THE Trump Administration’s termination of 83% of its programs under USAID (United States Agency for Interna-tional Development) has sparked debates about its humanitarian and diplomatic consequences.
Washington D.C. forwards pros of the action, stating that ending USAID could reduce federal spending, allowing funds to be redirected to domestic priorities and incur cost savings for the US Government and that reducing foreign aid might encourage recipient countries to develop self-sustaining economies.
Supporters of the decision claim that eliminating USAID could simplify US foreign policy by consolidating aid programs under other departments.
Contrarily, the cons outweigh the pros since the sudden halt of USAID-funded programs has disrupted critical ser-vices like food security, healthcare and education in vulnerable regions.
In Congo, programs like “Action Against Hunger” have been halted, leaving tens of thousands of malnourished children without critical care.
Over a million Ethiopians have lost access to food assistance and thousands of healthcare workers focused on HIV, malaria preven-tion and vaccinations have been laid off.
Senegal’s largest malaria prevention project, which distributed bed nets and medication, has been shut down, affecting tens of thousands of people.
South Sudan’s health and nutrition services for over 115,000 people have been discontinued.
Colombia’s program aiding 50,000 people in conflict-affected areas has ended, worsening an already dire humanitarian crisis.
In Afghanistan—where hundreds of mobile health teams and other services were suspended—has impacted around 9 million people.
In the Philippines, a $40 million project for early childhood education was halted.
Madagascar has taken a hit because a $130 million project addressing healthcare needs has ceased.
Simultaneously, refugee support in Myanmar has been hindered by hospitals in refugee camps along the Thailand border being closed, leaving many without medical care.
Because USAID has been a major contributor to Pakistan’s development, funding projects in health, education, agri-culture and infrastructure, its termination will have significant socio-economic impacts on its fragile economy.
Thou-sands of workers employed by NGOs and civil society organizations funded by USAID may face job losses, exacer-bating unemployment and economic instability.
USAID has supported key energy projects like the Tarbela Dam ex-pansions and clean water initiatives.
The termination could delay or halt such projects, affecting energy security and infrastructure development.
The long-term effects of USAID termination will depend on how Pakistan adapts to this change and whether alternative funding sources or strategies are developed.
These are just a few examples of the widespread consequences, where the ripple effects are being felt across many vulnerable regions.
The cancellation of USAID funding has prompted discussions about alternative solutions to sup-port affected regions.
Benevolent countries like Canada, China, Germany, Japan and Sweden would be motivated to step up and fill the gap left by USAID.
These nations could redirect their aid budgets to the most vulnerable regions.
Beijing, which already has a track record of coming to the aid of countries facing tribulations, may move to fill the vacuum.
A sustainable solution can be: empowering local governments and organizations to take on a more signifi-cant role in development and humanitarian efforts.
Affected regions are being advised to seek funding from a broader range of international donors and institutions.
There is another sinister allegation apart from foreign aid being used as a diplomatic tool to gain support in interna-tional forums like the United Nations.
There have been long standing rumours and allegations that USAID has, at times, been used as a front for CIA operations.
During the 1970s, the CIA used USAID programs to channel funds to opposition groups against President Salvador Allende, ultimately contributing to the coup that brought Augusto Pinochet to power.
In the 1980s, during the Soviet-Afghan War, USAID programs were reportedly used as a cover to provide support to the Mujahideen fighters.
USAID programs have been linked to efforts to undermine the Cuban government, including the controversial “ZunZuneo” project, a social media platform aimed at inciting dissent.
During the Vietnam War, USAID programs were allegedly used to support counterinsurgency efforts and gather intelligence.
USAID was reportedly involved in covert activities in countries like Laos, where funds were allegedly diverted to support paramilitary efforts.
Additionally, the “New York Times” has highlighted instances where USAID programs were linked to intelligence operations, such as the controversial Office of Public Safety.
These examples highlight the blurred lines between humanitarian aid and covert operations in certain historical con-texts.
The cancellation of USAID has significant implications for US foreign policy because the global project has been a key tool for building goodwill and fostering positive relationships with other nations.
Its absence reduces the US’s ability to influence global opinions and policies in its favour.
The US State Department must be cognizant of the fact that without USAID, it.
may struggle to secure allies for its initiatives.
USAID-funded programs often address root causes of instability, such as poverty and lack of education.
Their cancellation could lead to increased conflict and extremism, indirectly affecting US national security.
Many US businesses and NGOs that partner with USAID may face financial challenges, potentially reducing the US’s economic influence abroad.
The rapid dismantling of USAID may have been to address concerns over inefficiency, waste and the potential misuse of funds but, critics argue that the decision was made without adequate consultation with Congress or consideration of the long-term implications for global stability and US influence.
It raises questions about the US’s commitment to global leadership and its ability to address transnational challenges like pandemics, climate change and food insecurity.
—The writer, Retired Group Captain of PAF, is author of several books on China. (sultanm.hali@gmail.com)
