Aid

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge temporarily blocks Trump from placing 2,200 USAid workers on leave

      by

      A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from placing 2,200 employees of the US Agency for International Development on paid leave.Carl Nichols, a US district judge and Donald Trump appointee, sided with two federal employee associations in agreeing to a pause in plans to put the employees on paid leave as of midnight Friday.Forced leave had already begun for some on Friday when the court ruling came through as workers tried to halt the administration’s swift dismantling of the six-decade-old aid agency and its programs worldwide.Lawyers for the plaintiffs told the judge on Friday afternoon that the administration lacked the authority to shut down an agency enshrined in congressional legislation.The administration had been sued by the largest US government workers’ union and an association of foreign service workers attempting to stop efforts to close the agency.Nichols said the written ruling would be issued later on Friday. He did not seem inclined to grant other requests from the unions to reopen USAid buildings and restore funding.“The major reduction in force, as well as the closure of offices, the forced relocation of these individuals were all done in excess of the executive’s authority in violation of the separation of powers,” Karla Gilbride, a lawyer for the unions, said at the hearing.The White House claims there is fraud at USAid.“CLOSE IT DOWN,” Trump had said earlier on social media of USAid.Crews in the morning used duct tape to block out the agency’s name on a sign outside its Washington DC headquarters and a flag was taken down. Someone placed a bouquet of flowers outside the door.A group of a half-dozen USAid officials speaking to reporters on Friday strongly disputed assertions from Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, that the most essential life-saving programs abroad were getting waivers to continue. With all but several hundred staffers forced out and funding stopped, the agency had “ceased to exist”, one official on the call said.The Trump administration and billionaire ally Elon Musk, who is running a budget-cutting “department of government efficiency”, have targeted USAid hardest so far in an unprecedented challenge of the federal government and many of its programs.The administration told remaining USAid officials on Thursday afternoon that it planned to exempt 297 employees from global leave and furloughs ordered for at least 8,000 staffers and contractors, according to USAid staffers and officials.Late that night, a new list was finalized of 611 employees allowed to remain on the job, many of them to manage the return home of thousands of staffers, contractors and their families abroad, the officials said. Justice department lawyer Brett Shumate confirmed the 611 figure in court.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe USAid officials and staffers spoke on condition of anonymity due to a Trump administration order barring them from talking publicly.Some of the remaining staffers and contractors, along with an unknown number of 5,000 locally hired employees abroad, would run the few life-saving programs that the administration says it intends to keep going for now.It was not immediately clear whether the reductions would be permanent or temporary.Trump and Musk have spoken of moving surviving programs under the state department. Within the state department itself, employees fear substantial staff reductions following the deadline for the Trump administration’s offer of financial incentives for federal workers to resign, according to unnamed officials. A judge temporarily blocked that offer and set a hearing for Monday.At USAid, among the programs officials said had not received waivers: $450m in food grown by US farmers sufficient to feed 36 million people, which was not being paid for or delivered; and water supplies for 1.6 million people displaced by war in Sudan’s Darfur region, which were being cut off without money for fuel to run water pumps in the desert.The Associated Press and Reuters provided reporting More

    • 288 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Be clear about what Trump and Musk’s aid axe will do: people will face terror and starve, many will die | Gordon Brown

      by

      An earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or above could not have caused more carnage. Recent floods in Asia and droughts in Africa have been catastrophic, yet they have inflicted less damage and affected fewer people than the sudden withdrawal of billions of dollars of US aid from the world’s most volatile hotspots and its most vulnerable people. Coming alongside President Trump’s plan for a US takeover of Gaza, the US administration’s resolve to shut down its international aid agency sends a clear message that the era when American leaders valued their soft power is coming to an end.But while the Gaza plan is as yet only on the drawing board, USAid cuts – which will see funding slashed and just 290 of the more than 10,000 employees worldwide retained, according to the New York Times – have already begun to bite this week. We have seen the halting of landmine-clearing work in Asia, support for war veterans and independent media in Ukraine, and assistance for Rohingya refugees on the border of Bangladesh. This week, drug deliveries to fight the current mpox and Ebola outbreaks in Africa have been stopped, life-saving food lies rotting at African ports, and even initiatives targeting trafficking of drugs like fentanyl have been cut back. One of the world’s most respected charities, Brac, says that the 90-day blanket ban on helping vulnerable people is depriving 3.5 million people of vital services.One critical programme has been granted a limited waiver. Pepfar, created by Republican president George W Bush, offers antiretroviral prescriptions to 20 million people around the world to combat HIV and Aids. Its activities escaped the ban only after warnings that a 90-day stoppage could lead to 136,000 babies acquiring HIV. But it has still been blocked from organising cervical cancer screening, treating malaria, tuberculosis and polio, assisting maternal and child health, and efforts to curtail outbreaks of Ebola, Marburg and mpox.Not only does the stop-work edict mean that, in a matter of days, the US has destroyed the work of decades building up goodwill around the world, but Trump’s claim that America has been over-generous is exposed as yet another exaggeration. Norway tops the list as biggest donor of official development assistance (ODA) as a percentage of gross national income (GNI) at 1.09%; Britain is at just over 0.5%, albeit down from the UN target of 0.7%; but the US is near the bottom of the advanced economies at 0.24% – alongside Slovenia and the Czech Republic. It is simply the size of the US economy – 26% of world output – that means that the 0.24% adds up to more aid than any other country. The US provided $66bn in 2023, making USAid a leader in global humanitarian aid, education and health, not least in addressing HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis.On Sunday night, Trump told reporters that USAid had been “run by a bunch of radical lunatics, and we’re getting them out”. “I don’t want my dollars going towards this crap,” his press spokesperson added, with one of the president’s chief advisers Elon Musk calling the agency a “viper’s nest of radical-left marxists who hate America”. “You’ve got to basically get rid of the whole thing. It’s beyond repair,” he said. “We’re shutting it down.”View image in fullscreenIndeed, in a post on X last weekend, Musk shared a screenshot quoting the false claim that “less than 10 percent of our foreign assistance dollars flowing through USAID is actually reaching those communities”. The implication is that the remaining 90% was diverted, stolen, or just wasted. In fact, the 10% figure is the proportion of the budget going directly to NGOs and organisations in the developing world. The remaining 90% is not wasted – instead, it comprises all the goods and services that USAid, American companies and NGOs, and multilateral organisations deliver in kind, from HIV drugs to emergency food aid, malaria bed nets, and treatment for malnutrition. It is simply untrue that 90% of aid falls into the wrong hands and never reaches the most vulnerable.In fact, the initial blanket executive order proved to be such a blunt instrument – the only initial exemptions were for emergency food aid and for military funding for Israel and Egypt – that it had to be modified to include exceptions for what the government called “life-saving humanitarian assistance”, although it stopped short of defining them. “We are rooting out waste. We are blocking woke programs. And we are exposing activities that run contrary to our national interests. None of this would be possible if these programs remained on autopilot,” said a statement released by the state department. The new secretary of state, Marco Rubio, now wants his department to control the whole budget and close down USAid entirely. “Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?” Rubio asked in a statement that suggested that the America which generally worked multilaterally in a unipolar era is now determined to act unilaterally in a multipolar one.This new stance is not just “America first” but “America first and only” – and a gift to Hamas, IS, the Houthi rebels, and all who wish to show that coexistence with the US is impossible. The shutdown is also good news for China, whose own global development initiative will be strengthened as it positions itself to replace America. Desperate people will turn to extremists who will say that the US can never again be trusted. And by causing misery and by alienating actual and possible allies, far from making America great again, the cancellation of aid will only make America weaker.The tragedy for the planet is that US aid cuts come on top of diminishing aid budgets among the world’s richest economies, from Germany to the UK. International aid agencies are now so underfunded that in 2024, for the second consecutive year, the UN covered less than half of its humanitarian funding goal of nearly $50bn – at a time when increasing conflicts and natural disasters necessitate more relief donor grants than ever. Yes, we can discuss how greater reciprocity can create a fairer system of burden sharing – but further cuts in aid threaten more avoidable deaths, and a poorer world will ultimately make the US poorer too.US generosity is often seen as mere charity, but it is in the country’s self-interest to be generous because the creation of a more stable world benefits us all. We all gain if USAid can mitigate the spread of infectious diseases, prevent malnutrition in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan, halt the upsurge of IS in Syria and support a fair, humanitarian reconstruction of Gaza and Ukraine. Only the narrowest and most blinkered view of what constitutes “America first” can justify the disaster America has unloaded on the world.

      Gordon Brown is the UN’s special envoy for global education and was UK prime minister from 2007 to 2010 More

    • 200 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on foreign powers in Sudan: struggling for advantage while civilians starve | Editorial

      by

      The often denied but obvious involvement of foreign powers in Sudan’s deadly civil war is now firmly in the spotlight. Tens of thousands of people, including many civilians, have been killed since it began last April. Now, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has accused the Sudanese armed forces (SAF) of bombing its ambassador’s residence in Khartoum, causing “extensive damage”. The SAF denied it, claiming that last month’s strike was the work of the rival paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), backed by the UAE.What’s not in doubt is that both sides are committing war crimes and that they are able to do so because foreign governments are supporting them. The ceaseless flow of arms has resulted in a vast, growing humanitarian disaster. Last week, UN-appointed experts accused combatants of using “starvation tactics” against 25 million civilians. Additionally, 10 million people have been displaced, and diseases such as cholera are rapidly spreading amid the world’s largest hunger crisis.While the autumn harvest should somewhat alleviate immediate food shortages for many, the longer-term prognosis is catastrophic. Both factions have targeted volunteers working to feed the hungry, many of whom are former members of the resistance committees that led the pro-democracy protests a few years ago.Wars between would-be strongmen punish and kill the powerless. But there is something especially grotesque about seeing the citizens of Sudan, having seen off a dictator and attempted to transition to civilian government, sacrificed to the cynical interests of outsiders.Though the UAE denies supporting the RSF under Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, UN experts have laid out “credible” allegations of arms shipments. The UAE is interested in strategically valuable Red Sea ports and resources from gold to land. Saudi Arabia and Egypt support the SAF, led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who has also sought closer ties with Iran.All this has been described as “a Middle East war being played out in Africa”. But diplomatic energy is focused on the spiralling Middle East war in the Middle East. When the UAE’s leader, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, visited Mr Biden in Washington recently, Sudan merited just two paragraphs in their lengthy joint statement. Sudan has not always been the priority even when it comes to Sudan. A new paper by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace notes that the US never matched rhetorical support for the democratic opening there with adequate strategic planning, engagement or assistance. The Trump administration’s priority was pressuring the transitional government to recognise Israel as it tried to advance its Abraham accords.The latest plans for informal talks to resolve the struggle between the two generals fell through. Having recently launched a counteroffensive to retake Khartoum, Gen Burhan appears in denial about the strength of his hand. A resolution in Sudan seems unlikely unless key external actors – namely the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt – reach an agreement. With the US showing no sign of turning up the pressure, the UK government, which leads on the issue at the UN security council, should step up. But so should others. The UAE was dismayed when the US rapper Macklemore pulled out of a concert in Dubai over its role in Sudan. Its keenness to burnish its international standing means that a cultural boycott and protests by sports stars and fans could have real impact.

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden restores $200m in US aid to Palestinians slashed by Trump

      by

      The US will restore more than $200m (£145m) in aid to Palestinians, reversing massive funding cuts under the Trump administration that left humanitarian groups scrambling to keep people from plunging into poverty.
      “[We] plan to restart US economic, development, and humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people,” the secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said in a statement.
      The aid includes $75m in economic and development funds for the occupied West Bank and Gaza, which will provide food and clean water to Palestinians and help small businesses. A further $150m will be provided to the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees in the near east (UNRWA), a UN body that supports more than 5 million Palestinian refugees across the region.
      After Donald Trump’s row with the Palestinian leadership, President Joe Biden has sought to restart Washington’s flailing efforts to push for a two-state resolution for the Israel-Palestinian crisis, and restoring the aid is part of that. In his statement, Blinken said US foreign assistance “serves important US interests and values”.
      “The United States is committed to advancing prosperity, security, and freedom for both Israelis and Palestinians in tangible ways in the immediate term, which is important in its own right, but also as a means to advance towards a negotiated two-state solution,” he said.
      Palestinian leaders and the UN welcomed the resumption of aid. Israel, however, criticised the decision to restore funds to UNRWA, a body it has long claimed is a bloated, flawed group.
      “We believe that this UN agency for so-called refugees should not exist in its current format,” said Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan. Pro-Israel US lawmakers joined the country in opposition to the aid and said they would scrutinise it in Congress.
      From 2018, Trump gradually cut virtually all US money to Palestinian aid projects after the Palestinian leadership accused him of being biased towards Israel and refused to talk. The US president accused Palestinians of lacking “appreciation or respect”.
      The former president cancelled more than $200m in economic aid, including $25m earmarked for underfunded East Jerusalem hospitals that have suffered during the Covid-19 crisis. Trump’s cuts to UNRWA, which also serves Palestinian refugees in war-stricken Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East, was described by the agency’s then head as “the biggest and most severe” funding crisis since the body was created in 1949. The US was previously UNRWA’s biggest donor.

      To outcry from aid workers, leaked emails suggested the move may have partly been a political tactic to weaken the Palestinian leadership. Those emails alleged that Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner had argued that “ending the assistance outright could strengthen his negotiating hand” to push Palestinians to accept their blueprint for an Israeli-Palestinian deal.
      The cuts were decried as catastrophic for Palestinians’ ability to provide basic healthcare, schooling and sanitation, including by prominent Israeli establishment figures.
      Last April, as the coronavirus pandemic hit, Trump’s government announced it would send money to Palestinians. The $5m one-off donation was roughly 1% of the amount Washington provided a year before Trump began slashing aid. More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on defence and foreign policy: an old-fashioned look at the future | Editorial

      by

      The integrated review offers a nostalgic – at times, even anachronistic – response to the challenges of the 21st century. Its intent is laudable: acknowledging that attempting to defend the status quo is not enough, and seeking to carve out a path ahead. It recognises the multiple threats that the UK faces – from future pandemics to cyber-attacks – and the need for serious investment in science and technology. But overall, “global Britain” offers a hazy vision of a country that is looking east of Suez once more, wedded to the symbolic power of aircraft carriers, and contemplating a nuclear response to cyberthreats.The policy paper is in essence a response to three big shifts: the rise of China, the related but broader decline of the existing global order, and Brexit. Two of these confront democracies around the world. But the last is a self-inflicted wound, which the government appears determined to deepen. And the need to deal with the first two is not in itself a solution to the third, as this policy paper sometimes seems to imagine.The plan essentially recognises the move that is already taking place towards a warier, more critical approach to China, away from the woefully misjudged “golden era” spearheaded by George Osborne, and the fact that parameters will be set for us by the tougher approach of the US, in particular. It accepts that we must engage on issues such as climate change, and that we are not in a new cold war – we live in a globalised economy – albeit that there is likely to be more decoupling than many anticipated.But it does not try to explain how the UK can square the circle of courting investment while shielding itself from undue Chinese influence and expanding regional alliances. Australia is currently finding out what happens when Beijing is angered by a strategic shift.The tilt to the Indo-Pacific may – like Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia” – fail to live up to its advertising. But it is true that Britain has paid insufficient attention to Asia, and is wise to pursue stronger ties with Five Eyes nations and other democracies in the region. These relationships will sometimes be problematic; India is the world’s largest democracy, but under Narendra Modi is looking ever less democratic. The pursuit of new partnerships could have been “in addition to” rather than “instead of”. Yet Britain is snubbing old, reliable, largely like-minded friends with clear common interests. The review is written almost as if the EU did not exist, preferring to mention individual member states. That seems especially childish when it also identifies Russia as an “active threat”. Nor is it likely – even if the UK joins the Trans-Pacific free-trade pact – that countries thousands of miles away can fully compensate for the collapse in trade with the EU that saw Britain record a £5.6bn slump in exports to the bloc in January. Geography matters.Behind the rhetoric of the review is a country that has failed to match its words and ambitions to its actions. Britain boasts of its soft power and talks of upholding the rule of law internationally – yet has declared itself happy to break international law when it considers it convenient. Though the paper promises to restore the commitment to spending 0.7% of GDP on aid “when the fiscal situation allows”, slashing the budget is not only undermining the UK’s standing, but global security and stability too.Most strikingly, after 30 years of gradual disarmament since the end of the Soviet Union, and despite its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty, Britain is raising the cap on its nuclear warheads – a decision met with dismay by the UN Elders and others, and bafflement by analysts. Mr Johnson has not deigned to explain why.The review has rightly asked difficult questions. While Joe Biden has brought the US back to multilateralism, his predecessor has shown that the longer-term parameters of US policy may not be as predictable as Britain once believed. Old certainties have gone. But the new challenges cannot be met by turning back to nukes and aircraft carriers. The government should have looked closer to home and been bolder in addressing the future. More