Inch International and correct movements in many countries are increasingly difficult to complicate international cooperation. This problem was also obvious at the 4th International Conference on Financing the Development of the United Nations last week at Seville in Spanish.
The conference of the conference with more than 50 heads of state and governments and more than 15,000 participants had central problems of financial policy: reform of international financial institutions, public debt, tax issues, regulation of financial markets, cooperation in the field of development and climate financing. The UN process for financing development also offers the worst and smaller states. Thus, the United Nations is different from other institutions and forums, such as the G20 or the organization of economic cooperation and development (OECD), in which issues of economic and financial policy are usually discussed at the international level.
The conference fell at a time when the deficiency of the current global financial architecture is especially obvious. Many countries in the world south suffer from excessive induction. This forces them to attract more and more shares of their state budgets to serve debt. This limits your possibilities for investment in sustainable economic development, climate adjustment, as well as educational and social systems. With inadequate tax systems and poor international cooperation, the states are losing huge tax revenues. At the same time, many poorest countries are currently suffering from large -scale abbreviations of cooperation in the field of development and humanitarian assistance. Not only the United States, but also countries such as the UK, the Netherlands and Germany significantly reduced their funds, even if they promised it.
The problems of the global financial system are also obvious in relation to private investment. Financial markets still support investments in fossil industries to a large extent, which further strengthens the climatic academy. In addition, private investors often reduce their capital from countries in the world during the crisis, since they believe that investments in these countries are less safe.
Sustainability requires changes not only in the global south, but also in rich countries
The final declaration of the conference in Seville, which arose against the background of these problems, is called “Compromiso de Seville.” “Compromiso” can be best translated as “promise” or “obligation”. German and English-speaking people will quickly think about the term “compromise”-acociation, which, perhaps, would be better to avoid if the conference should be considered a strong sign of far-reaching reforms.
Nevertheless, the final announcement is: a compromise. Measured by what is necessary to achieve the goals of the sustainable development of the United Nations, the agreement is far from sufficient. With many important issues, the article remains vague. Governments agree to “consider the“ new financial market rules ”and“ constructively participate ”in negotiations on the new tax convention of the UN. International organizations are repeatedly “invited” to rethink measures.
But low responsibility is not the only problem – the content of the final declaration also offers the cause of criticism. For example, in many places the document is committed to the development paradigm, which sees almost a panacea in private investments. The role of the state is primarily observed in stimulating private investments and increasing the attractiveness of investment projects with the targeted use of public funds to collect greater private capital. Nevertheless, the previous experience with such tools is cut off.
Similarly, the explanation does not sufficiently reflect that sustainable development requires global processes of changes in general – not exclusively in the global south, but also in rich countries. This affects both environmental issues and social problems, such as inequality and communication with refugees.
The US government did not agree
In the current geopolitical situation, the success is that we could accept a statement about the final in the global consensus. Only the US government did not agree to the declaration and in the end did not even go to the conference. In previous rounds of negotiations, US representatives fundamentally continued to interrogate positions that until recently considered a global consensus, for example, in terms of climatic crisis or gender justice.
The behavior of the United States shows how great the danger is for international cooperation, which comes from strong nationalist movements. In the end, right -wing radical parties are now also ahead of many European surveys. And even where such parties do not rule, foreign policy and development policy are increasingly focused on “national interests”.
The management of global problems together makes it much more complicated. Arguments aimed at global justice, protection of human rights, transnational solidarity, providing global public goods are unlikely to play a role more. The hope of combating global inequality and pollution of environmental crises, probably only if it manages to resist strong nationalist thinking.
