Africa

A fraud and corruption case against Kwesi Nyantakyi, the former president of the Ghana Football Association, is dropped after a complex five-year legal battle.

A fraud and corruption case against Kwesi Nyantekyi, the former president of the Ghana Football Association, is dropped after a complex five-year legal battle.

The chief of defence staff was among those who were prevented from travelling to an official event.

Egyptian fencer Nada Hafez says it is important to tell women "your body can surprise you" after competing at the Paris Olympics while seven months pregnant.

Egyptian fencer Nada Hafez says it is important to tell women "your body can surprise you" after competing at the Paris Olympics while seven months pregnant.

Egyptian fencer Nada Hafez says it is important to tell women "your body can surprise you" after competing at the Paris Olympics while seven months pregnant.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are off track. Decades of progress on poverty and hunger have stalled, and in some cases, been thrown into reverse. Many developing economies are mired in debt, with financing challenges preventing the urgently needed investment push in the SDGs, according to the United Nations. But amid these challenges there lies opportunity. The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) – 30 June to 3 July 2025--provides a unique opportunity to reform financing at all levels, including to support reform of the international financial architecture. Credit: United Nations

By Annika Otterstedt and Luca De Fraia
STOCKHOLM Sweden / MILAN, Italy, Feb 14 2025 (IPS)

When world leaders gather in Seville for the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in June, they will be meeting at a pivotal moment: one defined by mounting systemic risks, a multiplication of crises, and proliferation and fragmentation of development co-operation actors and funds.

International development co-operation is also threatened by the ongoing erosion of funding, including through unilateral decisions of unparalleled magnitude. While momentum for reform and transformative change to the financial and development architecture is growing, it is crucial not to lose sight of the fundamentals.

To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), increases in the quantity of development financing, be it official development assistance (ODA), private finance, or South-South co-operation, must be complemented with boosting the quality of all types of financing so that they are delivered and used in the most effective way.

Credit: Nuthawut Somsuk

Efforts to increase the quality of financing are embodied by the development effectiveness agenda and its internationally agreed principles: country ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships, and transparency and mutual accountability. The principles are tried and tested, and more relevant than ever.

They build on and reflect decades of global experience and are increasingly crucial for addressing the challenges that characterize today’s development co-operation landscape, such as fragmentation and misalignment with country priorities. They are also key for mobilising different types of finance from a growing array of development partners and partnerships.

Yet, as the development landscape has increased in complexity in the years after the 2015 Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the systematic focus on development effectiveness at country level has not been adequately integrated into country ecosystems and ambitions. For instance, Integrated National Finance Framework (INFF) processes could be better utilized as opportunities to talk about development effectiveness.

As Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, we believe that development effectiveness is essential to mobilising financing for sustainable development, across all types of international co-operation for development. The FfD4 Outcome Document must clearly stress this point.

A stronger, more systematic focus on the benefits of development effectiveness – and on addressing the bottlenecks and trade-offs that hinder progress on the 2030 Agenda and SDGs – is essential to reinstate trust, increase financing for development, and achieve long-term positive impacts.

The four principles of effective development co-operation remain the core enablers of development effectiveness. We welcome the focus of the recently released FfD4 Zero Draft Outcome Document on country leadership, coherence, and mutual accountability, but reiterate the need to uphold past commitments originating from the long-lasting aid effectiveness and development effectiveness processes.

It is important for the Outcome Document to stress the continued validity and intertwined nature of the four effectiveness principles, including the role of inclusive partnerships and of civil society organizations in particular.

The involvement of all stakeholders – partner countries, development partners, the private sector, civil society, parliamentarians, philanthropies, and trade unions – remains central to the effectiveness agenda. It is also important to focus on the effectiveness of partnerships with the private sector, in particular by creating enabling environments for a local private sector to thrive, an area monitored by the Global Partnership through the Kampala Principles Assessment.

Effective private sector partnerships are key for ensuring transparency and accountability and for combatting corruption. A whole-of-society approach is key to achieving true country ownership, which has emerged as a central theme in the FfD4 negotiations.

How can the Global Partnership and development effectiveness contribute to FfD4 and its follow-up?

First, the Global Partnership Monitoring Exercise provides evidence to inform how development actors can improve their policies, practices and partnerships, insights into progress in implementing the agreed effectiveness commitments, as well as opportunities for learning, dialogue and sharing of experiences on emerging effectiveness challenges.

The monitoring is a partner-country led tool holding development stakeholders to account for their implementation of the commitments, and a starting point for concrete action and behaviour change. Since 2011, 103 partner countries have led the monitoring exercise one or more times in collaboration with over 100 development partners and other actors. The ongoing global monitoring round will bring new evidence into the discussions on effectiveness, including in the lead-up and follow-up to FfD4.

(Read preliminary observations from the first 11 countries to complete data collection: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nepal, the Philippines, Uganda, Yemen and Zambia).

The fresh insights from the monitoring round are one important source of evidence which will feed into country-led multi-stakeholder action for how to enhance effectiveness.

Second, the Global Partnership’s 4th High-Level Meeting (HLM4) in 2026, where the monitoring results will be presented, is the next crucial moment after FfD4 to take stock of development effectiveness, accelerate progress, drive accountability, and inform policy dialogue on international development co-operation trends.

We invite all development stakeholders to contribute to HLM4, and to act on the dilemmas, tensions and trade-offs we are all facing to expedite delivery of the 2030 Agenda. Strengthening and streamlining the development co-operation architecture must be a collaborative, inclusive process.

The Global Partnership offers a proven, multi-stakeholder platform to ensure that all voices are heard in shaping the future of development co-operation.

We invite you to join forces with us: raise the profile of development effectiveness in the lead-up and follow-up to FfD4, and use the monitoring findings for learning, dialogue and action at country level.

Recognizing that development effectiveness is a key enabler for sustainable development by 2030 (and beyond) and fully embracing and recognizing the effectiveness principles in their integrity, is a prerequisite for an impactful and action-oriented outcome at FfD4.

Annika Otterstedt is Assistant Director General, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and Luca De Fraia is Co-Chair, CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness.

Annika Otterstedt and Luca De Fraia are also Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation.

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');  

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.

Delcat Idengo, well-known for his songs critical of all sides in the fighting, died in Goma.

The UN General Assembly votes to suspend the rights of the membership of the Russian Federation in the Human Rights Council during an Emergency Special Session on Ukraine. April 2022. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 14 2025 (IPS)

When some of the world’s “authoritarian and repressive regimes” were elected as members of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) –including Cuba, China, Russia, Kazakhstan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) — a US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher infamously remarked: “The inmates have taken over the asylum, I don’t plan to give the lunatics any more American tax dollars to play with.”

That remark brought back memories of a 1975 award-winning Hollywood classic “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, with Jack Nicholson as a rebellious patient causing havoc at a US mental institution while leading a group of protesting inmates.

And last week, the US decided, metaphorically speaking, to fly over the cuckoo’s nest—and withdraw from the Geneva-based 47-member Human Rights Council.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115782

Dr. Simon Adams, President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture, told IPS the Human Rights Council and all United Nations bodies are better and stronger with the United States being actively engaged.

“Any state withdrawing from the HRC only encourages the dictators, torturers, and human rights abusers of the world. At this moment in history, with creeping authoritarianism and human rights under attack in so many parts of the world, the Human Rights Council remains indispensable,” he added.

UN Human Rights Council in session in Geneva. Credit: UN Photo/Elma Okic

Ambassador A.L.A. Azeez, a foreign policy commentator, who previously served as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, told IPS the United States’ withdrawal from the UNHRC is a counterproductive move that harms both US interests and the global cause of human rights.

This departure from a critical multilateral institution is unlikely to achieve transformative change within the council. It never happened with its previous withdrawals, nor may it happen now, with the current one, he pointed out.

What does it achieve then?

“It removes the US’s opportunity to engage constructively with members and stakeholders, contributing to the strengthening of human rights multilateralism. By exiting, the US forfeits its ability to shape the narrative, push for necessary reforms, and advocate for its values”.

Human rights multilateralism, he argued, depends on the engagement and collaboration of diverse nations. Not one state or a small group of states alone however influential they are!”

This withdrawal amounts to an abdication of shared responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights. It risks signaling a diminished US commitment to human rights, potentially eroding the international human rights system and damaging whatever credibility and moral authority the US has on the world stage, said Ambassador Azeez.

Periodic withdrawals from international bodies like the UNHRC severely damage the US’s image as a steadfast defender of human rights and multilateralism. The US cannot afford to project an image of selective engagement, perceived as contingent on the council’s alignment with US views.

This erosion of credibility hinders the US’s ability to lead by example and effectively champion human rights.

The primary motivation for the withdrawal seems to be concerns about bias against a close US ally in the Middle East. While such concerns are often expressed, is exiting the council the best solution? A more constructive approach would be to remain engaged and work to address perceived concerns from within.

While strategic calculations may drive the idea of disengagement from multilateral bodies, the era of unipolarity is over. Multilateralism must reassert itself, acting as a mediating force among competing geopolitical interests. The importance of remaining engaged in multilateral human rights efforts and driving meaningful change from within cannot be overstated, declared Ambassador Azeez.

Responding to a question at the UN press briefing February 4, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said: “It doesn’t alter our position on the importance of the Human Rights Council as part of the overall human rights architecture within the United Nations,” he said.

“And on UNRWA, I’m not sure that’s something that’s very new. I mean, and again, it doesn’t alter our commitment to supporting UNRWA in its work, and in its work of delivering critical services to Palestinians under its mandate,” said Dujarric.

Amanda Klasing, National Director, Government Relations & Advocacy with Amnesty International USA, said announcing that the United States is withdrawing from the Human Rights Council when it is not even a sitting member, is just the latest move by President Trump to demonstrate to the world his complete and blatant disregard for human rights and international cooperation — even if it weakens U.S. interests.

“Our world needs multilateral cooperation around shared interests, especially the protection of human rights. International institutions will continue to function, either with the U.S. or without it, but it seems that President Trump is uninterested in having a seat at that table to shape the norms and policies of the future, or even to protect the human rights of people in the United States”.

The HRC provides a global forum for governments to discuss human rights concerns, can authorize investigations that bring to light human rights violations, and, while not perfect, is a tool to hold governments accountable in fulfilling their human rights obligations, including to their own population.

President Trump’s performative decision to pull the U.S. out of the HRC, Klasing pointed out, signals to the rest of the world that the U.S. is happy to completely cede important decisions about human rights violations happening across the globe to other countries.

“This isn’t about President Trump thumbing his nose at the institution, instead he’s just demonstrating he’d rather make a callous show of rejecting human rights than do the work needed to protect and promote human rights for people everywhere, including in the U.S.”

https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/u-s-withdrawal-from-un-human-rights-council-is-performative-disregard-for-human-rights/

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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');  

Navin Ramgoolam says the acceptance of a US presence shows he is willing to find common ground.

Over 450 officials including ministers are off work without pay for failing to disclose their assets.

The status of the naval base deal has been unclear since war broke out in Sudan in 2023.

Floods and heavy rain in Guam. Credit: - es3n@shutterstock.com

By Anselm Vogler
Feb 13 2025 (IPS)

 
The climate crisis is severely endangering human well-being. While the climate security nexus is omnipresent in national security strategies and on international institutions’ agendas, political responses remain insufficient and are often problematic. Among other issues, related policies often struggle with siloization or a focus on symptoms instead of root causes.

To address the core challenges to human security imposed by climate change, the “emergent practice of climate security” must be sensitive to two contexts. First, local political and economic contexts shape how these processes of environmental change translate into human insecurity. Second, climate change is only one of several ecological processes that endanger human security on our planet.

To substantiate this point, my recent publication documents the pathways to human insecurity in the specific political and economic contexts of Vanuatu and Guam. Both Pacific islands are exposed to climate change impacts such as sea level rise and intensifying extreme weather. However, their country-specific political and economic contexts translate this exposure into different forms of human insecurity. This means that similar climate change impacts have different implications for both islands.

For example, the economic differences mean that climate change impacts affect food security differently. In Vanuatu, most people engage in subsistence agriculture. In this economic context, sea level rise and tropical storms can disrupt food supplies directly by destroying local crops, particularly in rural areas. At the same time, local food habits on the Melanesian archipelago are currently shifting towards a growing reliance on lower-quality imported foods and these trends seem to be amplified by the side effects of disaster relief.

In contrast, the prevailing colonial integration of Guam into the United States economy has enforced diets centred around imported, processed food long ago. Food insecurity, therefore, comes about differently and rather results from a precarious form of economic integration. According to a study, every second respondent experienced not having enough money to pay for food and dietary quality was found to be insufficient. In particular, shares of fruit and vegetables intake are dramatically low and the mortality resulting from non-communicable diseases among Pacific islanders is on a worldwide high. In this context, climate change is rather an aggravating factor: while there is almost no local food production to be disrupted by extreme weathers, super typhoon Mawar endangered food security due to internal displacements and food price hikes. In addition, the islands tourism economy is endangered by these storms and by the additional risks that ocean warming creates for the island’s coral reefs. This poses a substantial risk to local’s livelihoods.

The differences in political status between Guam and Vanuatu also affect how climate change translates into human insecurity on these islands. Since it achieved independence in 1980, Vanuatu is a sovereign nation. This enables the country to make its voice on climate change heard in international fora. But it also limits the places and modes through which its citizens can leave the archipelago. Migration is a possible climate adaptation strategy but most Vanuatu citizens’ options are limited to participation in labour mobility programs where they temporarily move to Australia or New Zealand and conduct low-paid unskilled labour. Such programs can generate knowledge transfer and support climate adaptation – but they have also been criticized for causing a ‘brain drain’ on Vanuatu and to expose labour migrants to problematic working conditions in their destination countries.

In contrast, Guam is not a sovereign nation but an organized, unincorporated territory of the United States. This provides its inhabitants with a United States citizenship and according privileges of international mobility. This political status eases mobility and created large diaspora populations within the United States mainland. However, the political dependency comes at a severe cost as Guam has no institutional voice on the stage of international climate policy and remains at the “margins and periphery of climate-change planning within the United States.”

The case of Guam also demonstrates that climate change is not the only environmental danger that human security has to grapple with. Its economic and political integration enabled the arrival of invasive species. These severely affect the island’s ecosystems. For example, the brown tree snake nearly exterminated local bird life and the coconut rhinoceros beetle harms local trees. These ecological damages affect the human security dimension of “place, self and belonging” as, for example, birds play an important role in the indigenous Chamoru culture. Environmental crime is an even more proximate result of the local economy and heavy militarization. Finally, some preliminary indications suggest “past and ongoing asbestos exposure” on Guam.

The findings of my interview-based study of human insecurity on Vanuatu and Guam allow for two takeaways. First, the study demonstrates how climate change impacts virtually every aspect of human security. For example, climate change is entangled with a wide range of issues such as food security, international labour mobility, political and economic contexts. Consequently, virtually every governmental department needs to consider the interactions between climate change and human security.

But, secondly, virtually every impact of climate change on human security is shaped by context. The comparison of Vanuatu and Guam has shown the importance of local political and economic contexts. Consequently, climate change adaptation policies need to address these structural contexts to become effective. From us non-local actors, the local intricacies of climate-related human insecurity inevitably demand a desire for open-minded understanding and a respectful cooperation with local actors such as those who seek to protect Vanuatu and Guam.

Related articles:

Keeping climate security human centric
Climate change, international migration and self-determination: Lessons from Tuvalu
Climate change’s intangible loss and damage: Exploring the journeys of Pacific youth migrants

Dr. Anselm Vogler is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University and an emerging International Relations and (Critical) Security Studies scholar with a specialization in Environmental Peace and Conflict Research. Previously he obtained a PhD from Hamburg University and has worked at the University of Melbourne and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research on human security, climate security frames in NDC and national security strategies, and the climate-defense nexus has been published in the International Studies Review, Political Geography, the Journal of Global Security Studies, and Global Environmental Change.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

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');  

Tourism makes up about 10% of the global economy, but sustainable practices are key to protecting destinations and communities and boosting resilience. Credit: UNDP Maldives | Ashwa Faheem
 
The UN commemorates Global Tourism Resilience Day on 17 February.

By Francine Pickup
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 13 2025 (IPS)

Tourism is back – and stronger than ever. With 1.4 billion international tourist arrivals recorded globally in 2024, the sector has bounced back to pre-pandemic levels, signalling a recovery from its worst crisis.

But in a world facing climate shocks, resource depletion, and many conflicts and crises, recovery is not enough. Tourism must not only bounce back; it must drive sustainability and build resilience.

The Cost of Unchecked Tourism

Tourism drives economies, cultures, and connections, making up about 10% of the global economy and creating one in four new jobs. However, the rising number of tourists is pushing popular destinations to their limits. From overcrowding on Mount Everest to water shortages in Spain’s tourist hotspots, overtourism is increasingly problematic, exposing the environmental impact of tourism:

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Hotels, resorts, and restaurants rely on unsustainable energy and inefficient equipment, with cooling systems significantly contributing to emissions.
• Water Overconsumption: Tourists use about 300 liters of water (guest per night), stressing water-scarce regions.
• Waste and Pollution: Tourism generates excessive waste, overwhelming local systems. For example, 85% of wastewater in the Caribbean is untreated, harming marine ecosystems.
• Biodiversity Loss: Poorly planned tourism developments cause habitat destruction, deforestation, and coastal erosion, threatening ecosystems that attract visitors.
• Unsustainable Supply Chains: Tourism supply chains often rely on harmful chemicals and unsustainable practices, such as excessive pesticide use in food production, which damages the environment.

To ensure a sustainable future, tourism must shift from depleting resources to regenerating and protecting them.

Why Resilience Matters

The tourism industry is highly vulnerable to disruptions like climate change, disasters, pandemics, and economic downturns, particularly in developing countries and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), where tourism often accounts for over 20% of GDP.

These nations face rising sea levels, stronger storms, coral bleaching, and biodiversity loss, threatening their tourism industries and survival. Heavy reliance on imports and small economies increases vulnerability and recovery challenges.

To address these challenges, destinations must build more resilient and sustainable business models:

• Diversification: Relying on a single source of visitors or narrow products increases risk. Expanding markets and experiences can create buffers against disruptions. For example, Malaysia’s Sustainable Tourism Recovery project strengthens nature-based tourism, boosting resilience and diversifying the economy.
• Regenerative Practices: Sustainability is essential. Eco-friendly initiatives, local supply chains, and energy efficiency help minimize impacts. In Türkiye, the Cool Up initiative reduces energy consumption and emissions in tourism through natural refrigerant cooling systems.
• Local Empowerment: Engaging local communities strengthens resilience. In Ecuador, Indigenous communities use eco-tourism to preserve culture and the Amazon rainforest while benefiting from tourism.
• Crisis Preparedness: Governments, businesses, and communities must collaborate on contingency plans to adapt to climate change and reduce disaster risk. In the Caribbean, coral reef restoration protects marine life, boosts resilience to hurricanes, and supports tourism.

A New Era of Resilient and Sustainable Tourism

The tourism sector must evolve to become a champion for sustainability and build resilience against future disruptions. That means embracing solutions that ensure tourism supports – not depletes – the ecosystems and communities it depends on.

Working towards this transformation, UNDP has been supporting countries and communities around the globe to balance economic growth with environmental protection and community well-being.

This year, a new initiative is kicking off to drive systemic change across the tourism sector in 14 countries, including seven small island nations. Funded by the Global Environment Facility, the Integrated Collaborative Approaches to Sustainable Tourism (iCOAST) initiative is set to play a critical role in enhancing sustainable and resilient tourism by addressing key areas such as cooling, chemicals and waste, electronics, construction, food systems, and plastics.

With a vision to make tourism nature-based, low emission, zero-waste, and resilient, iCOAST will implement four core strategies:

• Strengthening Policy and Regulation: Supporting governments in crafting cohesive policies and regulatory frameworks for sustainable tourism.
• Increasing Access to Finance: Unlocking commercial and private sector funding to help businesses transition to sustainable practices.
• Cleaning Up Supply Chains: Removing harmful chemicals, reducing waste, and optimizing the use of natural resources across tourism-related industries.
• Fostering Global Knowledge Exchange: Creating a platform for transformative partnerships and cross-sector collaboration.

The Road Ahead

A resilient tourism sector not only survives crises but emerges stronger. By learning from past disruptions, prioritizing sustainability, and empowering local communities, we can build a more resilient, equitable, and enriching tourism industry.

Initiatives like iCOAST ensure tourism remains a cultural bridge while protecting ecosystems and communities. But resilience requires action. Governments, businesses, and travelers must recommit to tourism model that respects the planet and empowers people. Together, we can make sustainable, resilient tourism the standard.

(The iCOAST is funded by the Global Environment Facility and will be implemented across Belize, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Seychelles, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Türkiye, and Vanuatu, by the following partners: UNDP, UNEP, WWF, UNIDO, FAO, IDB, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in cooperation with UN Tourism).

Francine Pickup is Deputy Director, UNDP Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, New York

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');  

Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra has pledged to close scam centres along the Thai-Myanmar border.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 13 2025 (IPS)

The Trump administration’s decision to dismantle the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the US government’s primary channel for humanitarian aid and disaster relief, is expected to have a devastating impact on the world’s developing nations.

The 2025 Budget Request, under the former Biden administration, amounted to a staggering $58.8 billion in US foreign aid for this year.

The proposed aid included funding to fully support the US priorities and commitments made at the U.S.-Africa Leader’s Summit in May last year.

The request also fulfills Biden’s pledge made at the U.S.-hosted Seventh Replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria to match $1 for every $2 contributed by other donors by providing $1.2 billion to the Global Fund.

And, according to the State Department, it was also expected to advance U.S. leadership by providing sustained funding for the Pandemic Fund to enhance global preparedness against infectious disease threats.

But all these commitments will have to be abandoned– or drastically scaled back– with the elimination of USAID and with over 10,000 of its staffers laid-off worldwide, leaving only about 290 positions—with US employees asked to return home.

Credit: J. Countess/Getty Images

According to a frontpage story in the New York Times February 11, critics of Trump’s executive orders say these orders “will cause a humanitarian catastrophe and undermine America’s influence, reliability and global standing.”

The Times said the US spent nearly $72 billion on foreign assistance in 2023, including spending by USAID and the State Department. As a percentage of its economic output, the US—which has the world’s largest economy—gives much less in foreign aid than other developed countries.

USAID spent about $38 billion on health services, disaster relief, anti-poverty efforts and other programs in 2023—about 0.7 percent of the federal budget.

Dr James E. Jennings, President, Conscience International, told IPS the Draconian cuts to USAID are already having global repercussions.

For two billionaires– one of whom is allegedly the richest person in the world– to take bread from the mouths of multitudes of children throughout the global south is not just uncaring–it is cruelty personified, he pointed out.

“International aid is more than numbers on a balance sheet. It impacts people in desperate need for their next meal, safe drinking water, a place to sleep, or emergency medical aid”.

Washington’s USAID program costs only 1.2% of the federal budget, according to the Pew Research Center. Much of it benefits refugees and displaced persons worldwide.

“Today they number more than ever before in history, totaling almost 100 million people. Cutting support for health programs, especially Malaria eradication and AIDS/SIDA treatment and prevention is simply madness, because deadly diseases eventually reach everybody’s neighborhood,” said Dr Jennings.

Not since President Franklin Roosevelt arrived in the White House in 1932, he said, has a chief executive issued so many directives. There is a huge difference, however.

“FDR’s actions were to benefit people, lift them out of poverty, provide jobs and improve life.”
Even if the massive federal government needs reform and border controls strengthened, something most Americans support, Trump’s actions are intended to strengthen plutocrats like himself, cut services to the American people, including veterans, and eliminate programs to help struggling populations in the rest of the world.

Such has always been the behavior of autocrats, not to mention would-be tyrants, declared Dr Jennings.

In an oped piece this week, Dr. Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU), wrote “witnessing the devastating impact of Trump’s executive order to freeze almost all foreign aid is heartbreaking”.

His decision has left millions of vulnerable children without access to lifesaving food across the globe. Over 1.2 million people in Sudan who were supported by US-funded programs are now left without access to food, essential medicine, and clean water, which they need to survive.

“The consequences are equally devastating in refugee camps in Ethiopia, where 3,000 malnourished children relied on US-supported efforts through Action Against Hunger. Trump’s inhumane decision is not just heartless; it shatters the very ideals of compassion and leadership that once defined the United States”.

A nation that once led the charge in fighting hunger and saving lives is now, under Trump’s savage assault, abandoning millions of innocent children to starvation and inevitable death. His wanton action demeans rather than preserves America’s greatness, said Dr Ben-Meir.

According to the Times, there are more than 30 “frozen studies”, including:
• Malaria treatment in children under age 5 in Mozambique
• Treatment for cholera in Bangladesh
• A screen-and-treat method for cervical cancer in Malawi
• Tuberculosis treatment for children in Peru and South Africa
• Nutritional support for children in Ethiopia
• Early-childhood-development interventions in Cambodia

Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State and acting Administrator of USAID, was quoted as saying:
“The United States is not walking away from foreign aid. It’s not.”

“But it has to be programs we can defend. It has to be programs we can explain and it has to be programs we can justify. Otherwise, we do endanger foreign aid.”

Meanwhile, justifying the decision to shut down USAID, the White house said in an official statement that for decades, USAID “has been unaccountable to taxpayers as it funnels massive sums of money to the ridiculous — and, in many cases, malicious — pet projects of entrenched bureaucrats, with next-to-no oversight”.

The few examples of “waste and abuse” cited by the White House included the following:

$1.5 million to “advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities”
$70,000 for production of a “DEI musical” in Ireland
$2.5 million for electric vehicles for Vietnam
$47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia
$32,000 for a “transgender comic book” in Peru
$2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala
$6 million to fund tourism in Egypt
Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a non-profit linked to designated terrorist organizations — even AFTER an inspector general launched an investigation
Millions to EcoHealth Alliance — which was involved in research at the Wuhan lab
“Hundreds of thousands of meals that went to al Qaeda-affiliated fighters in Syria”
Funding to print “personalized” contraceptives birth control devices in developing countries
Hundreds of millions of dollars to fund “irrigation canals, farming equipment, and even fertilizer used to support the unprecedented poppy cultivation and heroin production in Afghanistan,” benefiting the Taliban

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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');  

The US president is ratcheting up pressure on South Africa over its domestic and foreign policy.