By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In Seville, Spain, a global assembly excluding the United States convened to address the widening disparity between affluent and impoverished nations, aiming to secure trillions of dollars for development initiatives. The four-day Financing for Development meeting, co-hosted by the U.N. and Spain, seeks to bridge a $4 trillion annual financing gap to combat poverty and achieve the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Despite the global economic uncertainty and geopolitical tensions, the conference hopes to ensure access to food, health care, education, and water for all. The U.S., however, rejected the outcome document and withdrew, citing concerns over the proposed reforms regarding international financial institutions, trade, tax, and innovation. The Seville Commitment document, approved by consensus, will be adopted by conference participants without changes.
Read the original article here
U.S. skips global UN Financing for Development conference aimed at raising trillions to combat poverty. This news, unfortunately, isn’t entirely surprising, but it’s still a letdown to see the United States, a global superpower, choosing to sit on the sidelines when the world is trying to tackle one of its most pressing issues: poverty. A conference in Spain, co-hosted by the UN, was the scene where many nations convened to discuss the daunting $4 trillion annual funding gap needed to eradicate poverty and achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. The United States, however, was notably absent, rejecting the preparatory outcome document and withdrawing its participation.
The irony isn’t lost on anyone, especially when considering the current political climate. The actions of some within the U.S. seem to be doing everything they can to exacerbate poverty, both domestically and globally. Attending a conference aimed at reducing poverty would, in this light, be a stark contradiction of their current strategies. The primary motive behind the skipping of the conference is because “MAGA” is doing everything they can to increase poverty in the U.S., and therefore would not attend a conference aimed at the opposite.
The rationale behind this stance, if one were to try and understand it, might involve a calculation that the U.S. can save money by not participating and that the benefits of global development are not worth the investment. While cutting costs may seem like a quick win, the long-term consequences of ignoring global poverty could be severe. Increased global migration, driven by instability and lack of opportunity, is one such consequence. By shirking its responsibilities, the U.S. risks creating a larger problem down the road.
The absence is particularly disappointing because it undermines the progress that can be made through international cooperation. The conference aimed to address critical issues like access to food, healthcare, education, and water for all people. The participation of over 70 world leaders, along with representatives from various financial institutions and organizations, highlights the global commitment to this endeavor. The United States’ choice to abstain sends a message that it is less concerned with the welfare of the poor, both at home and abroad. This stance flies directly in the face of the values many Americans claim to hold, particularly those who profess a belief in Christianity. The core tenets of this religion, with its emphasis on love, forgiveness, and care for the less fortunate, seem to be conveniently forgotten.
One could argue that reducing poverty around the world directly benefits the U.S. by creating more stable nations. Stable nations are less prone to conflict, which, in turn, reduces the flow of refugees and enhances global market stability. Moreover, a world with more people having the means to live comfortably translates to increased consumer spending, creating more opportunities for American businesses. The logic is straightforward: more people with money to spend translates to more demand for goods and services, benefiting American businesses and the economy.
The argument is presented that some in the current U.S. administration appear to have a disdain for the impoverished. Policies are implemented that, either intentionally or unintentionally, contribute to the growth of the destitute population both at home and abroad. This approach seems counterintuitive, especially since the U.S. has, in the past, been a leader in global development initiatives. Some of the policy is aimed at punishment of the poor, which creates a subservient and easily controlled labor force.
The implication is that the current administration’s priorities lie elsewhere, perhaps in catering to the wealthy and powerful, rather than addressing the needs of the underprivileged. Actions seem to suggest a philosophy of “poverty is for the poor”, and the motivation for the administration’s stance, as suggested, may be based on the idea that if there are ultimately less poor people as a result of ignoring them, then there’s more wealth in their own pockets.
This is where the current government views “woke” policies, which is anything with an emphasis on kindness or empathy. The irony is also emphasized here, since the party in question is often touted as the voice of moral values, which, in this context, appears to be an oxymoron.
Another key observation is that this stance isn’t necessarily in the best interests of American business. The U.S. has always benefited from its engagement in the global economy. Without the soft power that comes with working towards international goodwill, the U.S. could very well lose its place at the center of the global stage. This would only lead to harm. It seems that the current administration isn’t interested in supporting either of those things.