The Global South is forced to choose liars over children Education

The country claims that education is a universal right. His financial plan tells a different story.

andNew figures released by UNESCO it shows that 113 countries with a population of 6.1 billion now spend more on debt repayment than on educating their people. In low-income countries, loan payments are nearly four times the cost of education. In the 18 most indebted countries, governments spend five times more on debt than on education.

These are not just symptoms of the state’s financial crisis. They reveal the leading political leadership.

Borrowers have claims made by the government. Children have announcements, development goals and promises. If the two conflict, creditors are paid first.

The results are seen in overcrowded classrooms, dilapidated school buildings, teacher shortages, school fees and children dropping out of school early. But these results are often explained as a lack of funding or a failure of local leadership, as if the governments decided to ignore their schools.

The truth is, many governments are operating in a global financial system that severely restricts their options.

TheWorld Bank Reports that developing countries transferred $741bn more to their external debt and interest between 2022 and 2024 than they received in new money. This was the largest debt issue in at least 50 years. In 2024 alone, low and middle income countries paid $415bn in interest.

In other words, financial management often runs contrary to what is being offered by the language of development aid.

Poor countries are considered to be the beneficiaries of the generosity of the Europeans. But most of the public wealth flows from debtor countries to bondholders, commercial banks, multinationals and wealthy governments that lend.

Funds that could hire teachers, provide school meals or build classrooms instead are leaving the country.

This is wrong mainly because education is not something that the government spends. It is money that people can make in the future. Cutting them may make debt repayment easier today, but undermine productivity, human capital and public confidence tomorrow.

Credit agreements are viewed as bindings whose breach can lead to credit defaults, capital flight, legal proceedings and exclusion from financial markets. Freedom of education, in contrast, has no enforcement mechanism.

There is no rating agency that downgrades the creditor if the country cannot afford to train adequately. No financial penalty is imposed on borrowers when debt forces children to drop out of school. Markets don’t panic when grades fall.

This system punishes governments for defaulting on loans, not for defaulting children.

UNESCO has decided to expand the exchange of educational credits. Under this arrangement, the borrower cancels or refinances part of the national debt in order for the government to pay for joint education programs.

Such actions can bring benefits tangible benefits. The 2023 agreement with France enabled Ivory Coast to strengthen more than 30 schools in vulnerable areas. The German-Egyptian alliance helped feed schools and essential services, while the former Spain-Peru program provided funding for education in vulnerable areas.

These programs are beneficial. But they are not a solution to the big debt problem.

Debt swaps only account for a small portion of countries’ assets. They are negotiated on an optional basis, subject to the borrower’s approval and may add new components to the external analysis of household income. More importantly, they leave untouched the fact that creditors have the right to recover only if they voluntarily agree.

The question becomes how to encourage creditors to allow more education, rather than why creditor claims should be prioritized in the first place.

This question is very important because the educational support is decreasing. UNESCO projects that international aid for education could drop by 30 percent between 2023 and 2027.

Debtor countries are being squeezed on both sides: aid is withdrawn while debt continues to rise.

The popular view that developing countries need to accumulate domestic wealth is inadequate. Progressive taxation and reduced corruption. But additional funds will not change the education system if they are immediately converted to loans with high interest rates, or high costs due to the lack of funds.

And the problem cannot be solved by trying to make things more difficult. The education budget consists of periodic expenditures, mainly teacher salaries. When governments are advised to freeze the salaries of civil servants, they cannot solve the shortage of teachers or increase access, yet often international organizations declare that education is very important.

A major response could start with the cancellation of large debts of troubled countries, interest freezes during economic and climate crises, the provision of ultra-low-cost loans and other sovereign debt restructuring measures.

Currently, loan negotiations are divided between private lenders, bilateral lenders and international organizations. Debtor governments must negotiate with strong financial institutions as they try to avoid being penalized for seeking aid.

The construction policy of the United Nations on sovereign debt can establish shared rules, requiring both borrowers and lenders to act responsibly and prevent creditors from preventing restructuring. It would also make human rights more important in assessing a country’s ability to repay.

The world must come to the conclusion that debt repayment cannot come at any human cost. Debt doesn’t stop when you pay it off, it wants to destroy the institutions on which the future of society depends.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect Al Jazeera’s influence.