By Naomi Myint Breuer
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 15 2025 – The latest data highlights that the world is off track to meet the targets set by the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) to achieve 90 percent global immunization coverage for essential childhood vaccines and halve the number of unvaccinated children by 2030.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) released the 2024 Estimates of National Immunization Coverage (WUENIC) on July 15, revealing both progress and challenges in global childhood immunization.

WUENIC, the world’s largest dataset on childhood immunization, reports on 16 antigens across 195 countries.

In 2024, 20 million children did not receive at least one dose of the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, a global marker for childhood immunization coverage. Of those children, 14.3 million received no vaccines at all. This is 4 million more than the 2024 target and 1.4 million more than in 2019, the IA2030 baseline year.

“We’ve hit this very stubborn glass ceiling, and breaking through that glass to protect more children against vaccine-preventable diseases is becoming more difficult,” Dr. Kate O’Brien, Director of the Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals at WHO, said at a July 14 press briefing.

Conflicts are much to blame for the difficulty in immunization. Children living in one of the 26 countries affected by fragility, conflict or humanitarian emergencies are three times more likely to be unvaccinated than those who live in stable countries. Half of unvaccinated children live in these 26 countries.

“These aren’t just numbers. They are real children in places like Sudan and Yemen, where instability makes vaccine delivery difficult,” Thanbani Maphosa, Managing Director of Country Programmes for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, said. “In these settings, reaching a charge can mean navigating danger, displacement and a fractured health system.”

However, the 14.3 zero-dose children is a reduction from the 2023 number of 14.4 zero-dose children, and 85 percent of infants in the world received three doses of the DTP in 2024, an increase of 1 million more from 2023.

“While that growth may sound modest, in each of these children, this means another child protected at the same time,” O’Brien said.

Through their Zero-Dose Immunization Program (ZIP), UNICEF and partners have vaccinated over 1 million children in conflict-affected regions of the Sahel and the Horn of Africa since 2023. In 2024, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, supported more children against more diseases than ever before.

“That is not just a statistic. It is a testament to the resilience and determination of countries,” Maphosa said.

Furthermore, two-thirds of countries have maintained at least 90 percent coverage of four key vaccines over the past five years.

WUENIC reports there is improving immunization against measles. First-dose coverage rose to 84 percent, with 1.7 million children vaccinated in 2024, while second-dose coverage increased from 74 percent in 2023 to 76 percent in 2024.

Still, 20 million children missed their first dose, and 12 million did not complete their second, leaving 30 million at risk for measles. 360,000 measles cases were confirmed globally in 2024, the highest number since 2019. The number of countries with large and disruptive measles outbreaks rose to 60, almost double the 2022 number.

The rise in cases is due to an accumulation of people who are unvaccinated since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Dr. Ephrem T. Lemango, Associate Director for Health and Global Chief of Immunization at UNICEF, warned that the progress made in 2024 is not enough to prevent measles outbreaks.

Lemango warned that even where national coverage rates appear high, disparities among districts put many disproportionately at risk. Measles outbreaks can only be prevented with 95 percent coverage with two measles vaccine doses in every community in every county.

Immunization efforts are challenged by fewer health facilities, workforce shortages, vaccine stockouts, and difficulties reaching remote communities, especially in areas affected by conflict or displacement. In high-income countries, immunization is challenged by decreased acceptance and vaccine hesitancy due to misinformation and distrust in institutions. Funding cuts are further putting children at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases. Nearly 50 countries have been disrupted by funding cuts.

“Misinformation and any forms of vaccine hesitancy are a reflection of a broader lack of trust or mistrust in the systems that deliver the vaccines, in the health workers that provide the vaccines, in the manufacturing facilities or ecosystem that manufactures the vaccines,” Lemango said.

Social media and the COVID-19 pandemic are largely to blame for disinformation and misinformation surrounding vaccines.

Lemango and O’Brien emphasized the importance of training health workers to address the questions and concerns of parents in regard to vaccinating their children and the critical role community leaders play in influencing public trust. O’Brien noted that a family’s local medical practitioner is the most influential voice in their decision to vaccinate their children.

“Political leaders, community leaders, religious leaders, and family leaders have a powerful influence on the choices that families make around the health of their children, and the voices of leaders can either reinforce trust or erode trust,” O’Brien said.

However, O’Brien emphasized that lack of access remains the primary barrier to immunization, rather than misinformation. Lemango noted that 95 percent of parents want their children to be vaccinated.

An area of notable progress is HPV vaccination. 43 million girls were vaccinated against HPV in 2024, setting the world on track to reach 86 million adolescents by the end of 2025. 60 million girls are now protected against cervical cancer, more than in any previous decade.

He noted that many countries are committing record levels of domestic financing to immunization, but a funding gap persists. Of the USD 11.9 billion needed to achieve their goals, only USD 9 billion has been raised.

Maphosa noted that millions of children are still not being reached and there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution. Lemango called on governments, partners and communities to close funding gaps, serve fragile or conflict-affected communities and address misinformation.

Maphosa emphasized the urgency of the situation, given a global rise in conflict, fragility and population. “Vaccines have never been more important and urgent than they are now,” he said.

He added that countries and organizations must work together to close the immunization gap so that every child is protected.

“That’s the promise of immunization,” he said. “One of the best tools the world has to ensure health, security and prosperity. And with continued commitment and continued investment, it’s a promise we can keep.”

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jul 15 2025 – Trump’s billionaire cronies want more monopoly profits, not competition. With more policies crafted for them, wealth concentration is set to become greater than ever.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Neoliberalism?
There is no clear consensus on what neoliberal economics stands for now. Many who claim to be liberal economists have different, even contradictory views.

Some demand market competition and oppose monopolies and oligopolies. For others, property rights are crucial, typically strengthening monopoly rights.

Many avowed neoliberals deemphasise competition and hesitate to insist on antitrust action or opposition to abuses of market power.

Property rights confer monopoly or exclusive ownership rights to an asset, typically denying access to others except for payment. Many such rights are recent.

While UK Prime Minister from 1979, Margaret Thatcher triggered a worldwide neoliberal economic counter-revolution, especially in the Anglosphere.

With generally more limited public ownership, the US economy has long been more ‘private’, offering little scope for privatisation.

Tech Big Bro
PayPal and Palantir founder Peter Thiel is the most influential of the so-called ‘tech bros’ supporting re-elected US President Donald Trump.

Thiel was the two-term president’s biggest funder for his unexpectedly successful 2016 campaign. As former boss, funder and mentor, he is now Vice President JD Vance’s godfather.

In 2014, Thiel’s ‘Competition is for Losers’ established him as the lead apologist for lucrative rentier monopolies, especially those invoking intellectual property rights (IPRs).

Thiel noted ‘perfect competition’ is “both the ideal and the default state in Economics 101”. In textbooks, firms in competitive markets are presumed to be similar, selling the same goods.

Hence, they have no ‘market power’ and must sell at market-determined prices. When demand rises, firms invest to increase supply, reducing prices and profits.

In mainstream economics, there can be no economic rent under perfect competition. But prices can be raised more easily in cornered markets.

Buyers will then have no other source to buy from. Without competition, monopolies can maximise profits by controlling market supplies and prices.

Hence, profit maximisation involves capturing more rents in monopolistic conditions. To become richer, firms eschew competition in favour of monopoly.

Government role contradictory
Tech ‘Big Brother’ Thiel notes, “To an economist, every monopoly looks the same, whether it deviously eliminates rivals, secures a license from the state or innovates its way to the top.”

The state’s role is contradictory as government “works hard to create monopolies (by granting patents to new inventions)” while enforcing antitrust law to undermine them.

Thiel claims to be uninterested in “illegal bullies or government favorites”, but surely knows governments create and sustain the monopolies he so cherishes.

He notes that “Americans mythologize competition and credit it with saving us from socialist bread lines”. But for him, “capitalism and competition are opposites”.

“Capitalism is premised on the accumulation of capital, but under perfect competition, all profits get competed away.”

The advocate of monopoly claims monopolists are “incentivized to bend the truth” and to “lie to protect themselves … [from] … being audited, scrutinized and attacked”.

Thiel unabashedly acknowledges that rentiers have every incentive to protect, disguise and “conceal their monopoly” and incomes.

Instead, the billionaire rentier wants monopoly powers and profits to grow faster without being taxed or having to share.

Monopoly best for capitalism?
Thiel acknowledges that monopolists accumulate rents in a static world.

But he insists they “invent new and better things … Creative monopolies aren’t just good for the rest of society; they’re powerful engines for making it better.”

He insists a monopoly is “so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute”. For him, “the history of progress is a history of better monopoly businesses replacing incumbents”.

The tech billionaire insists decades of monopoly profits provide a powerful incentive to innovate. Thus, monopolies continue to drive progress.

He denounces mainstream neoliberal economists as “obsessed with competition as an ideal state? It is a relic of history … Their theories describe … perfect competition because that is what’s easy to model.”

“In the real world outside economic theory, every business is successful exactly to the extent that it does something others cannot … Monopoly is the condition of every successful business.”

Monopolies thrive under Trump
Unsurprisingly, many supposed neoliberals today stress property rights while ignoring liberal economics’ claim to promote competition.

Competition is dismissed as 19th-century economic liberalism. Meanwhile, contemporary monopoly capitalism accelerates wealth and income concentration.

But Thiel exaggerates monopolies’ contribution to human progress, capitalist dynamism and innovation, while understating their considerable harms.

With the tech bros increasingly supporting the president, Trump 2.0 promises to further enrich rentiers, especially those of their ilk.

His selective Liberation Day tariffs and other policies, especially his new ‘big beautiful bill’, will significantly increase, not reduce, US government debt while deepening American fiscal inequities.

As US tariffs, wars and other distractions preoccupy the world, unwitting MAGA loyalists remain loyal to Trump and his billionaire rentiers’ ‘counter-revolution’.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Bhumika Muchhala
NEW YORK, Jul 15 2025 – The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) took place in Seville, Spain from 30th June to 3rd July amidst intensifying attacks on multilateralism, unprecedented cuts to global aid and development financing, and regression of decades of progress in the fight against poverty.

Participants at the once-a-decade United Nations (UN) conference included 70 heads of states, over 1,000 civil society leaders, and over 400 policymakers from governments around the world, who engaged in over 100 panel events and 50 protest actions.

Importantly, civil society actors experienced an unprecedented wave of restrictions and lack of access, from difficulties obtaining accreditations, discriminatory profiling, chilling of freedom of speech, and exclusion from key negotiations.

This left many advocates, including those who had followed the FfD4 negotiations closely, to organize a protest at the conference’s venue on its final day.

However, the outcome document, or Compromiso de Sevilla, was adopted weeks ago by consensus of UN member states on 17th June in New York, making this fourth conference the first where an outcome document was agreed before the Conference began. This was lamented by many participants as rendering the conference itself a purely symbolic event, without the final negotiations taking place.

The adoption of the text was marked by the official withdrawal of the U.S. who stated a refusal to participate in Sevilla, who waited to withdraw until almost a year of intergovernmental negotiations had concluded.

The role of the US in the negotiations has been publicly reported, in terms of aggressively blocking and requesting deletions across entire paragraphs of the seven themes of FfD, that of domestic public resources, international development cooperation, private finance, sovereign debt, systemic issues, science and technology, and follow-up and monitoring.

Also, driving the race to the bottom during the negotiations was the European Union and other developed country delegations such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and the U.K. The aggregate effect inflicted dilutions, distortions, and erasure of global economic governance milestones and actionable commitments into a reaffirmation of the status quo, with many critics arguing that the Compromiso de Sevilla shows little shift, or even backsliding, from the previous three FfD outcome documents in 2015 (Addis Ababa Action Agenda), 2008 (Doha Declaration) and 2002 (Monterrey Consensus).

In fact, lost in the sweeping tide of attention that private financing, and in particular blended finance and incentivizing institutional investors, received at the Seville conference, is the political genealogy and systemic origins of FfD.

Its roots are in the collective initiative of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in the late 1990s to address the systemic asymmetries that characterize the international financial architecture, resulting in the boom-bust financial crises experienced by the global South through 1980s and 1990s.

The nations of NAM called for a multilateral process that would generate action towards reforms that expand policy and fiscal space for structural transformation toward economic, monetary and financial sovereignty in the South. The 2002 Monterrey Consensus argued that the systemic drivers of global inequalities between nations and regions cannot be resolved on the national terrain alone—international cooperation and democratic global economic governance is critical.

Specifically, these systemic drivers refer to the key pillars of the international financial architecture: the international currency hierarchy marked by US dollar hegemony—or the scaffolding of unequal economic exchange, deregulated capital flows, market-based exchange rates, financial speculation and dependency, chronic sovereign debt distress, and a trade architecture defined by extractive, value-chain dependent and low-value-added production structures that are the legacy of colonialism.

Debt Battleground

At a time when debt servicing costs across the global South have reached a historic high of $1.4 trillion in 2023 (principal plus interest), public budgets are being eviscerated, the SDGs derailed, and climate action rendered into a fiscal impossibility. In this looming context, FfD4 fell far short on delivering meaningful reform of the outdated and imbalanced global debt architecture.

While the first iteration of outcome document, The Elements Paper, issued on 24 November 2024, included proposals for a new multilateral sovereign debt resolution framework for fair, binding, and effective crisis prevention and burden sharing.

At the heart of the debacle of sovereign debt is the absence of a sovereign debt crisis resolution mechanism. Meanwhile, the creditor profile has shifted over the decades from predominantly official creditors to a five-fold increase in private creditors, who not only refuse to participate in equitable debt restructuring but also impose high and variable interest rates, creating a crisis in the cost of capital for sovereign borrowers.

The historical context of the post-war regime of international crisis management governed by international financial institutions (IFIs) conditions continued market access and international financial legitimacy on both the uniformity and continuity of debt servicing. In turn, the means of debt repayment are enforced through austerity measures which has for decades eroded social equity, economic resilience, and the delivery of public services and systems across the global South.

During the FfD4 negotiations, the Association of Small Island Developing States, the Africa Group, and countries like Cuba, Brazil, and Pakistan called for the creation of a UN Framework Convention on Debt. Indeed, external debt payments by many countries far exceed aid and other financial transfers, or public expenditures on essential public services like health and education, generating both a net outflow of financial resources from South to North while simultaneously eroding economic development, social equity, and well-being.

Supported and campaigned for by global civil society, the framework would encompass a global consensus on the rules, principles, and structures of the various stages of the debt cycle. By locating deliberations in the UN General Assembly’s one-state-one -vote system, member states argued the Convention would facilitate the fairness and transparency of debt resolution mechanisms and civil society advocates clarified that it would democratize the global debt architecture from exclusive and creditor-dominated G20 and IMF forums.

However, the staunch opposition of most creditor countries, in particular the US and EU, led to the deletion of the Convention language and an insistence on relegating debt issues to the Group of 20 (G20) Common Framework. Critics in civil society and academia have consistently argued that the G20 status quo has failed to resolve debt distress and create fiscal space, is unable to ensure equitable participation of private creditors (e.g. comparability of treatment), enables a lack of transparency in debt contracts, and blocks rules on responsible lending and borrowing, for example.

Unsurprisingly, debt crises are reproduced while any resulting fiscal space is funneled into paying off private creditors, generating a ‘kicking the can down the road’ scenario that simply extends debt purgatory. The final debt architecture agreement in paragraph 50(f) states that member states “… will initiate an intergovernmental process at the UN, with a view to closing gaps in the debt architecture and exploring options to address debt sustainability, including but not limited to a multilateral sovereign debt mechanism.

While an intergovernmental process is included its function is limited to “making recommendations,” fundamentally weakening the mandate of member states to take meaningful action on debt.

Reign of Private Finance

In the dozens of speeches made and hundreds of events held in Seville, it was impossible not to notice the aggressive promotion—and normative consensus—of private financing, proffered as a monolithic answer to narrow the estimated $4.3 trillion financing gap in the South.

The derisking development model, replete with its constellation of mechanisms such as blended finance and guarantees, dominated FfD4 with a laser focus on how private capital can be incentivized by the global South through the use of securitization, or the bundling of individual project loans into vehicles that can be bought by financial funds.

Buttressed by over a decade of the ‘Billions to Trillions’ narrative authored by the World Bank and the UN ecosystem, the idea asserts, with brazen decisiveness, that scarce public resources in the global South will always fall short of ever-growing development and climate financing needs and thus, private (and profit-seeking) capital is indispensable.

The seemingly logical resolution to this depoliticized reality becomes a quid pro quo: fiscal gaps can only be closed by attracting Wall Street (e.g. investment banks, asset managers, insurers, pension and private equity funds, among others) to invest in development, infrastructure, and green projects.

Commitments to private capital mobilization run rife across the Compromiso de Sevilla text. For example, scaling up private financing from “public sources by 2030 by strengthening the use of risk-sharing and blended finance instruments, such as first-loss capital, guarantees, local currency financing, and foreign exchange risk instruments, taking into account national circumstances” is highlighted.

In turn, such a scaling up requires “an enabling policy environment which facilitates private investment in agriculture and food systems, and the role that public investments can play in incentivizing and derisking private investments.” To realize this, member states are encouraged to “strategically attract foreign development investment, including from institutional investors.

However, the ‘billions to trillions’ aim of activating the supposed spigot of private cash has been recently exposed by multiple sources as a myth. A Financial Times article titled, “The magic pony of private finance fails to fund the global green transition,” revealed that only 10 per cent of private financing went to global South nations.

The ratio of private to public capital has struggled to rise above 1:1, and institutional investors like pension funds are notable by their almost total absence. Furthermore, number-crunching from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that every dollar of multilateral investment activated merely 30 cents of private investment.

Simply put, trillions are not manifesting. One explanation is that the scale of profits expected by financiers cannot be delivered with public goods and services investments; they two are inherently contradictory in nature.

Two fundamental issues persist.

First, rather than galvanizing new heights of financing, private creditors are in reality responsible for net outflows of financial resources from developing countries and into their own coffers. Indeed, the World Bank discloses that since 2022, “foreign private creditors have extracted nearly US$141 billion more in debt service payments from public sector borrowers in developing economies than they disbursed in new financing … this withdrawal has upended the financing landscape for development.”

And second, structural, institutional, and political changes to address fiscal space, such as redressing tax evasion and avoidance, fiscal restraint rules, constraints on public money creation, economic diversification, and technology transfer, for example, are conveniently elided.

Survival of the Systemic?

The integral focus of the Monterrey Consensus in addressing the need for international monetary cooperation, recurrent financial crises, vulnerabilities to exogenous shocks, and adverse spillovers of rich country policies across the global South has essentially evaporated from FfD discourse and text.

In a text that supposedly addresses the international financial architecture, it is shocking that there is no meaningful reference to the international monetary system, nor to central banks, the core institution of national money creation. Indeed, the 4th FfD text presents the sharpest regression of systemic issues across the four FfD texts produced over 23 years, despite the recent experience of the COVID pandemic and current debt crisis exposing the systemic fault lines of a global financial architecture designed to extract rather than provide.

However, one key deliverable is offered in the outcome document, that of addressing the inordinate power of Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) in determining the cost of capital in the global South and the central role they play in both debt and climate crises.

Paragraph 55 states a decision to “establish a recurring special high-level meeting on credit ratings under the auspices of ECOSOC for dialogue among Member States, credit rating agencies, regulators, standard setters, long-term investors, and public institutions that publish independent debt sustainability analysis.”

While this falls short of proposals to establish an intergovernmental commission to regulate CRAs for the objective of producing accurate, objective, and long-term oriented credit ratings, it is a potential step forward in bringing CRAs into global economic governance.

There is widespread agreement by UN member states on the urgency for multilateral oversight on the oligopoly of three central CRAs, that of Moody’s, Standard and Poor, and Fitch, with attention to their multiple dysfunctionalities.

Recent pandemic and debt crises have exposed challenges, from a developing country perspective, in terms of bias and pro-cyclicality in ratings, conflicts of interest, and penalization of debt, climate and social vulnerabilities.

Beyond the inadequacy of CRAs rating methodologies and bias in implementation that undermine developing countries’ access to capital markets and increase their borrowing costs by inflating risk premiums, advocates for financial regulation have asserted that CRA regulation must include the establishment of multilateral, public, and independent rating agencies, promoting competition to avoid quasi-monopolistic market dynamics.

The spotlight on CRAs has the potential to hold financial power to account, however, it will depend on the ability of member state voices and proposals to set the agenda forward, rather than that of CRAs and other financial actors.

Given the colossal challenges in development financing at a time of global authoritarianism, war and conflict, and the spectre of ‘post-aid international development,’ what are the possibilities of democratizing global economic governance? The right to development, inclusive dignity, historical equity, and the political economy of inequality will require grappling with old and new forms of power.

One thing is certain. The way forward must hold steadfast to the aspiration and vision of a fair, equitable, and effective financial architecture that works for the majority.

Bhumika Muchhala is Senior Advisor, Third World Network and Adjunct Professor, The New School.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);