This phrase is almost always followed by another sentence, one that affirms those who have very little will lose even the little they have. Some authors interpret “to those who have” as a reference to moral wealth and universal commitment—religious in tone, as it is said that Jesus once uttered it somewhere. But many of us do not share this interpretation.
Be that as it may, the phrase is useful to link the critical position of poorer countries and their demands in contrast with the (so-called) willingness of richer nations to address them. A quick look at the headlines confirms we are facing a humanitarian aid crisis. As the Elcano Royal Institute points out: “greater transparency is needed in defining what constitutes development aid and what does not, including its objectives and modalities (ranging from solidarity to the promotion of investment).” That is the crux of the matter: if solidarity with outsiders is not understood, how will investment promotion be accepted—particularly when it may generate future dependencies? Global agreements will be required, and these are always difficult to reach and often go unfulfilled. That is why, alongside the signing of any commitment, a stronger monitoring framework and an essential mechanism for accountability will be needed.
The same article warns that development aid is at risk—we would first need to agree on what “development” means, but that’s for another article. The arrival of Mr. Trump on the international stage has brought a sharp drop in U.S. funding to USAID (United States Agency for International Development). The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), previously almost independent, has also been severely weakened. The bad example spread like wildfire. Major donors within the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) are now considering slashing their foreign aid budgets. This is no small matter: they’re contemplating two-thirds cuts. These countries were once models of solidarity: the Netherlands, Finland, France, the UK, Switzerland, and Germany. The OECD provides a stark warning: “official development assistance (ODA) fell by 7.1% in real terms in 2024 after five consecutive years of growth.”
Let us all—leaders and citizens alike—remember that international aid saves lives. A recent article published in The Lancet confirms this. It highlights the positive role of USAID, which helped save 91 million lives between 2001 and 2021. In fact, the U.S. previously provided over 40% of global humanitarian funding. However, projections suggest that if the announced budget cuts persist through 2030, more than 14 million additional deaths could occur. These figures include over 4.5 million children under the age of five, representing a shameful and tragic figure of around 700,000 additional child deaths per year. Hence the alarm expressed by all major humanitarian organizations (UNICEF, Save the Children, Oxfam, Red Cross, Caritas International, UNEP, UNESCO, the UN, etc.). Spain remains formally committed, though it seems that funding is somehow being withheld. Here is where the second part of the title’s phrase comes into play: to those who have little, even that shall be taken away—temporarily or permanently.
No one doubts the battle, declared following the rise of the far right, over aid management to the least privileged in various countries and some governments. They despise the “other,” whether individual or nation. A recent outburst by a representative of the Spanish far right—who wants to erase, in one fell swoop, the eight million people unborn in Spain or children of foreigners—points to a ruthless notion of racial purity, coupled with hatred based on skin color or religion. It evokes catastrophic historical experiences across the globe. In Europe, nothing comparable had been seen—except for the events in the former Yugoslavia—since WWII. How can the idea of “de-migration” be entertained in 2025? They sugarcoat it with the sinister term “re-migration.” That woman, and those who echo her, must be told that besides being a moral outrage, her proposal would lead to economic disaster. If this weren’t so serious—and broadcast by respectable Spanish and European media—we might think it came from The Onion. Tomorrow’s reality. Similarly, Mr. Trump—now the oracle of lies and racism for many—has used identical rhetoric. And not just in the U.S., but in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark… countries that used to be solidarity’s champions. Worse still, this anti-humanitarian domino effect is set to corrode global relations with unprecedented consequences. And what to say of Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza?
To confront this grave issue and redress the lack of compliance, a conference was held in Bonn last June. Its goal was to reinterpret the framework of protection concerning climate change, a clear case of global inequality in how it affects people. One of the most debated topics was the slow, cumbersome, and convoluted accreditation process toward the green transition, which limits the impact of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) on the ground. Some ethically-driven voices proposed a novel idea that would not be excessively burdensome for those with vast wealth, based on one essential premise: “There is no climate finance gap, only a fiscal sovereignty gap.” According to Tax Justice Network, if governments were to implement a modest 0.5% wealth tax, around €2.6 trillion in additional annual revenue could be raised. This sum would more than cover global climate finance needs and even leave a surplus for healthcare, education, and green jobs at the national level. Then, to those who have not, something would be given.
At the Bonn summit, poor countries accused rich ones of shirking their responsibilities, nearly causing a diplomatic breakdown—evidently, rich nations do not like seeing themselves reflected in the mirror of global poverty. But can anyone reasonably doubt, given current data, that climate change has been accelerated by the lifestyles and market-driven production patterns of wealthy countries? We must act accordingly: cast aside ambiguity, focus on what truly matters, and begin the necessary transitions now. We cannot afford further delay.
The UN recently convened the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville. Housing was a central topic. The Executive Director of UN-Habitat, economist Anacláudia Rossbach, warned that 1 billion people live in informal settlements and almost 2 billion lack access to clean water. The conference’s final document underscored a renewed “commitment to multilateralism and global cooperation.” It emphasized the need for unified solutions that reaffirm the promises made in Addis Ababa a decade ago and reawaken hope for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. A declaration of intent: to show that multilateral cooperation still matters—and can still work.
Understanding and overcoming the humanitarian aid crisis is essential and would benefit everyone, even if the rich fail to realize it. Coinciding with the Seville summit’s closing, Diego López Garrido, Director of Fundación Alternativas, wrote in elDiario.es that “two out of every five people on the planet are trapped in unsustainable debt and are waiting for solidarity from the rest. This is not merely a financial problem. It is a matter of humanity’s rights.” He warned that nearly 3.4 billion people live in countries that spend more on debt interest than on education or healthcare. How can they move forward from there? He explained that this debt strangles so-called developing nations—to those who have little, even that is denied—making it impossible for them to rise from social hardship. Their development is stalled by debts owed to Western capital—to those who have much, more will be given. The article outlines several actions to reverse this crisis to humane levels. We offer a simple one: debt forgiveness—partial or total—for some nations. To inspire belief again in universal justice.
UNHCR constantly reminds us: wherever poverty is seen, solidarity must follow immediately. Humanity needs something to believe in. This should be framed as part of the Universal Human Rights. We would like to end by proposing a new motto:
Those who have much will give enough—little for them—so that those who have little—much for them—may rise above the inequality they endure.
Carmelo Marcén Albero
is an ecosocial researcher and contributor to Fundación Alternativas.
