logo
#

Latest news with #foreignaid

Are Trump's tariffs destroying lives and livelihoods in Lesotho?
Are Trump's tariffs destroying lives and livelihoods in Lesotho?

Sky News

time17 hours ago

  • Health
  • Sky News

Are Trump's tariffs destroying lives and livelihoods in Lesotho?

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈 "Nobody's heard of it." That's Donald Trump's dismissive claim about Lesotho - a small country in southern Africa where lives are being devastated by the US president's decision. But what are the real-world consequences of Mr Trump's trade war? Mr Trump's cuts to US foreign aid means people can't get access to HIV medication, and costly tariffs are causing havoc to the economy - both of which are costing lives. Sky News' Africa correspondent Yousra Elbagir has been to Lesotho to find out how decisions in Washington DC are hitting a country thousands of miles away.

Slaight Family Foundation to give 13 organizations $1-million each after ‘horrifying' USAID cuts
Slaight Family Foundation to give 13 organizations $1-million each after ‘horrifying' USAID cuts

Globe and Mail

timea day ago

  • Health
  • Globe and Mail

Slaight Family Foundation to give 13 organizations $1-million each after ‘horrifying' USAID cuts

The Slaight Family Foundation will donate $13-million to more than a dozen humanitarian organizations while they respond to crises that groups say have intensified because of billions in U.S. foreign aid cuts. Gary Slaight, the foundation's president and CEO, said it decided to give 13 organizations $1-million each because of what has unfolded since U.S. President Donald Trump slashed funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. The cuts were condemned by aid organizations, who warned they will result in millions of deaths globally. A study published in medical journal The Lancet said the move could lead to more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030 – 4.5 million of which would be children under five. USAID funding played a critical role in improving global health and was largely directed to low and middle-income countries, particularly in Africa, the study said. 'It's horrifying what's going on in some of these places,' Mr. Slaight said. A recent report from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS said the cuts have already destabilized supply chains, led to the closure of health facilities, left thousands of health clinics without staff, set back prevention programs, disrupted HIV testing efforts and forced many community organizations to reduce or halt HIV work. The Slaight Family Foundation is a Canadian philanthropic organization established in 2008 by Canadian broadcasting pioneer and music industry leader, the late John Allan Slaight. It supports a number of charitable causes, including in health care. More than 90 per cent of U.S. aid programs abruptly cancelled, jeopardizing thousands of lives Program director Terry Smith said several Canadian groups shared concerns about being able to sustain humanitarian programs. They said people are dying, such as those who cannot can't access HIV medication. She said the 13 organizations identified where funding is most needed, such as to fight famine, supply shelter and water, and provide urgent assistance for women and children. The foundation will disburse an initial payment of $500,000 on Thursday and a second will be made in a year, Ms. Smith said. The recipients are the Canadian Red Cross, Crossroads International, The Dallaire Institute for Children, Peace and Security, Human Rights Watch Canada, Kinvia, Right to Play, Partners in Health Canada, Save the Children, Stephen Lewis Foundation, UNHCR Canada, UNICEF Canada, War Child and World Vision. Samantha Nutt, the president of War Child Canada and a physician who has worked for decades in some of the globe's most dangerous conflict zones, said the $1-million donation is a lifeline for her organization and others. Dr. Nutt said the emergency funding will allow War Child Canada to maintain the quality of its programs in Sudan, Yemen and other places where USAID is no longer available. Opinion: Canada can lead efforts to reform foreign aid that neither cuts nor continues the status quo 'For Canadian organizations, it definitely means that we can fill some of those urgent needs and urgent gaps in a way that would have been disastrous without it,' she said. Sevaun Palvetzian, the president and CEO of UNICEF Canada, said that watching governments, particularly the U.S., retreat from life-saving work is 'catastrophic.' The Slaight Family Foundation's donation will mean malnourished children in Ethiopia can be fed through 1.3 million packages of protein-rich, ready-to-use therapeutic food, she said. The funding will also help to screen hundreds of thousands of children for malnutrition and to admit more than 10,000 for emergency treatment, Ms. Palvetzian added. The Slaight Family Foundation hopes other donors will also make financial contributions. 'People are dying,' Mr. Slaight said. 'We're not going to solve the crisis with our $13-million. But we definitely feel we can help.'

Throwing money at foreign countries does nothing to keep migrants out
Throwing money at foreign countries does nothing to keep migrants out

Telegraph

time2 days ago

  • Business
  • Telegraph

Throwing money at foreign countries does nothing to keep migrants out

Does foreign aid reduce migration? This has been a major question among academics and politicians for decades, as higher-income countries have tried to stem the flow of legal and illegal immigrants from lower-income countries. The argument runs that migrants are driven by both push and pull factors. Push factors in their countries of origin can include local insecurity or a bad economy. Pull factors in their destination countries can include flexible labour markets or state welfare. Therefore, if foreign aid can address some of these issues, potential migrants will supposedly be able to focus on achieving economic success at home rather than leaving. However, some have criticised this theory: the economic gap between high and low-income countries is so great that it is very difficult for any amount of aid to create the conditions needed to prevent people leaving. Indeed, some have referred to a so-called 'migration hump', by which they mean that low income countries which get rich enough often end up having more emigration, not less. This is because more people then have the money to afford to move to the West. We can see this with the Vietnamese, who make up one of the largest national groups crossing the Channel on small boats. Vietnam has been very economically successful over the last two decades and living standards have risen significantly. Nonetheless, life in Vietnam is still poorer than in Britain, so people have a strong incentive to leave if they can. In order to reach a level of economic success that would make leaving truly unattractive, developing countries need to more or less achieve parity with the West. In the 1950s, South Korea was poorer than many Sub-Saharan African countries. Through hard work and good leadership, they now have comparable lives to Westerners, and there are few illegal Korean immigrants as a result. However, it's unrealistic to imagine that most countries will achieve this, or that foreign aid can be primarily responsible. On the contrary, there has been widespread criticism of the foreign aid industry for getting countries hooked on charity rather than letting them do the hard work of developing themselves. Those countries which get the most aid have often been recipients for decades, and look to be so for many decades yet to come. The idea that a few million or even billion in foreign aid will reduce immigration to Britain is therefore unrealistic. Indeed, one major study by the University of Essex found that foreign aid did reduce the desire of people in the Gambia to emigrate, but that as soon as the foreign aid project ended, the Gambians involved went straight back to wanting to leave. There is neither the money nor the will for the West to prop up the economies of the developing world to a level sufficient to prevent people wanting to leave. The announcement by the Government last year that they would spend £100 million on foreign aid to reduce root causes of migration came at the same time as their plan to smash the gangs. It seems likely that this was the carrot to the law enforcement stick. With the number of those crossing the Channel on small boats continuing to rise, it is clear that both have failed. Britain cannot fix the whole world. However, we can control our own borders. This will be much more effective and cost-effective. This is controversial to some, because it will mean tackling international law, with measures such as leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. However, those who are worried should take heart that president Trump has expressed a willingness to jettison old international agreements that no longer work. There is now an appetite at the highest levels for change. There is also a strong humanitarian case for doing so. Our current porous borders allow criminal gangs to ply their trade. Every year people die taking the dangerous journey; some of them are women and children. So great has the cost of dealing with illegal immigrants become that successive governments have taken money from the foreign aid budget to pay for the hotels needed to keep legal immigrants in. Regaining control of our borders isn't just a political necessity; it's a moral one.

"Pure Evil" — Everyone Is Losing It Over The Trump Admin Planning To Burn Nearly $10 Million In Contraceptives Intended For Poor Nations
"Pure Evil" — Everyone Is Losing It Over The Trump Admin Planning To Burn Nearly $10 Million In Contraceptives Intended For Poor Nations

Yahoo

time2 days ago

  • Health
  • Yahoo

"Pure Evil" — Everyone Is Losing It Over The Trump Admin Planning To Burn Nearly $10 Million In Contraceptives Intended For Poor Nations

If you recall, back in January, Trump and his (former) DOGE head, billionaire Elon Musk, halted funding for all federal foreign aid in their attempts to purge the government of "waste and fraud." Related: The cuts quickly affected over 177 recipient countries, cutting off critical supplies of food and medicine, and shutting down treatment centers to tackle HIV and the prevention of other diseases. Amid the cuts, the Trump administration also ordered the burning of about 500 metric tons of food meant to feed families and children in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which sparked outrage online. Now, in their continued shift away from providing foreign assistance, the Trump administration is set to incinerate $9.7 million worth of contraceptives intended for poor nations, despite offers from the United Nations and a nonprofit organization to purchase or cover the cost of repackaging and shipping the supplies, according to a Reuters report. Per the report, the US government will spend $167,000 to incinerate the supplies, which include contraceptive implants, pills, and intrauterine devices that are due to expire between April 2027 and September 2031. The US State Department said no condoms or HIV medications would be destroyed. The supplies, currently stored in a Belgian warehouse since the January aid freeze, are being shipped to France for incineration. In a statement with Reuters, the Belgian foreign ministry said they "explored all possible options to prevent the destruction, including temporary relocation" with US authorities. "Despite these efforts, and with full respect for our partners, no viable alternative could be secured. Nevertheless, Belgium continues to actively seek solutions to avoid this regrettable outcome," they said. According to NPR, the $9.7 million in contraceptives could have provided pregnancy prevention for over 650,000 people for up to one year, and as many as 950,000 people for three to ten years, depending on the contraceptive method. Axios reported that a US State Department spokesperson cited several policies that prohibit the government from providing abortion-related assistance to foreign organizations as the reason for refusing to donate the contraceptive supplies. Reuters, citing a source, reported that the decision was made in accordance with the Mexico City policy, an anti-abortion measure Trump reinstated in January that bars the US from funding or working with organizations that offer or support access to abortion. Related: The decision has drawn widespread backlash. Two Democratic senators, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Sen. Brian Schatz, have introduced legislation, the "Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act," to try to prevent foreign assistance commodities like food and medical devices, including the $10 million in contraceptives, from being destroyed or wasted. "This isn't just wasteful, it's cruel," Sen. Shaheen wrote on X. Twitter: @SenatorShaheen California Rep. Judy Chu said she was "horrified" and called the decision "cruel, disgraceful, and a needless waste of your taxpayer dollars." Related: Beth Davidson, a county legislator in New York, called the story "bizarre" and warned that without access to contraceptive care, more women and girls will be forced to turn to unsafe abortions, increasing the risk of maternal death. She wrote, "Women and girls abroad with unintended pregnancies will seek unsafe abortions. Women and girls will die. Trump would rather waste taxpayer dollars than prevent maternal deaths. Just more of the hypocrisy and misogyny that will forever define the Trump administration and everyone who stands by him. Shameful." The public is not too pleased either. "It would actually cost less to deliver them than to burn them, so this is just pure spite," one person said on Reddit. "Hell, offer to sell them for about the cost of burning them, at least someone would benefit." "I thought you were cutting waste not creating it," another wrote. Related: "Pure evil," this person said. "Just like they did with food for starving children that had already been bought. Torch it rather than providing it to the starving children. Both are wasteful, stupid and cruel," another said. And lastly, this person summed up much of the sentiment felt across social media: "The cruelty is the goal." What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:

"Pure Evil" — Everyone Is Losing It Over The Trump Admin Planning To Burn Nearly $10 Million In Contraceptives Intended For Poor Nations
"Pure Evil" — Everyone Is Losing It Over The Trump Admin Planning To Burn Nearly $10 Million In Contraceptives Intended For Poor Nations

Yahoo

time2 days ago

  • Health
  • Yahoo

"Pure Evil" — Everyone Is Losing It Over The Trump Admin Planning To Burn Nearly $10 Million In Contraceptives Intended For Poor Nations

If you recall, back in January, Trump and his (former) DOGE head, billionaire Elon Musk, halted funding for all federal foreign aid in their attempts to purge the government of "waste and fraud." Related: The cuts quickly affected over 177 recipient countries, cutting off critical supplies of food and medicine, and shutting down treatment centers to tackle HIV and the prevention of other diseases. Amid the cuts, the Trump administration also ordered the burning of about 500 metric tons of food meant to feed families and children in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which sparked outrage online. Now, in their continued shift away from providing foreign assistance, the Trump administration is set to incinerate $9.7 million worth of contraceptives intended for poor nations, despite offers from the United Nations and a nonprofit organization to purchase or cover the cost of repackaging and shipping the supplies, according to a Reuters report. Per the report, the US government will spend $167,000 to incinerate the supplies, which include contraceptive implants, pills, and intrauterine devices that are due to expire between April 2027 and September 2031. The US State Department said no condoms or HIV medications would be destroyed. The supplies, currently stored in a Belgian warehouse since the January aid freeze, are being shipped to France for incineration. In a statement with Reuters, the Belgian foreign ministry said they "explored all possible options to prevent the destruction, including temporary relocation" with US authorities. "Despite these efforts, and with full respect for our partners, no viable alternative could be secured. Nevertheless, Belgium continues to actively seek solutions to avoid this regrettable outcome," they said. According to NPR, the $9.7 million in contraceptives could have provided pregnancy prevention for over 650,000 people for up to one year, and as many as 950,000 people for three to ten years, depending on the contraceptive method. Axios reported that a US State Department spokesperson cited several policies that prohibit the government from providing abortion-related assistance to foreign organizations as the reason for refusing to donate the contraceptive supplies. Reuters, citing a source, reported that the decision was made in accordance with the Mexico City policy, an anti-abortion measure Trump reinstated in January that bars the US from funding or working with organizations that offer or support access to abortion. Related: The decision has drawn widespread backlash. Two Democratic Senators, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Brian Schatz, have introduced legislation, the "Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act," to try to prevent foreign assistance commodities like food and medical devices, including the $10 million in contraceptives, from being destroyed or wasted. "This isn't just wasteful, it's cruel," Sen. Shaheen wrote on X. Twitter: @SenatorShaheen California Rep. Judy Chu said she was "horrified" and called the decision a "cruel, disgraceful, and a needless waste of your taxpayer dollars." Related: Beth Davidson, a county legislator in New York, called the story "bizarre" and warned that without access to contraceptive care, more women and girls will be forced to turn to unsafe abortions, increasing the risk of maternal death. She wrote, "Women and girls abroad with unintended pregnancies will seek unsafe abortions. Women and girls will die. Trump would rather waste taxpayer dollars than prevent maternal deaths. Just more of the hypocrisy and misogyny that will forever define the Trump administration and everyone who stands by him. Shameful." The public is not too pleased either. "It would actually cost less to deliver them than to burn them, so this is just pure spite," one person said on Reddit. "Hell, offer to sell them for about the cost of burning them, at least someone would benefit." "I thought you were cutting waste not creating it," another wrote. Related: "Pure evil," this person said. "Just like they did with food for starving children that had already been bought. Torch it rather than providing it to the starving children. Both are wasteful, stupid and cruel," another said. And lastly, this person summed up much of the sentiment felt across social media: "The cruelty is the goal." What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store