The UN’s Borrowers’ Forum, launched at the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in Sevilla on July 2, 2025, is a new mechanism aimed at addressing global debt challenges, particularly for developing countries.
What Is the Borrowers’ Forum?
The Borrowers’ Forum is a UN-backed initiative designed to give debt-distressed countries—mostly in the Global South—a platform to coordinate their actions and amplify their voices in the global financial system. It emerged as part of the “Compromiso de Sevilla,” a set of commitments adopted at FfD4, and is one of 11 recommendations from the UN Secretary-General’s Expert Group on Debt. Its stated goals include allowing countries to exchange knowledge on debt management, providing support to navigate complex debt restructuring, promoting responsible Lending/Borrowing through advocating for fairer standards in global finance, enabling borrower nations to counterbalance creditor-dominated systems like the Paris Club and supporting strategies like debt-for-nature or debt-for-climate swaps and payment suspension clauses for climate-vulnerable nations.
Sierra Leone Vice-President H.E. Dr. Mohamed Juldeh Jalloh
The Forum is framed as a response to a “silent but urgent” debt crisis, with developing nations facing high borrowing costs and limited influence in global financial decision-making. It’s positioned as a counterweight to institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and creditor groups, which critics argue favor Western interests. Egypt’s Minister of Planning and Economic Development, Rania Al-Mashat, called it a “real plan” for a shared voice, and Zambia’s Foreign Minister, Mulambo Haimbe, expressed interest in hosting an early meeting.
This initiative, backed by UNCTAD and the UN Secretary-General’s Expert Group on Debt, claims to promote “fairer global financial rules” and enhance representation for borrower countries, particularly developing nations. On the surface, it sounds like a noble effort to address debt distress and empower poorer nations. But peel back the layers, and it’s a trojan horse for centralized global control, undermining national sovereignty and fiscal responsibility. The Borrowers’ Forum is pitched as a platform for debtor nations to share knowledge and assert agency within the global financial architecture. It’s tied to the “Compromiso de Sevilla,” a UN-supported commitment to restructure how developing countries interact with international finance. The UN’s own materials emphasize reforming the global financial system to address “structural inefficiencies” and reduce borrowing costs, with UNCTAD positioning itself as a secretariat to guide this process. Sounds cooperative, right? But here’s the rub: this is the UN, an institution notorious for pushing agendas that erode national autonomy under the guise of global cooperation. The Forum is a mechanism to entrench supranational oversight, where unelected bureaucrats dictate terms to sovereign nations, all while claiming to champion fairness.
The global financial system—dominated by institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and now potentially this Forum—often punishes fiscal prudence and rewards dependency. Developing nations, many of which face debt distress due to mismanagement or corruption, are offered lifelines with strings attached: neoliberal reforms, austerity, or alignment with globalist priorities like climate agendas or digital IDs. The Forum’s focus on “responsible borrowing and lending” and “fiscal transparency” sounds like code for imposing one-size-fits-all policies that prioritize globalist goals over local needs. For instance, the Brookings Institution’s discussion of a “Borrowers’ Club” highlights its aim to integrate countries into a reformed financial architecture, which could mean more control for multilateral institutions and less for nations trying to chart their own economic paths.
I’m alarmed by the UN’s track record of using crises—debt, climate, or otherwise—to justify expanding its influence. The Forum’s roots in the UN’s broader push for a “new Bretton Woods moment” signal an ambition to overhaul global finance in ways that could marginalize nations resisting centralized authority. The UN’s own statements, like those from Secretary-General António Guterres, decry the current system as “outdated, dysfunctional, and unjust,” yet their solution isn’t to empower nations to stand on their own but to bind them tighter to global governance. This isn’t about fairness—it’s about control.
It’s about instituting the United Nations as the one Global Authority
From a finance perspective, the Forum’s promise to lower borrowing costs and improve debt management sounds appealing but ignores the root causes of debt crises: reckless spending, weak institutions, and external pressures from predatory lenders like China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the IMF and the World Bank. Instead of fostering self-reliance, the Forum intends trap nations in a cycle of dependency, where they trade sovereignty for temporary debt relief. The UN’s emphasis on “scaling up development and climate finance” also raises red flags—how much of this will funnel into green initiatives that prioritize globalist agendas over practical economic growth? And who decides what “responsible” borrowing looks like? Likely not the nations themselves, but technocrats in New York or Geneva.
Debt-for-Nature and Debt-for-Climate Swaps
Let’s zoom in for a moment on what they mean supporting strategies like debt-for-nature or debt-for-climate swaps and payment suspension clauses for climate-vulnerable nations. These swaps involve restructuring a country’s debt—often forgiving or reducing it—in exchange for commitments to environmental initiatives, like preserving forests, protecting biodiversity, or cutting carbon emissions. For example, a creditor might cancel $100 million in debt if a nation agrees to conserve a specific ecosystem or invest in renewable energy projects. The concept, rooted in 1980s conservation efforts and revitalized in recent climate talks, is championed by the UN and NGOs as a win-win: debt relief for green policies.
Globalist Climate Agenda and Sovereignty Erosion:
These swaps tie debt relief to externally imposed conditions, effectively allowing foreign creditors, NGOs, or multilateral bodies like the UN to dictate how a nation manages its natural resources or economic priorities. A country struggling with debt might be forced to prioritize a rainforest over building infrastructure or energy projects that could drive growth. This undermines self-determination, as unelected global entities—often from wealthy nations—call the shots. The focus on “climate” swaps aligns with the UN’s broader push for net-zero policies, is a pretext for centralizing power under the guise of environmentalism. These deals often come with strings attached, like adopting Paris Agreement targets or ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) frameworks, which can conflict with a nation’s immediate economic needs, like affordable fossil fuel development for energy security.
Economic Distortion and State Capture
Swaps divert resources from productive investments—like manufacturing or agriculture—toward projects that may have little local benefit. For instance, a debt-for-nature deal might preserve land for global biodiversity goals but restrict its use for farming, hurting local communities. The financial “relief” is often overstated, as the costs of implementing green projects can outweigh the debt reduction, leaving nations trapped in a cycle of dependency on external funding. And who oversees these swaps? Typically, it’s Western-dominated institutions like the World Bank, IMF, or NGOs with ties to globalist elites. These actors, not local governments, define what qualifies as a “climate” or “nature” priority, raising questions about whose interests are really served. The UN’s own reports, like those from UNCTAD, frame swaps as tools for “sustainable development,” but the term often masks top-down control.
Payment Suspension Clauses for Climate-Vulnerable Nations
These clauses allow debt-distressed countries deemed “climate-vulnerable” to pause debt repayments during environmental crises, like hurricanes or floods. The idea is to free up fiscal space for recovery without the immediate burden of servicing debt. The UN and World Bank promote these clauses as critical for nations facing rising climate risks, citing examples like small island states hit by natural disasters. But what qualifies as “climate-vulnerable”? The UN’s broad definitions—covering everything from storms to “economic shocks” tied to climate—open the door to subjective interpretations. This vagueness risks being weaponized by global institutions to pressure nations into compliance with climate policies. A country might be coerced into adopting green regulations to access these clauses, even if its immediate needs lie elsewhere, like rebuilding after a non-climate-related crisis. While pausing debt payments sounds helpful, it’s a temporary fix that doesn’t address structural issues like overborrowing or weak governance. These clauses often come with conditions, like signing onto multilateral frameworks or accepting technical assistance from the UN or IMF. This creates a cycle where nations trade short-term relief for long-term entanglement with globalist institutions, undermining their fiscal autonomy.
Climate as a Control Lever
The “climate-vulnerable” label as a tool for advancing a globalist narrative that paints climate change as the ultimate crisis justifying supranational intervention. By tying debt relief to climate events, the UN reinforces a worldview where national priorities—say, industrial growth or energy independence—take a backseat to global environmental goals. This risks punishing nations that prioritize affordable energy (like coal or oil) over unproven green tech. Creditors, often from so called wealthy nations, hold the upper hand in deciding when and how these clauses are triggered. A developing nation might face delays or bureaucratic hurdles to access relief, while being pressured to align with the creditor’s broader agenda.
The conservative, anti-globalist antidote is clear: nations must prioritize fiscal discipline, reduce reliance on foreign debt, and protect their economic sovereignty. The Borrowers’ Forum, with its UN backing and vague promises of reform, risks being another step toward a homogenized global financial system that stifles national priorities. If developing nations want real agency, they’d be better off rejecting top-down solutions and focusing on local reforms—stronger institutions, transparent governance, and economic policies that don’t kneel to globalist institutions. The UN’s vision of “fairness” often means everyone’s equally beholden to the same unaccountable elites. True financial independence comes from standing apart, not joining the club.
Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe
