ‘ethnic minorities’ […] approximately 80% of the world’s population” and that encompasses many African nations, must embrace collaborative governance and align national budgets with Sustainable Development Goals. By treating aid as a strategic partnership rather than a relationship of dependency, Global Majority countries can reclaim agency, strengthen regional cooperation, and drive a new era of self-determined and equitable growth.

Transforming crisis response—from linear to layered: Responding to complex crises requires us, policymakers and practitioners, to use systemic thinking in designing strategies. For example, evidence from the Global Displacement Forecast 2025 shows that peacebuilding investment reduces population displacement over time. Yet crisis response remains overly linear, often treating prevention, response, recovery, and development as separate realities. A more effective strategy requires policymakers to structurally rethink responses to crisis situations — namely, by planning for long-term solutions from the outset of crises and grounding response efforts in the lived realities of affected populations.

Reclaiming a rights-based approach to solidarity: Solidarity must be rooted in prioritising and protecting human rights. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the power of robust social protection systems. Yet, in 2024, nearly half the global population lacked access to social protection benefits despite its status as a recognised right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New efforts to foster collaboration on evidence-based social policies, such as the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty, offer hope. But moving forward requires more than rhetoric — rather, the moment calls for pragmatic reforms, integrated policy approaches, and a renewed commitment to closing the gap between international obligations and lived realities.

The recent changes to the multilateral order are not just a crisis; they represent a pivot point. If we choose to rise to the occasion, this could give rise to a reimagined global solidarity that is more inclusive, equitable, and ultimately sustainable.

Tags: international cooperation, Development