What the End of Aid Looks Like
Posted by Naurgul@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 20 comments
The United States and other countries are cutting humanitarian relief. Our reporter went to Somalia to see the impact.
When the Trump administration shuttered U.S.A.I.D., it was the beginning of the collapse of the international relief system. Other rich countries quietly cut their own aid budgets. One official told my colleague Peter Goodman that we’re now entering “the post-aid era.”
It was only a matter of time before the world felt the effects during a major crisis. We’re now seeing two. An Ebola outbreak in central Africa may have been compounded by aid cuts that have forced clinics to close. The war in Iran has led to soaring costs for food, fuel and fertilizer. The people hurt are the most vulnerable, who no longer have a safety net.
Peter recently traveled to Somalia to see the impact up close. Today he writes about why the consequences of dismantling humanitarian aid are likely to be felt far beyond that country’s borders.
In more than three decades of journalism, I have seen my share of tragedies, from the Indian Ocean tsunami to wars in Iraq and Cambodia. But what I saw and heard recently in Somalia shocked me.
Somalia is heavily dependent on imports for food, fertilizer and fuel. With shipping effectively halted in the Strait of Hormuz, prices for those critical goods have roughly doubled. In scores of poor and unstable countries, hunger is increasing as the cost of food rises.
Last year, overall humanitarian funding dropped to $28 billion. The U.S. contributed $4 billion. Cuts are continuing.
In Somalia, the impacts of the Iran war are exacerbating a situation that was already dire. The cost of trucking water to the worst drought-hit areas has soared along with the price of fuel. Aid organizations like UNICEF have cut back on trips.
As the price of fertilizer soars, farmers are passing on those extra costs to consumers, raising the price of food. Schools that serve the only meal of the day to students in camps for those displaced by drought and conflict are reducing their portions.
As marine shipping has been diverted from the Strait of Hormuz, traffic jams have emerged at a key port in Oman, a hub for cargo that is transferred onto smaller vessels bound for destinations across East Africa. That is delaying the arrival of what food aid remains.
Aid is certainly about helping people in need. But it has always been an instrument of trade and security policy, too.
No doctorate in history is required to deduce that people generally do not sit calmly and starve in the face of catastrophe. They move where they have a better chance to survive. Many experts anticipate that the drastic reduction of international aid, along with the rising prices for food and fuel, will be catalysts for a fresh wave of migration, potentially stoking new social and political tensions on multiple shores.
imunfair@reddit
Yes but they're not our people. The author's implicit assumption is that we're the social safety net for the world, rather than other countries being responsible for fixing their own problems and constructing a society of some form to take care of their own people.
If a country decides they don't need a social safety net for their poorest, it isn't the duty of all the other countries in the world to step in and rescue that subset of their population from their own government. It's all borne from the misguided belief that we've moved beyond tribalism and natural selection and the people of the world are all equal and all one.
If we had a one-world government that might be the case, but we're far from that scenario. Hell, you can't even get the EU states to give up their sovereignty to form a real European Union, how do you think you're going to get the hundreds of disparate countries of the world to come together in peace and harmony.
qwertyalguien@reddit
Thing is, the US benefited most by giving aid. The US doesn't just do charity. The US is not just a country, it's an empire, and Imho too many Americans want the benefits that come from that position but non of costs.
Aside from PR, by having these areas be more stable, the US keeps them from falling to powers opposed to the current order (with the US on top). It also makes said countries more malleable to accept US deals. Somalia, for example, can be a pain in the ass if it's people feel more inclined to interfere with freedom of navigation, which are one of the cores of the US' current position.
By cutting aid, you bring more instability, which in a global economy will hit your people sooner or later, aside from opening a window for opposing poweres (China) to undermine the US' stance on the globe.
Programs like USAID, though not perfect, are an important column to keep the soft power needed for the US tp be prosperous. But the current admin (and voters) fails to understand that.
You can't expect to obtain the prosperity that only being a global hememon brings, by being isolationist.
imunfair@reddit
We've had like half a century to fix Africa and all we've done is make them distrust us. Let China do it, they still know how to colonize and seem to be making better inroads in Africa in a couple decades then we did in far longer. It's going to end up being the last sweatshop the world has to offer with India and China moving more toward middle class.
China will pillage the natural resources and use the populace for manual labor, and turn the continent into something useful along with their newfound place as most powerful country in the world for the next century or so.
CheepTalk@reddit
Dude this is so crazy racist I don't know where to begin. The world had 300 years of fucking up Africa and continued to do so during cold war. By fix you mean make them a sweatshop?
Yes let's make them useful because usefulness is determined by being a sweatshop worker producing cheap clothes for an exploitative capitalist system that benefits elites. 20 bucks you're mentioned in Epstein's emails.
Quick-Exit-5601@reddit
If racism is your takeaway from their comment then there's not much we can do to help you.
If equivalent amount of money that got poured into africa was poured into less developed nations in eastern Europe and south America, we'd see massive infrastructure improvements, GDPs would explode and the overall improvement in quality of life would go through the roof.
What do we get with Africa? A threat that if we essentially cut paying a ransom they will flood European borders.
Any investments any developed countries made was not maintained at all, there was no effort in upkeeping literally anything, with the assumption that the money will flow in regardless so any fix can be treated as temporary because USA, WHO and others will just step in and fix the mess regardless and not ask questions like "yeah, so what happened to those improvements we paid for 15 years ago?".
And despite all the effort west has put in, the distrust and hate only compounded, so now they get China stepping in. But China definitely has no moral obligations, they will make sure any money they put in will return one way or another. And now the question is- will Africa benefit from it? Maybe if they finally start maintaining things that were gifted to them. If not, the infrastructure China will build will also dissipate but instead of more infrastructure coming in, China will come in with a bill. A bill that will get paid and no African nation can do anything about it.
TellThemISaidHi@reddit
The difference with rebuilding Poland (and Europe) post-WWII is that in Europe, America was helping to re-build. Infrastructure had been there and the people knew how to maintain it.
imunfair@reddit
Speaks to your mindset if racism was your takeaway.
CheepTalk@reddit
Yes but the US doesn't exactly leave other people alone does it. It and other colonial powers have a history of meddling in foreign governments, pushing US economic interests and using aid as a tool of soft power. You can't argue we should leave the worlds government's to care for their own people while actively bombing and otherwise interfering in them. Trump and his anti globalist policies are a reason we aren't moving beyond self serving nationalist policies towards a more egalitarian world. This is also just a stupidly short sighted point of view that pretends global stability is not in US economic or strategic interests. What do you think global instability does to issues like migration or health crisis like ebola outbreaks. You think these stay contained outside of the US?
RollinThundaga@reddit
So you should be supporting the gutting of USAID as removing a tool for the US to meddle.
CheepTalk@reddit
You know there are more than two choices? You could also reform aid to be less self interested and believe in positive sum gain outcomes for the world?
RollinThundaga@reddit
Blindly putting money and resources out the door with no expectations attached is a good way to inflict dutch disease on economies that lack the fundamentals to recover from it.
CheepTalk@reddit
But it's not abnrinal? America is the largest nation of charitable givers. It is the richest country in the world and the foreign aid expenditure under Biden was still less than 1% of the government budget? You are aware of this? And again that 1% did stuff like buy US crops to use as food aid - so technically still benefiting Americans in a big way. Apparently Americans are more cool with bombing half the world in forever wars that are many times the size of the aid budget. Fucking up Afghanistan is totes more in the interests of your average American. Again, aid is given highly strategically through contracts with immense bureaucracy - hardly blind. You act like cash if given in buckets. No clue about donated clothes you discuss. This would not be formal government aid as used clothes are disease vectors and would never be part of official aid assistance. You are probably thinking of church groups giving used clothes to Haiti and yeah that was bad and went to waste (but not a USAID program). Again, work in aid. Probably thought this perspective more than you.
RollinThundaga@reddit
You're failing to see the difference between millions of people donating in their private capacity as they feel that they can spare versus your demand that a national government do so, while also ignoring two decades of geopolitical context behind the war in Afghanistan and the broader war on terror, presenting it as just something we did for the lols.
ZyberZeon@reddit
Sure not your people. But the US benefits from those people.
The US wants to bully and oppress the world, yet at the same time wants indemnity from the impact of their actions.
Kinda like a billionaire who suddenly fires his workforce for AI. It’s not his family, so why should he care.
Same energy.
Emotional_Pay3658@reddit
If your incapable of feeding your own people you don’t deserve to exist as a government.
If they want US tax dollars, surrender your sovereignty to us.
Meow-The-Jewels@reddit
The people that tell you this stuff just don't want to pay for your communities. They're rich enough to live detached from the world
Aid is politics and the US doesn't do things that don't benefit it. Republicans have just become so stupid and so lacking in true patriotism that they don't understand this anymore
pants_mcgee@reddit
USAID was about getting poor countries to do stuff the U.S. wanted.
It was also about keeping Their Problems Over There and not Over Here.
Very stupid and costly mistake to cut these programs.
Silver_Middle_7240@reddit
It's a common misconception that the US "shuttered" USAID and therefore developing nations are getting assistance from the US.
First USAID isn't our foreign aid spending. Its the US Agency for International Development, a specific purpose government agency. And while it is no longer an independent agency it still operates part of the state department.
Second USAID wasn't the only body responsible for international aid. The US still distributed 32 billion in international aid last year, and has 50 billion on the budget for this year.
CheepTalk@reddit
You're first point is pedantic. Usaid was/is gutted and disbursing a fraction of aid as it was before.
The second point lacks a source. I work in the aid industry and the annual disbursement to the sector through UN agencies was 12B and this year it is four just extended to 6. The amount budgeted isn't the amount disbursed because Trump breaks laws on congressional disbursements and just doesn't so them. There is undeniably a massive reduction in US aid expenditure. The sector has laid off 40% of operations and the US has pulled out of Somalia entirely.
bonesrentalagency@reddit
The cutting of aid is such a patently stupid idea that it shocks me how many countries hopped on the train. Lifting up the most vulnerable in areas like Somalia and trying to collectively help stabilize the lives of common people there is literally if global benefit. Whether it’s global outbreak management, slowing down the spread of radical ideologies, or defusing refugee crises every rich country benefited from the aid sent to global south countries every fuckin day. Yet all it took was a cabal of the most psychopathic sexual predators on the planet saying “fuck the poor and vulnerable, that doesn’t line my pocket” and every fuckin country forgot that global society relies on the mutual dignity of all people