• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AP: 16 million at imminent risk of dying in African famine as US cuts foreign aid

Status
Not open for further replies.

lazygecko

Member
https://www.apnews.com/a3cb8c0627d6...rian-crisis-hits-as-Trump-slashes-foreign-aid

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — The world's largest humanitarian crisis in 70 years has been declared in three African countries on the brink of famine, just as President Donald Trump's proposed foreign aid cuts threaten to pull the United States from its historic role as the world's top emergency donor.

If the deep cuts are approved by Congress and the U.S. does not contribute to Africa's current crisis, experts warn that the continent's growing drought and famine could have far-ranging effects, including a new wave of migrants heading to Europe and possibly more support for Islamic extremist groups.

The conflict-fueled hunger crises in Nigeria, Somalia and South Sudan have culminated in a trio of potential famines hitting almost simultaneously. Nearly 16 million people in the three countries are at risk of dying within months.

Famine already has been declared in two counties of South Sudan and 1 million people there are on the brink of dying from a lack of food, U.N. officials have said. Somalia has declared a state of emergency over drought and 2.9 million of its people face a food crisis that could become a famine, according to the U.N. And in northeastern Nigeria, severe malnutrition is widespread in areas affected by violence from Boko Haram extremists.

"We are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the United Nations," Stephen O'Brien, the U.N. humanitarian chief, told the U.N. Security Council after a visit this month to Somalia and South Sudan.

At least $4.4 billion is needed by the end of March to avert a hunger "catastrophe" in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in late February.

But according to U.N. data, only 10 percent of the necessary funds have been received so far.

Trump's proposed budget would "absolutely" cut programs that help some of the most vulnerable people on Earth, Mick Mulvaney, the president's budget director, told reporters last week. The budget would "spend less money on people overseas and more money on people back home," he said.

The United States traditionally has been the largest donor to the U.N. and gives more foreign aid to Africa than any other continent. In 2016 it gave more than $2 billion to the U.N.'s World Food Program, or almost a quarter of its total budget. That is expected to be reduced under Trump's proposed budget, according to former and current U.S. government officials.

"I've never seen this kind of threat to what otherwise has been a bipartisan consensus that food aid and humanitarian assistance programs are morally essential and critical to our security," Steven Feldstein, a former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Obama administration, told The Associated Press.

In an interview last week with the AP in Washington, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rejected the proposed cuts to foreign aid. "America being a force is a lot more than building up the Defense Department," he said. "Diplomacy is important, extremely important, and I don't think these reductions at the State Department are appropriate because many times diplomacy is a lot more effective — and certainly cheaper — than military engagement."

The hunger crises in Nigeria, Somalia and South Sudan are all the more painful because they are man-made, experts said, though climate change has had some impact on Somalia and Nigeria's situations, said J. Peter Pham, the head of the Africa Center at the Atlantic Council.

South Sudan has been entrenched in civil war since late 2013 that has killed tens of thousands and prevented widespread cultivation of food. In Nigeria and Somalia, extremist groups Boko Haram and al-Shabab have proven stubborn to defeat, and both Islamic organizations still hold territory that complicates aid efforts.

If Trump's foreign aid cuts are approved, the humanitarian funding burden for the crises would shift to other large donors like Britain. But the U.S.'s influential role in rallying global support will slip.

"Without significant contributions from the U.S. government, it is less able to catalyze contributions from other donors and meet even minimal life-saving needs," Nancy Lindborg, president of the United States Institute of Peace, said in prepared remarks to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, neighboring African countries will feel the immediate consequences of famine, experts said. On Thursday, the U.N. refugee chief said Uganda was at a "breaking point" after more than 570,000 South Sudanese refugees had arrived since July alone.

Others fleeing hunger could aim for Europe instead.

"We are going to see pressure on neighboring countries, in some cases people joining traditional migration routes both from the Sahel into Europe, or south into various destinations in Africa," Joseph Siegle, director of research at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, told the AP.

"You have 19 countries facing some degree of food stress in Africa, and three of them are facing famine conditions. All three of them are facing conflict, and the vast majority of the countries facing more serious crises are non-democratic governments," Siegle said.

He described a series of possible consequences. Most likely there will be increased flows of people migrating from Somalia and the vast Sahel region north into Libya, where trafficking routes are a valuable source of finance for the Islamic State, he said.

Closer to home, people from South Sudan and Somalia seeking food likely will strain the resources of neighboring countries where political will and goodwill to refugees can be fleeting, said Mohammed Abdiker, director of operations and emergencies with the International Organization for Migration.

The regional consequences will depend on how the international community responds, Abdiker said.

Alex De Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation, summed up the situation: "Famine can be prevented if we want."

Apart from escalaing into the greatest humanitarian crisis since WW2, this is also looking likely to be the catalyst for yet another mass wave of refugees. The cause of the famines are mostly linked to the regional civil wars and unrest, but we can probably count on seeing numerous more situations just like this due to climate change in the forseeable future.
 

Auto_aim1

MeisaMcCaffrey
Sad. This foreign aid is nothing for the US when $700 billion is spent on the military. Total foreign aid is also a small insignificant amount.
 
Other countries will have to step up until someone who isn't fully inhuman is in office. The US cannot be counted on for even the little positive foreign influence and support that's out there now.
 

Arttemis

Member
"At least $4.4 billion is needed by the end of March to avert a hunger "catastrophe" in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in late February."

So about 225 miles of THE WALL could prevent the death of 16 million.
 

Zaru

Member
As bad as cutting US foreign aid in this situation is... if they need 4.4 billion within DAYS, and the USA only sent 2 billion a year, then the crisis would still happen even if the aid payments had stayed the same. Yet people are gonna read this as "Trump tries to beat the great leap forward"
So who's going to foot the bill? I guess it's chump change for Europe in comparison to the prospect of millions of african refugees heading north.
 

jmdajr

Member
George-W-Bush-77461.gif
 

LQX

Member
Sad but can't put this all on the US with so many other rich countries and if anything this says a whole lot about the rest of the world if 16 million can potentially die without US foreign aid in particular. Step up.
 
"At least $4.4 billion is needed by the end of March to avert a hunger "catastrophe" in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in late February."

So about 225 miles of THE WALL could prevent the death of 16 million.

THE WALL budget is untouchable, it'd have to come out of the tank budget and we can't have that.
 

shem935

Banned
As bad as cutting US foreign aid in this situation is... if they need 4.4 billion within DAYS, and the USA only sent 2 billion a year, then the crisis would still happen even if the aid payments had stayed the same. Yet people are gonna read this as "Trump tries to beat the great leap forward"
So who's going to foot the bill? I guess it's chump change for Europe in comparison to the prospect of millions of african refugees heading north.

Ideally a mature national community would all pool resources. Cutting aid instead is rather callous and the characterization of trump as an uncaring butcher is very apt in this case.
 

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
Other countries will have to step up until someone who isn't fully inhuman is in office. The US cannot be counted on for even the little positive foreign influence and support that's out there now.

I think it shows how important the US is for the World and how they are the leader for it. Half the aid to Africa is coming from the US while a quarter of the budget from the UN is from the US. The few countries that can step up to fill the void will not(China, SK, Germany, etc) and most of the smaller ones cannot.

I do think this is a good time for hopefully other countries to step off and start removing the US dependence, but judging from the tone of the article. They are still hoping the US will fill the gap. When even if they put in the same half they did prior, they are still only at 10% from everyone else.
 
B

bomb

Unconfirmed Member
As bad as cutting US foreign aid in this situation is... if they need 4.4 billion within DAYS, and the USA only sent 2 billion a year, then the crisis would still happen even if the aid payments had stayed the same. Yet people are gonna read this as "Trump tries to beat the great leap forward"
So who's going to foot the bill? I guess it's chump change for Europe in comparison to the prospect of millions of african refugees heading north.

pretty much this.
 
16 million can potentially die without US foreign aid in particular.

It doesn't say that anywhere.

As bad as cutting US foreign aid in this situation is... if they need 4.4 billion within DAYS, and the USA only sent 2 billion a year, then the crisis would still happen even if the aid payments had stayed the same.

Yeah, there are definitely a host of issues here, not just one.


The few countries that can step up to fill the void will not(China, SK, Germany, etc)

Why do you include South Korea and Germany in the list of those who won't?
 

Flux

Member
So looks literally millions could be fed with the money saved on Trump's extended family security and vacations.
 

WedgeX

Banned
As bad as cutting US foreign aid in this situation is... if they need 4.4 billion within DAYS, and the USA only sent 2 billion a year, then the crisis would still happen even if the aid payments had stayed the same. Yet people are gonna read this as "Trump tries to beat the great leap forward"
So who's going to foot the bill? I guess it's chump change for Europe in comparison to the prospect of millions of african refugees heading north.

The United States contributes 2 billion just to the World Food Program. The United States also contributes approximately 10 billion in other forms of aid, including other food programs, to Africa through USAID.
 

spons

Gold Member
Hell, as long as there are people who claim you shouldn't give them a single penny because otherwise they won't learn how to fend for themselves, shit like this will get petitioned and cut.

Europe should absolutely step in, right now.
 

Arttemis

Member
Every bit of aid sent to these areas really NEEDS to be tied to some kind of contraceptive program. The growth rate of population in undeveloped countries, particularly in Africa, is unsustainable. They are overpopulating parts of the world that simply can't support the numbers. The culture there is strongly opposed to any kind of birth control method, and it simply CAN NOT CONTINUE.

The countries desperately need aid, but it has to be associated with some kind of program to admonish their stance of anti-contraception and pro-mass reproduction.

pop_growth.gif
 

Kodros

Member
Every bit of aid sent to these areas really NEEDS to be tied to some kind of contraceptive program. The growth rate of population in undeveloped countries, particularly in Africa, is unsustainable. They are overpopulating parts of the world that simply can't support the numbers. The culture there is strongly opposed to any kind of birth control method, and it simply CAN NOT CONTINUE.

The countries desperately need aid, but it has to be associated with some kind of program to admonish their stance of anti-contraception and pro-mass reproduction.

pop_growth.gif

I agree. I feel like every time I see a video of these impoverished areas, they'll interview families with like 6 kids and then they talk about how they are having difficulties feeding their children. It's heartbreaking seeing the kids hungry like that.

Well, that population can be sustained, we just need to produce and share food better.
There's only so much land and so much money. That chart only goes to 2050. Who is going to be producing all of this food. Who is going to foot the billions and billions of dollars needed to do this? At some point developed countries will have to limit their aid because the cost will be too much. Something has to change on their end.
 

lazygecko

Member
Every bit of aid sent to these areas really NEEDS to be tied to some kind of contraceptive program. The growth rate of population in undeveloped countries, particularly in Africa, is unsustainable. They are overpopulating parts of the world that simply can't support the numbers. The culture there is strongly opposed to any kind of birth control method, and it simply CAN NOT CONTINUE.

The countries desperately need aid, but it has to be associated with some kind of program to admonish their stance of anti-contraception and pro-mass reproduction.

pop_growth.gif

Contraceptives are just a small part of the bigger picture. The consistently proven way of curbing population growth is by social and economic development, particularly in women's access to education.
 

spons

Gold Member
I agree. I feel like every time I see a video of these impoverished areas, they'll interview families with like 6 kids and then they talk about how they are having difficulties feeding their children. It's heartbreaking seeing the kids hungry like that.

Half of them die because of disease, you need to have many children if you want some of them to survive. The remaining children either work or take care of family.

You need an entire culture shift and loads of money to fix the problems in rural Africa.
 
Every bit of aid sent to these areas really NEEDS to be tied to some kind of contraceptive program. The growth rate of population in undeveloped countries, particularly in Africa, is unsustainable. They are overpopulating parts of the world that simply can't support the numbers. The culture there is strongly opposed to any kind of birth control method, and it simply CAN NOT CONTINUE.

The countries desperately need aid, but it has to be associated with some kind of program to admonish their stance of anti-contraception and pro-mass reproduction.

pop_growth.gif

1) Western missionaries are one of the causes of this

2) Developing countries always have higher birth rates. The issue is Africa (not all obviously) has been constantly stripped of it's ability to grow and develop over the course of centuries.
 

Sevenfold

Member
Black and brown people.

This sadly.
The UK and US public are being fed daily scare stories, and it pains me to say that a lot of the people who wouldn't walk down the street in the 90s and abuse people of a different ethnicity have a voice online, bolstered by the hive-mind like-minded group mentality that the algorithms produce and you have a self fueling cycle. What staggers me is the nonchalance of some of them online. More than happy to paste videos of themselves being the worst type of scum knowing full well that the majority of people who are going to see it online are already in full agreement and will simply buff their opinion of the uploader. Which is what it's all about isn't it?! Those small lifts of self satisfaction that us normal people get when we do something good. Lovely. Their fucked up stinky rotten version probably feels good too,

Fwiw. being from Lancashire I'm always surprised when the Daily Mail is called out and (rightly) banned as a source but The shitstain that is The S*n is all good here. I've lurked the footy thread. There must be some others on here that fucking hate that paper. /rant... and breath :)
 
Fwiw. being from Lancashire I'm always surprised when the Daily Mail is called out and (rightly) banned as a source but The shitstain that is The S*n is all good here. I've lurked the footy thread. There must be some others on here that fucking hate that paper. /rant... and breath :)

I've pointed it out numerous times.

6N26omr.jpg
 

4Tran

Member
Regardless of whether the US drops aid to Africa, let's hope that other countries can be convinced to make up the shortfall. I don't think that it'll happen to any substantial degree, but if China feels that its African investments are threatened enough by this crisis, they might decide to do something about it.

Wow, how isnt this reported on the news?
News about crises in Africa aren't sexy enough so it gets very little coverage. The most serious war since World War II was the Second Congo War and I'd bet that you've never heard of that either. The problem here is that because this particular crisis is so little known, there's very little impetus for a country to up their aid to the region.
 
Every bit of aid sent to these areas really NEEDS to be tied to some kind of contraceptive program. The growth rate of population in undeveloped countries, particularly in Africa, is unsustainable. They are overpopulating parts of the world that simply can't support the numbers. The culture there is strongly opposed to any kind of birth control method, and it simply CAN NOT CONTINUE.

The countries desperately need aid, but it has to be associated with some kind of program to admonish their stance of anti-contraception and pro-mass reproduction.

pop_growth.gif

First step would be to stop pairing aid with missionaries.
 
Every bit of aid sent to these areas really NEEDS to be tied to some kind of contraceptive program. The growth rate of population in undeveloped countries, particularly in Africa, is unsustainable. They are overpopulating parts of the world that simply can't support the numbers. The culture there is strongly opposed to any kind of birth control method, and it simply CAN NOT CONTINUE.

The countries desperately need aid, but it has to be associated with some kind of program to admonish their stance of anti-contraception and pro-mass reproduction.

pop_growth.gif

That graph is very misleading. There is less poverty in this world today and it's dropping.
 

Oersted

Member
The United States contributes 2 billion just to the World Food Program. The United States also contributes approximately 10 billion in other forms of aid, including other food programs, to Africa through USAID.

Additionally

Leaders of two United Nations agencies fighting hunger worldwide have applauded new legislation in the United States aimed at strengthening global food assistance programs in the years ahead.

The UN World Food Programme (WFP) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) praised U.S. President Barack Obama for his 20 July signing of the Global Food Security Act (GFSA), after the bill was passed by the U.S. Congress on 6 July with remarkably broad support.

“The United States is helping to put an even stronger emphasis on how food security and economic development are intertwined, while stressing the central role of small-scale family farmers in the fight against hunger and poverty,” said FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva.

“This law will have a dramatic impact on the lives of people throughout the world, showing once again why the United States is a leader in promoting food security and helping those who struggle to feed their families so they can start to build their own future,” says WFP Executive Director Ertharin Cousin.

http://m.wfp.org/news/news-release/...il-us-law-aimed-boosting-global-food-security

Mind you, Donald isn't a leader
 

Christhor

Member
Every bit of aid sent to these areas really NEEDS to be tied to some kind of contraceptive program. The growth rate of population in undeveloped countries, particularly in Africa, is unsustainable. They are overpopulating parts of the world that simply can't support the numbers. The culture there is strongly opposed to any kind of birth control method, and it simply CAN NOT CONTINUE.

The countries desperately need aid, but it has to be associated with some kind of program to admonish their stance of anti-contraception and pro-mass reproduction.

pop_growth.gif

That chart. Really puts it into perspective about NASA's funding being slashed being a terrible thing too, clearly we (not actually you and I) need to get away from Earth soon.
 
Africans are expected to be starving, it's seen as normal by most Westerners.

Yep. And people are conditioned to go "how sad" and move on with their day. "Africa is always starving so what can be done". Turns out a fuckton can be done but few people do or even pay attention to avenues to change it.

THIS...is why every vote matters, people!

Truly. But stubborn abstaining voters will continue to feel justified or superior while the world burns around them
 

Sunster

Member
Where can I donate food and money to help?

I learned on Adam Ruins Everything that food donations don't do much. Donate money to established organizations that provide food.

Africans are expected to be starving, it's seen as normal by most Westerners.

Henry Louis Gates Jr's 6 part documentary about Africa on PBS should be mandatory viewing for any westerner. We have such incorrect assumptions about the history of Africa which leads to implicit bias and assumptions about Africa today.
 

Ogodei

Member
And 2050 is supposed to be the plateau. Remember that the bulk of the world's population was living in pre-industrial conditions (including pre-industrial health and sanitary conditions which meant a high birth rate was reflected by a huge child mortality rate and created a somewhat sustainable system). The birth rate explosion is really just a decline in child mortality due to basic interventions that are now available, but they still need the large families because their economic situation hasn't improved otherwise. Once the economics catches up, the birth rate will plummet to mirror those of better-off developing countries (like Mexico or Brazil), and ultimately closer to those of fully developed countries, like Europe, the Anglosphere, and East Asia.

Edit: meant to quote that chart for this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom