Those who depend on aid must embrace Trump's bombshell and shape their own destiny
About 35 years ago, the radio news announced that the then president of Kenya, Daniel arap Moi, had broken diplomatic ties with Norway. The embassy, with about 100 foreign and a few local staff, had one week to clear out of the country.
I was one of a few staff there at the time who worked for the Norwegian development agency, Norad, and our jobs disappeared with that radio broadcast. An estimated $30m annual budget, largely targeted at the arid and semi-arid parts of Kenya, also disappeared. Obviously that did not matter much to Kenya's leadership, who felt that the independence of the country and the ability for them to decide what was good for Kenya, was more important.
The drama was triggered because the Norwegian ambassador decided to appear in a court in Nakuru, where the human rights activist Koigi Wamwere was being tried for treason, hence showing solidarity with a so-called dissident who had been in exile in Norway.
I was in a state of disbelief, as all my hopes of enjoying what looked like a progressive career were dashed overnight, barely 10 months after joining the embassy. I had been comfortable, having sole access to a desktop computer, rare in those days, but had not even practieds my computer skills as it was a privilege I took for granted.
There are close parallels between my story and what happened to many non-profit organisations in Kenya and globally after 20 January, when Donald Trump took over as US president and cancelled most of the traditional work of the government's development agency, USAid, throwing many charities into a spin of confusion and unanswered questions.
How could he do that so suddenly, they asked. Now, the UK is also cutting back on its own aid budget.
For me, in 1990, the abrupt end of my job was a wake-up call. I never looked back. When I got my next role, three months later, I embraced my secondhand laptop and quickly perfected my ability not only to produce monitoring and evaluation reports supported by case studies, but also project proposals and budgets that I needed to submit to my supervisor for consideration.
I embraced the fact that my job was never guaranteed. There were many factors at play that I had no control over. I needed the skills to be able to survive with any 'sound' employer, anywhere in the world, so developing myself was not a choice. I have since managed to have a flourishing career in the not-for-profit sector, in and outside the country.
Even after leaving full-time work, I continue to offer my knowledge to a variety of groups locally and globally, simply because I woke up and practised self-determination. I remain a strong advocate for independence from donor dependency throughout my career.
Trump's actions just re-energised my commitment to continue to use every single opportunity to support global majority actors to embrace the right mindset in their effort to explore alternative resources for their work. Funders, on the other hand, definitely need to embrace genuine and practical shifting of power in their approaches to supporting development work, so that what they initiate can outlast them, and be driven by local organisations, especially those from the global majority.
In the past couple of weeks, I have become alert to various reflections that speak to this from colleagues in the sector. I continue to be astonished by how hard it is for us to learn important life lessons. One statement I like is by Thomas Sankara, who said: 'He who feeds you, also controls you.'
I consider the spirit behind this wisdom a key takeaway for us in the not-for-profit sector. It reminds us how much power we surrender to those who fund our work, especially when we act and behave comfortably, when this is happening over many years, and without us riding on that wave to slowly grow alternative resources, however small they may be. Developing other resources requires a different mindset and the recognition that it's a courageous long-term journey, not for the faint-hearted.
It is working against the tide. What happened to Kenya when our president froze a bilateral relationship with Norway overnight, has some parallel with USAid ending with a stroke of President Trump's pen. It looks as if we need to accept that these acts will repeat themselves in our unpredictable world, in one way or other.
And so, for us in the majority world, it's time to shape our destiny; not to blindly follow those who 'feed' us; to start saying no to any money that does not meet the community needs we exist to support.
It's time to rise up and be counted, as true believers, in the interests of the people we claim to represent when negotiating for funds, and be ready to walk away with our heads held high if it's not working. It's time to organise, not agonise.
Janet Mawiyoo is a development consultant and founder of Galvanising Africa
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump administration to cut all USAID overseas roles and axe thousands of staff
The Trump administration will eliminate all USAID overseas positions worldwide by 30 September in a dramatic restructuring of remaining US foreign aid operations. In a Tuesday state department cable obtained by the Guardian, secretary of state Marco Rubio ordered the abolishment of the agency's entire international workforce, transferring control of foreign assistance programs directly to the state department. The directive affects thousands of USAID staff globally, including foreign service officers, contractors and locally employed personnel across more than 100 countries. Chiefs of mission at US embassies have been told to prepare for the sweeping changes to occur within four months. 'The Department of State is streamlining procedures under National Security Decision Directive 38 to abolish all USAID overseas positions,' the cable reads, adding that the department 'will assume responsibility for foreign assistance programming previously undertaken by USAID' from 15 June. The state department did not respond to a request for comment. Among those who cleared the cable was Howard Van Vranken, a former ambassador to Botswana. The decision to close the agency comes after the Trump administration – under the so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) – eliminated 83% of USAID's programs in a six-week purge after Donald Trump took office. Rubio announced in March that 5,200 of the agency's 6,200 programs worldwide had been terminated, with the surviving initiatives being absorbed into the state department. The closures followed an executive order from Trump on his first day back in the White House on 20 January freezing foreign assistance pending a review. While a waiver was subsequently announced for humanitarian assistance, questions were raised about USAID's future after its website disappeared on 1 February. Two days later, staff received an email telling them not to come to work following a weekend during which its servers were removed and leadership and senior staff fired or put on disciplinary leave. Rubio declared himself that agency's acting administrator after staff were locked out of its Washington headquarters. Amid the cuts, Elon Musk, the billionaire tech entrepreneur and then de facto leader of Doge, gleefully boasted of feeding USAID 'into the woodchopper', while disseminating false claims about its programs – including one assertion that they included a $50m project to provide condoms in Gaza, a claim that was subsequently proved to be untrue.
The Independent
14 hours ago
- The Independent
Aid cuts push global funding down by a third in 2025, UN data shows
The UN has warned that aid funding for dozens of crises around the world has dropped by a third – worth billions of dollars – against a backdrop of Donald Trump having slashed US funding and other nations, including the UK, having announced cuts. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which coordinates aid organisations in their humanitarian responses, reports that for the 44 crises it has prioritised this year, only around 11 per cent – or $5.4 billion (£4bn) – of the $46.2bn required total funding for its response plans has been funded so far this year. According to Anja Nitzsche, chief of resource mobilisation at OCHA: 'Coverage of needs is only [around] 10 per cent, which is significantly lower than the 15 to 18 per cent funding we normally see,' says Nitzsche. 'We are only around two-thirds of where we are in a typical year, so the trajectory is not good.' The biggest contributor to the drop is cuts to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programmes, with US funding for humanitarian crises down by 42 per cent, almost a billion dollars, over the first five months of the year compared to the same period last year, according to OCHA. In the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), a region long ravaged by violence, humanitarian aid cuts are biting hard. Speaking to The Independent, Oxfam DRC director Manenji Mangundu describes how aid cuts came 'at the worst possible moment' in the country's current conflict, with intensifying clashes between between armed groups and government forces pushing many of the 700,000 people who have been living in refugee camps around the city of Goma to try and return to their ruined villages for the first time in several years. 'Our staff have harrowing stories about how people eat anything they can find, feeding their children with leaves and scraps scavenged from market floors,' Mangundu says. 'Many sell their belongings, such as goats or mobile phones, at very low prices to obtain food or medicine. Others beg for food or money, incur debts they are unable to repay, or steal from fields to survive.' These are the desperate measures people are resorting to in order to survive in an environment with drastically reduced aid, with USAID has traditionally been DRC's largest humanitarian aid donor, providing some $920 million in 2024, or 67.9 per cent of DRC's humanitarian aid total, as tracked by ). So far in 2025, however, the US has slipped into fourth place behind the EU, UK, and Germany, with the US providing just $36.5m, or 13.8 per cent of the country's humanitarian aid total. Oxfam reports that in eastern DRC increased use of untreated river water and stagnant water for drinking, food preparation and personal hygiene is increasing the risks around diseases like cholera. 'In the surrounding villages, people have no choice but to fetch dirty water from the rivers and consume it untreated,' says Bahati Samuel, a father of seven children who has returned to his village of Mitumbala, in DRC's North Kivu province. 'Since our return, eating has been a serious problem, and it's not certain that we will find something to fill the belly,' Samuel adds. Meanwhile, in some extreme cases, women and girls are being forced into sexual exploitation in exchange for food or money, while families pressuring girls into marriage to access dowry payments or food assistance from the in-laws. One NGO source in the country, speaking on condition of anonymity, describes how women and girls in the region are resorting to hiding during the day to avoid threats such as forced recruitment, exploitation, or physical harm. 'The severe underfunding of gender-based violence response services means that survivors have limited access to the support they urgently need,' they say. Data suggests that the impact of USAID cuts is being felt severely on the ground around the globe, with a survey of 1,000 aid partners carried out by OCHA finding that 79 million people are no longer expected to be helped with humanitarian assistance this year as a result of the decision in Washington, while geographic coverage of humanitarian support from USAID also declining by 33 per cent this year. The impact of cuts is being felt particularly profoundly in certain countries. Reports from aid workers in the Western Ethiopian region of Gambella, which has been shared with The Independent by Oxfam, reveals that life-essential water and sanitation services for 388,000 South Sudanese refugees only have confirmed funding until June 2025, due to US cutting support for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Humanitarian funding for the Haiti response, for example, has declined by almost half compared to the same period in 2024, even as humanitarian needs for the country have increased by 30 per cent. Meanwhile, war-torn countries including Yemen and DRC – as well as countries in the conflict-affected and climate-vulnerable Sahel region of Africa such as Nigeria, Niger, and Chad – have all received 10 per cent or less funding for their OCHA humanitarian aid funding plans so far this year. Climate change is a growing driver of humanitarian crises globally, making extreme weather events such as droughts or flooding more frequent, and exacerbating existing crises. But OCHA data shows that humanitarian funding plans for helping deal with such events this year is being found particularly wanting. Mozambique's drought response plan has received just two per cent of its required funding, Malawi's drought response plan receiving eight per cent of its funding, Zimbabwe's drought response plan receiving ten per cent of its funding, and Vietnam's response plan to Typhoon Yagi and floods receiving six per cent of its funding. Job cuts by humanitarian organisations in recent months are also set to impact the rollout of those aid programmes that survive the cuts. The World Food Programme is planning to cut up to 30 per cent of its staff, while the International Organisation for Migration has said it will need to lay off over a third of its workforce. Meanwhile, Save the Children has said job cuts will 'impact upwards of 2,300 country office staff', World Vision has said it will cut some 3,000 workers, while OCHA itself has said it will cut its workforce by 20 per cent. The UN and NGOs are streamlining and refocusing their operations in response to the funding crisis. OCHA says that it will scale back its presence and operations in Cameroon, Colombia, Eritrea, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Gaziantep, and Zimbabwe. That prioritisation comes after Tom Fletcher, the UN Under-Secretary-General in charge of OCHA, earlier this year called for a 'humanitarian reset' in response to the cuts, which he believes will see humanitarian organisations 'regroup, reform, and renew' their approaches. But shifting strategy can only go so far to make up for the dearth in resources. According to Oxfam's Mangundu, life-saving humanitarian responses are already being prioritised over everything else in Eastern DRC – and there is still not enough money to make ends meet. 'The needs are greater than the means to respond adequately to this crisis,' he says. 'The most basic needs for survival — food, clean water, medical care, blankets and protection — are in short supply and will be worse if funding is not secured as soon as possible.' Cuts to non-life-essential work can also have a devastating impact, the OCHA's Nitzsche adds. 'The crises we are dealing with are complicated and multi-faceted,' she says. 'If there is no emergency shelter for women and girls, or no psychological support for survivors of extreme trauma, that is a really big deal.' Despite all of these difficulties, Nitzsche nonetheless stresses that OCHA will continue to do all that it can to support organisations in meeting the needs of the most vulnerable people around the world. 'It has definitely been tough, and pretty existential this year,' she says. 'But even if it feels like we have taken a punch to the gut, though we might be a bit groggy, we are not knocked out yet.'
Telegraph
20 hours ago
- Telegraph
‘The cartels and clans are ecstatic': How USAID cuts have emboldened Colombia's narcos
US cuts to international aid spending have put Colombia's counter-narcotics operations 'on ice' – a development that experts warn will reenergise the country's notorious cartels. For decades, the US has supported Colombia in its fight against drug trafficking and armed groups through aid spending. Since helping to end the reign of infamous drug lord Pablo Escobar in the 1990s, US defence and intelligence agencies have been instrumental in the country's counter-narcotic operations. Washington has also been instrumental in helping demobilise the leftist FARC rebels since the 2016 peace accord, ushering in a period of relative stability. But now, following the Trump administration's freeze of nearly all funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), along with changes to US State Department spending, analysts and civil society leaders are sounding the alarm. 'The groups that operate outside of the law – the cartels and the clans – are happy. They're ecstatic, because now they have the freedom to do whatever they want,' said León Valencia, director of the Bogotá-based Peace and Reconciliation Foundation. The US State Department has funded major counternarcotics operations in Colombia for years, but when president Donald Trump froze State Department spending in January, the vast majority were immediately halted. 'The entire fleet of Black Hawk helicopters was basically grounded; police units supported and trained by the US were disbanded; and programmes that were building capacity to investigate cases were all just put on ice,' said Elizabeth Dickinson, an analyst at the International Crisis Group. 'It had really wild effects.' Although most of these programmes have resumed under provisional 30-day waivers, Ms Dickinson warned that activities beyond daily maintenance are limited. 'Imagine the uncertainty that comes from knowing that you only have 30 days of funding guaranteed. Anything that's beyond the day-to-day treading water in these counter-narcotic operations is essentially on pause,' she said. 'They're not investing in new programmes, or undertaking new investigations.' The USAID cuts have also been 'catastrophic,' Ms Dickinson, and a dozen other experts and civil society leaders, told The Telegraph. In recent years, Colombia received around $440 million annually in USAID assistance for more than 80 programmes, making it the largest recipient of the agency's funds in the western hemisphere, according to US government data. While most of the programmes are not directly related to counter-narcotics, USAID-backed initiatives have helped stabilise regions still affected by armed conflict. They have created opportunities for young people at risk of recruitment by criminal gangs, supported farmers transitioning away from coca cultivation and aided the reintegration of former combatants into society. Now that funding has ceased. Ms Dickinson said that overnight the humanitarian system here in Colombia lost 70 per cent of its financing. An official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to fear of reprisals, said that more than 50 USAID-funded programmes across the country have already been shuttered. 'It has had a big and deep effect in the most vulnerable territories,' he said. 'You can't imagine the terrible effects happening there.' Officials warn the cuts also endanger the implementation of the peace accord with the leftist FARC rebels. FARC fought the government for more than five decades before most rebels laid down their weapons in 2016. While the deal did not end the conflict entirely, it ushered in a fragile peace. Between 2017 and 2023, the US provided $1.5 billion in support of the deal. 'I think it will create more risk of violence and more vulnerability,' said Luis Gilberto Murillo, Colombia's former foreign minister and current lawmaker, in an interview with Reuters. Colombia's conflict began in the 1960s amid demands for land reform, with rebels promising to redistribute land and wealth concentrated among a small elite. As part of the 2016 accord, the government pledged to grant formal ownership to poor farmers willing to stop cultivating coca. Since then, the funding has helped the government map millions of acres in conflict-afflicted territories. But that work is now on hold, according to an anonymous source within the USAID land programme. 'In terms of drug policy, we managed to positively impact the issue from a territorial, transformational perspective,' he said. 'If farmers own their land, they hardly want to risk losing it by planting illicit crops, and if it's done on a massive scale, it becomes more sustainable in the fight against this phenomenon.' Mr Valencia added that the funding cuts have 'rendered it impossible to fulfil the peace agreement,' while Ms Dickinson said there is 'no one who will step into this gap', meaning key parts of the deal 'will not be implemented'. The cuts also come amid a surge in violence between armed groups, which saw tens of thousands of people displaced earlier this year and left more than 100 dead. Colombia is currently grappling with eight separate armed conflicts, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which recently described the situation as its worst humanitarian crisis since the 2016 peace accord. Overall, the 60-year conflict has killed at least 450,000 people; cocaine production and trafficking remain the main drivers of the ongoing violence. But others argue that the US should not be funding programmes or public employees in Colombia at all. 'Trump is right,' President Gustavo Petro said in a televised address earlier this year, where he also characterised US foreign aid as poison. 'Take your money.' Some also question whether the cuts will meaningfully impact drug trafficking, arguing that the US-led war on drugs has already failed, with consumption and cultivation at record highs. Isabel Pereira, a drug policy expert at Colombia-based research organisation DeJusticia, said that such programmes 'will never be enough' to stop drug trafficking. 'Coca as a cash crop will always be more profitable than any other crop,' she said. If the programmes had been successful, she argued, 'we wouldn't be in a situation today where we are at the highest number of hectares grown in Colombia.' 'I don't think it will have much of a differential effect because the fact of the matter is that the drug markets are always thriving,' Ms Pereira added. Although the high profile excesses associated with narcos like Mr Escobar are less prominent. Coca cultivation in Colombia has quadrupled over the last decade, while global cocaine production doubled. Drug use has also grown steadily, with the UN noting in 2024 that 292 million people worldwide reported having consumed narcotics in the previous year. The Colombian government, led by the country's first leftist president, Mr Petro, has already acted to reform drug policy. In October 2023, it launched a new national drug policy that aims to shift the narrative around psychoactive substances – focusing on rural development, reducing coca crops, and helping small farmers transition to the legal economy. In February, Mr Petro said that cocaine is 'not worse than whisky' and said that, like whisky, it should be legalised. 'If somebody wants peace, the business [of drug trafficking] has to be dismantled,' Mr Petro said. 'It could be easily dismantled if they legalised cocaine in the world. It would be sold like wine.' In March, Colombia went further, leading a landmark resolution at the UN commission on narcotic drugs, calling for reforms to the existing 60-year-old drug control system. 'The global drug regime has failed to deliver, period,' said Laura Gil, Colombia's ambassador-at-large for global drug policy, speaking on the sidelines of the Harm Reduction International conference. 'In my country, it has meant the fuelling of the internal armed conflict, it has meant thousands of deaths, and it has meant the stigma we carry as Colombians all over the world.' Catherine Cook of Harm Reduction International said US funding had long given Washington an 'element of control' over Colombia's drug policy. 'This is a moment for countries to be able to take back control and decide what they want to prioritise,' she said. Ms Dickinson agreed that drug policies have caused a 'very perverse fallout', but warned that cutting funding overnight 'empowers the criminal groups who are profiting from this business.' The USAID land programme source also acknowledged that 'not everything was perfect with USAID,' but countered that, on balance, 'more good' happened than bad. Mr Valencia, meanwhile, argued that the US's abrupt decision, if nothing else, amounted to a betrayal of its responsibilities. 'The US operation is an obligation. It is not a gift – the US is the main party responsible for consumption and the persecution of our poorest people,' he said. 'These funding cuts hurt efforts to repress trafficking, and the growers that no longer have support from the programmes. They are waiving all liability, and it is a great injustice.'
