Danish group to end aid to Tanzania, Burundi, CAR after Trump cuts
The Danish Refugee Council (DRC), a major humanitarian group, said on Wednesday it will end its relief programmes in six countries and slash 650 additional jobs after the US, its second-biggest donor, cut funding.
US President Donald Trump has drastically scaled back foreign aid as part of a review of foreign spending in a move some aid officials say could put millions of lives at risk.
The Danish group, which provides assistance to refugees and those displaced by disaster and conflicts, said the US retrenchment would lead to "untold suffering and deaths" in a statement announcing the restructure.
"The scale of the current funding crisis demands that DRC adapt, renew itself and prepare for a world where US assistance will not resume," the DRC said in a statement.
"Losing our second-largest funding partner will mean a reduced global footprint. Most of all, it is a blow to millions of people displaced by conflict, disaster and climate change."
The US previously accounted for 20% of its budget.
The group said it would end programmes in six countries — Burundi, Central African Republic, Tanzania, Georgia, Kosovo and Mexico — and remain present in 28 others.
Prior to the latest job cuts, the group had already cut 1,300 staff positions since February as a direct consequence of the US funding cuts, it said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
US travel advisory reveals 'bigger issues at play' in diplomatic ties
US President Donald Trump uses an image taken in Congo as proof of his claims that there is a genocide against Afrikaner farmers in South Africa. Image: AFP The United States government has revised its travel advisory to South Africa after President Cyril Ramaphosa met with Donald Trump at the White House, raising concerns that these may be further attempts to paint the country as a no-go zone. This latest level 2 travel advisory warning its citizens to be cautious when visiting the country, issued on May 27, comes hot on the heels of Ramaphosa's recent visit to Washington where he and his delegation pleaded with Trump to reconsider some of his recent views about a white genocide in South Africa. The advisory urges American citizens to exercise increased caution in South Africa due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, and kidnapping. 'Violent crime is common and includes robbery, rape, carjacking and mugging. There are also "smash-and-grab" attacks on vehicles. Violent crime is more common in the downtown areas of big cities, especially after dark. "Kidnapping is a threat in South Africa. Kidnappers target US citizens and other foreign travelers to steal money. Captors often force victims to withdraw cash or give online account passwords before they are let go. Though rare, some kidnappings involve demanding ransom from families," it said. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The Department of State also warns about the risk of terrorist violence and urges US Mission staff use fully armoured vehicles. International relations expert Dr Noluthando Phungula said the US was trying to vilify South Africa as part of a bigger issue. The reality is that there are numerous issues that have caused strain, including the Israel-Palestine conflict, BRICS expansion and perceived alignment with Russia and these differences may be well be among the reasons behind Washington's lashing out against Pretoria. "We cannot deny crime remains a major challenge for the country, but the US is capitalising on this defect in painting SA as a no-go zone. Crime in this country remains a huge challenge which is closely tied to the stark inequalities. This reality continues to fuel the negative perceptions of the country," Phungula said.. South Africa has been added to the list alongside Namibia, Botswana, Belgium, Greenland, Denmark, and Germany. Level 2 indicates moderate risk, unlike Level 4 'Do Not Travel' advisories issued for countries such as Sudan and the DRC. The latest advisory comes more than a year after the US State Department issued another updated Level 2 travel advisory to South Africa in February 2024 in which it warned its citizens to exercise increased caution in the country due to crime and civil unrest. Responding to the alert, Minister of Tourism, Patricia De Lille indicated that context is important as South Africa remains one of the most safe and stable countries in the world. "We respect the sovereign right of all nations to provide guidance to their citizens travelling abroad. We also acknowledge the recent meeting between Presidents Ramaphosa and Trump and the subsequent media coverage that has followed. However, it is important to offer broader context and reaffirm our unwavering commitment to ensuring the safety, comfort, and enjoyment of all visitors to our country. Furthermore, the advisory states that there is risk of terrorist violence, including terrorist attacks and other activity, in South Africa. "Due to the risks, U.S. government employees working in South Africa must obtain special authorisation to travel to many informal settlements (townships) in and around Cape Town. U.S. mission staff must use fully armoured vehicles when visiting and visiting hours are limited to 10am to 3pm," it states.
Mail & Guardian
11 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Reimagining SA-US relations in the aftermath of the Oval Office spectacle
US President Donald Trump. The Oval Office encounter between South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and US President Donald Trump was no ordinary diplomatic engagement. It was a geopolitical theatre — a collision of clashing narratives, one anchored in misinformation, the other focused on sustaining economic opportunities. Yet beneath the theatrics lay deep tectonic shifts in the global order. If we reframe from spectacle to substance, this moment is not an anomaly, but a strong signal of change. Like a clarion call for transforming not just a bilateral relationship, but the paradigms that govern diplomacy in a fractured world. The spectacle and the system President Trump's invocation of the 'white genocide' and 'land expropriation' myths, conspiracy theories rooted in post-apartheid disinformation, transformed the Oval Office into a theatre of post-truth politics. In stark contrast, President Ramaphosa anchored his response in evidence and historical nuance. Yet, he was flanked by elites representing a narrow, privileged slice of South African society, many of whom continue to benefit from both apartheid-era structures and the post-1994 democratic order. Ironically, their presence inadvertently bolstered Trump's narrative, leaving Ramaphosa politically and rhetorically isolated. The dissonance in perspectives, most of which were tangential to the pressing structural issues, laid bare a deeper epistemic fault line in international diplomacy. A few days later, this collision of spectacle and geopolitics became more visible, more public and more fraught, as Elon Musk, a South African-born billionaire, reportedly exerted influence over South Africa's domestic ownership laws. His push to secure a license to operate These events expose a critical question — will global relations continue to be shaped by the ideological distortions of dominant powers or can emerging middle powers like South Africa assert a sovereign, historically grounded and futures-oriented voice in shaping global narratives? But to fixate solely on the leaders' exchange is to miss the forest for the trees. This encounter should be situated within four converging systemic dynamics: Weaponised misinformation: The Oval Office moment reflected a global trend in which misinformation becomes diplomatic currency, supplanting evidence-based policymaking with political spectacle. Colonial afterlives : Trump's selective empathy for lower-middle-class white South Africans, while erasing the structural violence of apartheid and ongoing economic inequality, mirrored America's own unfinished racial reckoning. Both nations remain haunted by colonial legacies that continue to shape contemporary power dynamics. Land reform in South Africa: It is central to addressing the enduring legacies of apartheid and colonial dispossession. The government's approach, as embedded in The manipulation of public discourse through misinformation further constrains the potential of land reform to serve as a vehicle for equitable economic empowerment. Geopolitical realignment: As the US recedes into transactional nationalism, South Africa is recalibrating its alliances, deepening its ties with Brics and the Global South. The Oval Office tension is not merely interpersonal; it is symptomatic of a world undergoing seismic geopolitical reordering. Creating pathways out of tension Futures thinking compels us to move beyond linear forecasting toward systemic foresight. How might South Africa and the US transform this tension into opportunity? Rather than reverting to business-as-usual diplomacy, this is a chance to craft pathways — not just to each other, but to the systemic crises unfolding across climate change, technology access, energy transitions and legitimacy: Institutionalise reparative diplomacy: South Africa should move beyond extractive and exploitative trade arrangements, such as exporting unprocessed critical minerals to the US, which disproportionately fuels US industrialisation, towards reparative partnerships grounded in mutual benefit, innovation and structural equity. This shift calls for a A reparative framework would also support greater symmetry in global power relations. South Africa's exports of critical minerals enable the US to secure its supply chains for strategic sectors, including artificial intelligence and military technologies. These partnerships must, however, also foreground South Africa's economic development priorities. At their core, they should promote domestic mineral beneficiation and intra-African value-chain development, imperatives to reducing dependency and advancing economic sovereignty. Defend transparent land reform: The South African government's land reform programme should continue evolving with clear legal frameworks, such as the Expropriation Act, ensuring fairness and promoting inclusive economic development. Redistributing land is only the first step; beneficiaries need title deeds, financial, technical and infrastructural support to make land productive and sustainable while reassuring investors that land reform will not undermine agricultural productivity or economic stability. Crucially, unutilised state and rural land under the jurisdiction of traditional authorities should be integrated into a broader national strategy. Land reform and economic development are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing. Embrace post-Western multilateralism: The US should engage South Africa not as a subordinate but as a co-architect of new governance frameworks, particularly in frontier arenas such as AI ethics, climate and trade diplomacy and global financial architecture reform. Equally, South Africa should guard against surrendering its agency to a declining hegemon operating through outdated diplomatic paradigms. A truly post-Western multilateralism requires that all governments adapt and engage as equals in shaping more just and future-fit international systems. A call for courage and imagination The Oval Office confrontation was not merely a diplomatic rupture; it was a symptom of decaying systems and a crucible of possibility. Futures thinking reminds us that crises are not endpoints, but inflexion points. Here, futures studies are defined as a systematic, transdisciplinary approach to exploring, anticipating and shaping more favourable outcomes by embracing complexity and a plurality of possible trajectories. The Retrofitting established policy frameworks to accommodate Musk sets the stage for a global order where misinformation thrives, alliances fracture and diplomacy is reduced to viral spectacle. But this future is not inevitable. It is a choice. The central question shaping South Africa-US relations is no longer merely whether the two nations can afford to collaborate. Rather, it is how South Africa can most effectively navigate a shifting geopolitical landscape, one increasingly defined not by binary choices, but by the rise of multipolarity, multi-alignment and strategic autonomy. As US diplomacy contends with internal challenges and fluctuating global influence, countries like South Africa and others are exploring other partnerships, such as Brics, opening a spectrum of diplomatic possibilities. These range from deepening ties with the US to expanding South–South cooperation through Brics, to crafting a nuanced foreign policy that engages multiple partners without becoming beholden to any single bloc. A sovereign-respecting relationship between South Africa and the US would depart from the legacy of asymmetrical engagement. Instead, it would reflect the emergence of a multipolar global order in which both countries act as autonomous agents defined not by subordination or rivalry, but by mutual respect, flexible cooperation and a recognition of shared and divergent interests alike. To thrive in an increasingly multipolar global economy, South Africa cannot afford isolation. It needs a diverse portfolio of allies and partnerships. The challenge now is whether Ramaphosa will pivot to the gravitational pull of Trump-era theatrics and Musk's techno-capitalist demands or whether he can seize this moment to reset the terms of engagement with the US on the foundations of sovereignty, foresight and shared prosperity. Letitia Jentel is the senior programme manager and researcher with the Futures programme at the , an independent public policy think tank.
The Citizen
18 hours ago
- The Citizen
What Trump vs Musk makes us appreciate about South Africa
You just can't imagine that kind of behaviour among real South African leaders. This combination of pictures created on 12 August 2024 shows, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, left, and former US president and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Picture: Frederic J Brown and Brendan Smialowski/ AFP Can you imagine Johan Rupert, Oppenheimer or Motsepe publicly feuding with the president of the nation? Could you imagine them going at it and stopping just short of calling the president a sex predator? Probably not. That's because it's pretty unbecoming for business people to try to sway public opinion against a sitting president. Then again, it's pretty unbecoming of a president to do the same to some important economic drivers. You just can't imagine that kind of behaviour among real South African leaders. Sure, you'd expect it to come from the 'small boys', but those really driving the national agenda, for all their flaws, actually behave respectably. Just try to imagine the anger between the parties during the now-forgotten spat over the budget. Fixing our problems For all of that anger, all we got were a few matter-of-fact statements from various sides, but nothing along the lines of name-calling and bashing, at least nothing to the American extent. We might not have the economy and infrastructure, but we can still look one another in the eye when having a disagreement. It seems our leadership, with all its flaws, is still capable of picking up a phone and sorting issues out rather than committing the public to our battles. We vote for politicians so they can do that battling of our interests for us, not to abuse us as their useful idiots to drive their own agendas. And we've been pretty solid of late on holding them to account on that. They may not be incredibly good at hearing us holding them to account, but we'll take it in baby steps. For now, we can be grateful that poor form can swing more than 10% of an electorate. That would never happen in the USA because no matter how bad things get, they still have their guy. Their democracy has a personality cult bent to it. ALSO READ: Trump and Musk alliance melts down in blazing public row Petty politics While we do love a bit of our Fikiles, Jacbobs and Cyrils, the faith is personality is not that strong. Ask your boys Ace and Carl, but you won't because they're no longer your boys. It's that level of decorum that may seem mundane and a non-issue but is really driving some of what is right in South Africa. Obviously, you'd want political leaders who are firm and robust in stature, and that does involve a significant amount of disagreement. Goodness gracious, though. The world's most powerful man taking on the world's richest man to gain the popular support of the rest of the country's men does seem so…petty. Fighting for a debate Americans should ask themselves why these two dudes are so invested in making this spat public. Surely, if they disagree, they could pick up the phone and discuss it. One has a whole satellite constellation, and the other has a whole military. You can't tell me that they don't have the equipment to have a call. It's because the point isn't to win the debate. It's for the debate, if you can call it that, to go on. That way, they get a platform to continue building their cults, which will eventually battle it out. It's already so powerful that it inspired an insurrection years ago. What would this, much bigger, fight yield? There's so much we can be upset about in our country. There's a lot going wrong, but a fundamental to fixing the issues is that we're still able to talk directly without turning the public into ammunition for personal interests. You can be upset with Cyril's lack of action, silly actions when he takes them, and insistence on pursuing inept policy. You can even be upset with him for the poor economy. You cannot be upset with him for rude, dictatorial and abrasive behaviour because, unlike his US counterpart, he still has the fundamentals of democratic leadership in place. Anyway, sterke daar Suid-Afrikaanse refugees. NOW READ: Elon Musk unceremoniously steps down from Trump administration
