February 18, 2025 • 43 mins
On Inside Geneva, we take a deep dive into the United States’ cuts in foreign aid.
“In Colombia, they’ve just had to lay off 200 staff who were doing the demining in the south of the country. So, all of a sudden, these families have no work. And the alternative in the area, you know what it is: coca plants. So how is that in the US interest?” asks Tamar Gabelnick, director of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.
“The freezing is not democratic. Congress has voted for some of these programmes and it's Mr. Trump, Mr. Musk, etc. who are cutting them out without the approval of Congress. So, legally, I don't see how they can do this,” says analyst Daniel Warner.
Why is Washington cutting something that is a lifesaver for vulnerable people worldwide, but costs just 0.2% of the US gross national product?
“President Trump and Musk will say that these cuts to USAID are about shrinking a bloated bureaucracy and getting rid of waste and fraud. But I'd say that this whole thing has more to do with ideology and politics,” continues Dawn Clancy, a journalist based in New York.
What happens when ideology cuts humanitarian aid?
“It's not just American isolationism. It's not just America first. There seems to be a quite deliberate undermining of fundamental freedoms,” says Imogen Foulkes, host of the Inside Geneva podcast.
“We don't have four years. The international legal framework and universal human rights are at a critical juncture and are being eroded, threatened and instrumentalised in unprecedented ways. Now is the time to step up,” says Phil Lynch, Executive Director of the International Service for Human Rights.
Search for Inside Geneva wherever you get your podcasts.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
In today's program, Late today, the US State
Department suspended all foreignassistance around the world for
at least three months.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
In Colombia they've just had to lay off 200 staff
that were doing the demining inthe south of the country.
So all of a sudden thesefamilies have no work and the
alternative in the area you knowwhat it is Coca plants.
So how is that in the USinterest?
Speaker 4 (00:42):
The suspension freezing is not democratic.
Congress has voted for some ofthese programs and it's Mr Trump
, mr Musk, etc.
Who are cutting them outwithout the approval of Congress
, so legally, I don't see howthey can do this.
Speaker 5 (01:00):
President Trump and Musk will say that these cuts to
USAID it's about shrinking abloated bureaucracy, it's about
getting rid of waste and fraud,but I'd say that this whole
thing has more to do withideology and politics.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
It's not just American isolationism, it's not
just America.
First, there seems to be aquite deliberate undermining of
fundamental freedoms.
Speaker 6 (01:30):
We don't have four years.
The international legalframework and universal human
rights are at a criticaljuncture and are being eroded
and threatened andinstrumentalised in some
unprecedented ways.
Now is the time to step up.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Vokes and today Iknow we touched on this in our
last episode but given the moodhere in Geneva, we're going to
have to talk about this more theconsequences of the United
States cuts in foreign aid, theactual closure, it seems, of US
(02:12):
aid and what that is going tomean for humanitarian work
worldwide.
I've got two guests.
Our listeners will be familiarwith them, you've heard of them
before.
Our listeners will be familiarwith them.
You've heard of them beforeDanny Warner, here in Geneva,
long-time analyst of all thingsGeneva international affairs,
(02:37):
and Dawn Clancy, our friend ofthe podcast, based at the UN in
New York.
They are going to bring ustheir take on what's been
happening.
But first, as I said, we havetalked about this but the
consequences we are hearing moreand more of.
I'm just going to play you alittle bit which I recorded in
the last few days here at UNBriefings in Geneva, first from
(02:59):
the UN Population Fund and thenfrom UNAIDS, about what the
consequences of this cut in USfunding means.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
On 24 January, the US administration paused nearly
all US foreign aid programspending a 90-day review.
In response, UNFPA hassuspended services funded by US
grants that provide a lifelinefor women and girls in crises,
including in South Asia.
What happens when our work isnot funded?
Women give birth alone inunsanitary conditions.
(03:32):
The risk of obstetric fistulais heightened.
Newborns die from preventablecauses.
Survivors of gender-basedviolence have nowhere to turn
for medical or psychologicalsupport.
We hope that the United Statesgovernment will retain its
position as a global leader indevelopment and continue to work
with UNFPA to alleviate thesuffering of women and their
(03:55):
families as a result ofcatastrophes they did not cause.
Speaker 7 (03:59):
There is still a lot of confusion, especially in
communities, how the waiver willbe implemented and we're seeing
a lot of disruption of deliveryof treatment services,
especially at the communitylevel.
So, for example, in Ethiopia,we have 5,000 public health
worker contracts that are fundedby US assistance and all of
(04:22):
these, in all regions ofEthiopia, have been terminated
and 10,000 data clerks veryimportant in Ethiopia so that we
continue monitoring andensuring that people are on
treatment.
As UNAIDS, we estimate that ifPEPFAR wasn't reauthorized
between 2025 and 2029, and otherresources were not found for
(04:43):
the HIV response, there would bea 400% increase in AIDS death,
that's, 6.3 million people, 6.3million AIDS-related deaths that
will occur in the future.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
So, welcome Dani, welcome Dawn.
Pretty stark warnings.
I'm going to come to you first,dani, because you know, as I do
, the humanitarian communityhere in Geneva very well.
What's the mood, what reactionshave you been hearing?
Speaker 4 (05:11):
Well, it's pretty gloomy, imogen.
People are really stunned,surprised and searching for what
to do.
I want to point out there arethree levels of the problem.
First is obviously, asmentioned, the recipients of the
aid assistance in the field.
The second, of course, is thepeople working for these
(05:32):
organizations in the field.
One organization, terre desHommes, has had to lay off over
400 people working for themthroughout the world.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
And let's just remind our listeners, Terre des Hommes
, Swiss-based charity that worksprimarily with children in
conflict zones or intransitioning from conflict.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
I have seen their work, for example years ago in
Albania.
Excellent work.
Speaker 4 (05:59):
And the third, of course, is the people in Geneva.
The estimate is about 350people working in
non-governmental organizationsare out of a job or will be out
of a job, and it's such anemergency that the Geneva
government has proposed 10million francs for 90 days to
(06:20):
try to help some of theseorganizations.
That's how bad it is.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Yeah, I mean I would share that.
The shock in Geneva we allexpected, as we'll hear in some
of our forthcoming interviews.
We expected changes with theTrump administration, but not as
savage as this Dawn.
How's this going down in theUnited States?
I mean, we heard from the UNPopulation Fund maternal health
(06:46):
clinics in Afghanistan or UNAIDS.
You know, hiv prevention amongchildren.
Are people at all aware of this?
Speaker 5 (06:54):
where they were talking about USAID and I would
say, if you listen to thatbriefing, there's very little
acknowledgement of what'shappening on the receiving end
of this USAID funding, freezeand layoffs and all the
(07:16):
craziness that it's causing.
So I would say that here in theStates, especially with
Republicans who back this kindof audit, they're not
acknowledging what's happeningon the Geneva end.
You know, as Danny explained it, they're just talking about
USAID is corrupt and it'sabusing money and it's
(07:37):
fraudulent and it's exportingwoke leftist woke ideology all
around the world.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
They're not acknowledging the other side of
it, which is um, which is reallyinteresting to hear and we
should say there that at time ofdiscussion, nobody has come up
with any evidence to say that usaid is corrupt or fraudulent.
What I will say is that itsfunding and the UN humanitarian
(08:08):
community has made this clear,the US funding is absolutely
crucial to humanitarian workworldwide.
At the same time, what UStaxpayers maybe don't quite know
is that what the US spends onforeign aid is not very much.
It's around 0.2% of its grossnational income, which is, as a
(08:32):
colleague of mine in the UK said, a rounding error.
Not spending this money willmake no difference to US
taxpayers, and yet not spendingit is life or death to some of
the poorest people on the planet, and that debate just does not
seem to be being had in theUnited States.
Speaker 5 (08:51):
You know, imogen.
I would just add when you talkabout evidence, I think that's a
really important point of this,because we've had the White
House Press Secretary, carolynLeavitt, rattling off these
programs that USAID supposedlysupports about transgender plays
in Colombia and transgendercomic books in Peru, and they've
shown no evidence.
That's the White House presssecretary, president Trump
(09:14):
himself he gave an impromptupress briefing in the Oval
Office yesterday.
He did the same thing noevidence.
That discussion isn't happeningeither, which is quite
interesting.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
Danny, you want to come in, yeah one of the things
that I find interesting is thesuspension freezing is not
democratic, with a small d, Imean.
Congress has voted for some ofthese programs and it's Mr Trump
, mr Musk, etc.
Who are cutting them outwithout the approval of Congress
(09:45):
.
So legally I don't see how theycan do this, and I do know
there are certain court findingscoming up which said that this
can't be done.
Now, whether the presidentobeys the court rulings is
another problem as well, butdemocratically this doesn't fly.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Yeah, that's right, it doesn't.
I mean it is a constitutionalissue and that's another program
is whether the US is now insome constitutional crisis.
Is this actually a coup, whichI've heard some people say?
It's a bit chilling.
Danny, I know I said the wordcoup, your ears pricked up On
you go and then we need to moveon and you started smiling.
Speaker 5 (10:24):
It's not about the coup.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
but I do want to make a comment early on about the
organizations.
The United States pays about40% of all humanitarian
assistance around the world andI do think that there should
have been some anticipation anddiversification of the donor
funding, because now they're ina desperate situation.
(10:47):
To find that amount of money isgoing to be extremely difficult
and I don't see how they'regoing to do it.
But they shouldn't have been sodependent on the United States.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Yeah, I don't disagree with you, danny, there,
but let's not forget that,although the US is the biggest
contributor, as we said, interms of its GNI, it's not
contributing that much A countrylike Norway or Sweden, or even
the UK.
Uk is up at 0.5%.
Some of these Scandinaviancountries are up at 1% of their
(11:17):
gross national income.
So you know, and they're allfacing the same economic
headwinds.
They all had to cope with COVID.
They are all stepping up forUkraine, another whole entire
programme and listeners, we willbe devoting ourselves entirely
to that in a special episodenext week.
What I wanted to come back to,though, dawn, was saying this
(11:42):
debate is not being had in theUnited States.
Instead, there's a lot ofaccusation and slurs basically
against USAID, and barefacedlies, like condoms for Gaza,
which it turned out to be acomplete lie and nobody's
actually said sorry for.
So one of the purposes of thisprogram is to actually go a bit
(12:06):
deeper into what USAID has beenfunding in the hope of providing
some enlightenment across thepond, and one of the things
which has also been cut prettybadly since this announcement of
the freeze is deminingworldwide Now.
I've been talking to TamarGabelnik, she's head of the
(12:27):
international campaign to banlandmines and they coordinate
with demining groups all overthe world, and I asked her how
things had been and her reactionto these cuts.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
I think everybody was absolutely shocked by this.
First of all, no one expected aglobal freeze in foreign aid
across the board and certainlyno one expected that it would
affect the mine action sector,which has always had a lot of
bipartisan support.
So, yes, total surprise and notime to prepare or even do any
(13:03):
kind of contingency planning.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Could you give some specific examples of that?
Things that have had to stopwork, maybe?
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Well, most importantly, it's the demining,
which means taking out basicallydeadly threats explosive
threats that lie in the groundwaiting for anybody to come
along, and every mine that'staken out, every cluster
munition, submunition that'sremoved means a life or many
lives saved.
So the United States givesaround $310 million a year to
(13:35):
mine action, which is about 40%of the global budget for
international assistance to mineaction.
So having a budget cut by 40%overnight is going to have
severe consequences.
In countries like Ukraine.
That's 30% of their budget cutovernight and they're stopping
work.
Now, are they?
Yes, everyone was issued a stopwork order.
(13:56):
We were too, the coalition.
We are advocacy, but we also doa research project.
The US government funds part ofthat research project on
exactly this the impact ofclearance and on victim
assistance and funding for mineaction.
So that was a big chunk of ourbudget gone overnight as well,
but it's the life-saving work ofthe deminers that's really in
(14:16):
question.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Why is this happening , do you think?
I mean, we expected some thingsfrom a new Trump administration
, but this?
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Shock and awe.
Let's cut, see what thereaction is and then maybe put
it back.
We're still hoping thatthere'll be a reprieve and then
it won't last the full 90 days.
I did hear a rumor this morningthat at least one operation in
one country was told that theycould start working again, so
maybe there's hope.
I mean, president Trump istalking about going into Gaza,
(14:47):
and that's a whole other subjectthat we won't get into now.
But you're not going to be ableto rebuild, no matter who's
doing it, unless you clear allthe unexploded ordnance first,
and all that money is now halted.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
You were talking about.
Some people are hoping, oh,maybe after the 90 days we'll be
restored.
Is that why some aid agenciesare very quiet, that they think
if they are kind of meek andpatient things might get better?
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Definitely there is fear about retribution by
President Trump and hisadministration.
He obviously plays favorites.
You do the most minor thingthat he perceives as an affront
and you're no longer in favor.
Whether the people making thedecisions lower down on specific
demining projects will keepthat in mind or not, I don't
(15:37):
know, but yes, everyone is beingextraordinarily careful not to
ruffle feathers right now.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Is there any way of appealing in language that the
people who are making the cutsunderstand?
I mean, I've often heard thecase for demining is also a very
economic one, that land canbecome productive again,
economies can become productiveagain.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Well, this gets into a much larger conversation about
what's in the United States'interest and the perception of
that among the United States'interest and the perception of
that among the administration,lawmakers and the American
public.
Our opinion, as civil societyworking for the protection of
civilians, is that it is in theUS interest to exercise their
influence soft power, biggerpower by being a good actor and
(16:26):
showing leadership, removing adaily threat to the well-being
and to the life and thelivelihoods of communities
around the world.
But yes, as you say,economically as well.
You're not going to be able torefarm a field that's been
covered in landmines unlessyou're sure there's no more
mines there, because otherwiseyour tractor rides over
something, be it anti-tank oreven anti-personnel.
And you're sure there's no moremines there, because otherwise
your tractor rides oversomething, be it anti-tank or
(16:48):
even anti-personnel, and you'rein trouble.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
What feedback or messages are you getting from
local NGOs on the ground?
Because it's not just agenciessituated here in Geneva with a
lot of quite comfortableinternational staff.
There's local staff all overthe world doing the hard graft
of this kind of work.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
Absolutely.
The Cambodian government hassaid it will have to lay off
1,000 people.
It's 93 teams.
Just to give you an example,they said over the past year and
a half or so they've taken outalmost 30,000 landmines from the
ground, 30,000 threats topeople, civilians.
The war is long gone there.
(17:31):
We're not talking aboutsoldiers, civilians that can
walk in.
Yes, yes, there is aresponsibility of the US
government in Laos as well, withthe cluster munitions and the
cluster munitions, or thesubunitions that remain in
Cambodia as well 17,000 of thoseand each of those has such an
amount of explosive in it thatoften, if they go off, they'll
kill not just the person thatpicked it up by accident, but
(17:54):
people around.
But another example in Colombia, we have a campaign member
there and they've just had tolay off 200 staff that were
doing the demining in the southof the country.
So all of a sudden, thesefamilies have no work and the
alternative in the area you knowwhat it is Coca plants.
So how is that in the USinterest that these people that
(18:15):
were doing something good forthe community are now, probably
in order to survive, having togo back to coca farms?
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Dani, we did hear from Dawn all of the kind of
stuff that's being talked aboutin the United States, about
fraud and corruption andspending money on nonsense.
They say, Again, no evidence.
Here we have Tamar with a cleareye on what the money is spent
(18:43):
on and she also makes the pointthat something like demining in
Colombia it's not just nice forColombia, it's actually in the
US interest.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
Well, I agree.
I mean, it certainly is aquestion of status and prestige,
and one of the things that MrTrump doesn't follow is the
Harvard professor, joe Nye'sconcept of soft power.
Soft power is defined asgetting someone to want to do
what you want them to do.
(19:14):
An easier definition Joe gavein Geneva was it's how a parent
deals with an adolescent child.
And the United States is now incompetition with China, and
China is spending billionsaround the world on its Silk and
Belt Road initiative, and theUnited States AID is part of an
(19:36):
image of the United Statesaround the world.
Places are not going to getAmerican aid.
They're probably going to askChina or someone else, which
reduces American prestige andleadership, and I think that's
something that the Americansshould understand, if they
understand the competition withChina.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
Dawn.
What do you think about that?
Because I sense that thecurrent administration for Trump
is not interested in soft power.
They're interested in strongmanpower.
But at the same time, trump hasmade a huge play about fentanyl
and other drugs coming over theborder.
And there is Colombia, as Tamarso clearly says.
(20:20):
You know the other option if wedon't help and we don't get
farmers land demined to growtheir stuff, they'll go back to
the drug barons and coca.
Surely a transactional Trump?
That argument might appeal tohim.
Speaker 5 (20:34):
Yes, I think for a transactional Trump, that would
make sense, but I don't thinkthat that's the version of Trump
that we're dealing with at themoment.
You know, president Trump andMusk will say that these cuts to
USAID it's about shrinking abloated bureaucracy, it's about
getting rid of waste and fraud,but I'd say that this whole
(20:55):
thing has more to do withideology and politics.
I would say that for Trump andhis Republican allies, this is
about going after an agency thatthey see as part of the lunatic
left.
That's how Trump refers to theleft often.
Is the lunatic left Going afterthis agency and tearing it down
(21:17):
?
Because he sees Americantaxpayer dollars going towards
these agencies that promote andexport woke ideology?
You know, like I mentionedbefore, well, imogen, you
mentioned, you know, condoms forGaza.
That turned out to be not true,but now they're talking about
condoms for the Taliban.
So that's what I think this isabout.
(21:39):
If we were dealing with thetransactional Trump, that would
make sense, but that's not whowe're dealing with.
This is more ideological.
That would make sense, butthat's not who we're dealing
with.
This is more ideological.
Going after the left, who Trumpbelieves stole the election
from him in 2020, going afterthe left who, you know, got
(21:59):
Trump into the courtroom.
So that's why I think, perhapsin Geneva maybe not that people
aren't thinking about this inGeneva, but that's what I think
is dominating this right now,geneva, but that's what I think
is dominating this right now.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
That's quite petty, danny, though, isn't it
Vengeance?
And making hundreds ofthousands of the world's poorest
suffer because you want to getrid of a political clique that
you see personally as a threat?
Speaker 4 (22:19):
He is who he is.
He's from the Queens, I'm fromBronx.
Maybe we understand that aspectof each other.
But I wanted to add to whatDawn said.
It's not just any bureaucracy.
There's a difference betweenhis attacking domestic
bureaucracies and his gutfeeling against anything
(22:41):
international and especiallymultilateralism.
So this is a combination of abureaucracy and a foreign
bureaucracy and I think that'spart of his vengeance against
some of the programs, but alsohis larger ideology against
multilateralism, against the UNand anything that deals with
(23:02):
that world.
Speaker 5 (23:03):
Yeah, absolutely, if I can just add to that that
deals with that world.
Yeah, absolutely, if I can justadd to that yesterday Trump had
a press conference in the OvalOffice and he had just had a
conversation with Putin and hewas very serious about ending
the war in Ukraine.
People are dying, we have toend it.
And then he went and he rambledfor a little bit and then he
got on this topic of USAID andhis whole demeanor changed.
(23:25):
He became more aggressive, hebecame angrier.
I think the next project thathe and Elon Musk has is they're
going after the Department ofEducation and they're going to
just completely cut it down,because I think Trump described
it as a con job, the Departmentof Education.
I don't know where he gets thatfrom, but if you go back and
(23:47):
look at that press briefing,what we're talking about here
will be clearly illustrated thisvengeance and this anger.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
So I personally find this quite concerning and
dismaying because, although I'venever been somebody who
subscribes to, you know, americais the determiner of our
freedom in the world.
I've never really believed thatand I do think Europe has made
(24:18):
its own standards, which,unfortunately, the Americans
because most of them don'ttravel don't know anything about
.
They might come over and findthat we live quite well without
them.
Thank you very much, but wherewe're going with this now?
It's not just Americanisolationism, it's not just
America.
First, there seems to be aquite what I fear, a quite
(24:44):
deliberate undermining offundamental freedoms, and that
is another aspect in that I saidto you at the start, we're
going to look in depth at whatthese cuts mean, because they
are also affecting human rightswork worldwide.
I talked to Phil Lynch from theInternational Service for Human
Rights.
Now they support human rightsdefenders in some of the most
(25:08):
difficult, challenging parts ofthe world, including Russia,
including China.
Now here's what he had to say.
Speaker 6 (25:15):
We're supporting human rights defenders and
democracy activists who areworking on the front line in
highly restrictive andrepressive contexts.
Places like China, likeVenezuela, where the role of
human rights defenders isabsolutely critical in promoting
justice, in promoting equalityand in promoting good and
(25:37):
transparent and accountablegovernment that respects
international law and is aresponsible international
citizen.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
You've put out a statement in the last couple of
days saying that yourorganisation has been hit hard
by the US funding freeze.
What exactly have you had to do?
How are you coping?
Speaker 6 (25:56):
The suspension of government funding has meant
that we've had to terminate orto defer or to reduce a number
of activities, particularlyactivities in support of human
rights defenders working in someof the most highly restrictive
and repressive contexts.
We've also had to take a numberof anticipatory cost-saving
(26:17):
measures, which has reduced ouroverall capacity to support
human rights defenders globallyat a time of great need.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
Did you expect this from the United States?
I mean, we all expected somechanges with President Trump 2.0
, but did you expect cuts assavage as these seem to be?
Speaker 6 (26:34):
No, I didn't, because the US, like all states, tends
to act in its self lives.
It also contributes very muchto a more safe, secure and
(27:03):
prosperous international order,which is to the benefit of the
United States and all globalcitizens, frankly, who do you
think's listening, though, inthe United States?
Speaker 1 (27:12):
now I mean these terms international world order,
etc.
Etc.
They just they don't seem toresonate across the pond anymore
.
Speaker 6 (27:19):
Right?
Well, I mean, I think it'sabsolutely imperative that they
do.
The United States is not anisland.
It can't exist in completeisolation and the United States,
like all states, rely on aninternational order which is
rules-based, which has somelevel of fairness.
International order which isrules-based, which has some
level of fairness, consistency,predictability, without which we
(27:41):
descend to a completemight-is-right type situation,
which frankly, undermines globalpeace and security.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
You talked about everybody having an interest in
the rule of law.
That includes international law.
The problem is, every day seemsto bring a new blow to it.
We've seen the United Stateswithdraw from the International
Criminal Court and actually itintroduced a whole raft of
things which will punish anybodywho engages with it.
(28:10):
That could include you mighteven include me, as a journalist
.
What can we do?
Speaker 6 (28:16):
How can we stand up for this rules-based order to
come together collectively andsay we have a shared interest in
international law, in theobservance of universal human
(28:41):
rights and in the rule of lawand we're going to collectively
speak out in defense of thoseprinciples and stand up and take
concrete action where thoseprinciples are violated.
And just by way of example, thesanctions announced by the
Trump administration against theInternational Criminal Court
constitute an interference inthe international administration
(29:03):
of justice.
They constitute a violation offundamental principles of
international human rights lawand international criminal law.
And it's incumbent on statesthat support the international
criminal justice system tocollectively come together and
say we're going to hold you toaccount as a perpetrator and we
will adopt countermeasures andlevy our own sanctions against
(29:25):
individuals and institutions whothreaten and interfere with the
international administration ofjustice in this way.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
So you would counsel against saying we're just going
to have to wait four years andbe consorted out after that.
Speaker 6 (29:37):
We don't have four years.
The international legalframework and universal human
rights are at a criticaljuncture and are being eroded
and threatened andinstrumentalized in some
unprecedented ways.
Now is the time to step up andinvest politically and
financially in the internationalhuman rights system, because
(30:00):
the stakes could not be higherand the counterfactual one in
which the international humanrights system is completely and
utterly eroded is acounterfactual in which we all
lose enormously.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
Phil Lynch is looking at a wider threat to our
fundamental rights and freedoms.
Coming from what used to becalled the land of the free and
the home of the brave Americansworry that these basic freedoms,
(30:41):
which they have told us, theysupport and they're sharing with
the rest of the world thatthey're being undermined.
Speaker 5 (30:45):
Yeah, I think if you're paying attention, you're
scared or you're frightened,absolutely you know.
Just going back on somethingthat Danny said about soft power
, trump isn't a soft power guy.
I mean, anytime he describesanyone that he brings into his
fold it's because they're strongand they're tough and they
adhere to his motto of peacethrough strength.
(31:07):
And I think that's what we'reseeing is a turn away from
international law I hate to sayinternational norms, but I guess
there's.
There is a certain amount ofdiplomacy that countries use to
interact with one another.
That keeps things civil, but Isee Trump going towards the,
(31:27):
towards the mightier side,thinking well, this is what
we're going to do.
You know Europe, and if youdon't like it, then I'm going to
send troops into your country.
I mean, that's probablyprobably a stretch.
I shouldn't have send troopsinto your country.
Speaker 7 (31:38):
I mean that's probably a stretch I shouldn't
have said that.
Speaker 5 (31:41):
No, but you know he's a strong man.
He doesn't care about the law,it doesn't bother him to like
steamroll over some courtdecision.
He sees himself as being thestrong guy that can sit down
with Putin and make a deal.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
Well, I mean on the Swiss media.
Today, my colleague, who is theMoscow correspondent for Swiss
media, described it as I'll sayit in German der folgenreiche
Kniefall von Trump.
Ie, he's prostrated himself infront of Putin and it will have
consequences.
As I said, listeners, we'regoing back to that next week
because it's a whole otherprogram Trump and Putin and
(32:26):
Ukraine.
But, danny, you have your handup.
We heard from Phil Lynch thatwe seem to be moving and Don
hinted at it to amight-makes-right world.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
What we call hegemonic masculinity it to a
might makes right world what wecall hegemonic masculinity and
the rule of law both in theUnited States and
internationally is in greattrouble, and there are certain
fundamental values that weassociate with the United States
, we associate with the UnitedNations.
My take on this to try to getsome happiness and some kind of
optimism is that Trump, sinceJanuary 20th, is at the summit
(33:01):
of his power.
He thinks he can do whatever hewants to do, but the pendulum
does swing and the courts arestarting to come back against
him.
I think the population in theUnited States is going to also
start moving against himInternationally.
There's going to be blowback aswell.
So to me, the question is howlong he can have this kind of
(33:24):
absolute power with Elon Muskand when it will start to
descend, how it will descend andwhat that will mean.
I do think it's going to take along, long time to come back
internationally to beforeJanuary 20th.
These cuts are very strong andvery deep and you can't just say
(33:44):
tomorrow it's all going to goback to the way it was before,
but I don't think this cancontinue indefinitely.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
So a note of semi-optimism, almost to end
this program.
I've got just to end a personalquestion for you both, because
you're both American.
I mean, we've heard a bit fromDanny.
He thinks it won't last forever.
But how do you feel about it?
I mean, I'm not American, but Iwas a student there.
(34:13):
I'd spent first years of mylife there and I do see, I do
feel like we're witnessing ahuge, huge change which probably
won't be changed back veryeasily.
Speaker 5 (34:25):
Yeah, I agree, I am frightened, for sure.
You know, during Trump's firstpresidency I kind of had the
attitude like this is who wasvoted into office, we just have
to deal with it, let's see whathappens.
But this time I feel much morefrightened that we're headed in
(34:45):
the wrong direction, not justwith the US and our relationship
with the rest of the world, butwithin the United States
Domestically.
What does this mean?
I don't think that we're headedfor civil war or anything like
that, but I think our civilliberties, the things like free
speech, I think all of that isgoing to be coming into question
(35:06):
.
And Trump has already signed anexecutive order that makes
certain language prohibited.
So things like that that willcreep up on you.
You know, won't be somebodyoutside your door with a gun,
because you know here in theStates we love our guns.
I don't have a gun, but I'mjust saying that's what I worry
about, because it'll be slow andit won't necessarily be
(35:28):
something that hits you in theface right away, but over time
you'll say, hmm, I remember atime when I could say that in
public and now I have to worrybecause you know, this police
officer over here might questionme.
I mean, maybe that's being abit dramatic, but I'm thinking
of everything, danny, what aboutyou?
Speaker 1 (35:45):
And maybe also from the Geneva, an American in
Geneva perspective.
Speaker 4 (35:50):
I don't want to get too personal, imogen, but I've
lived here for 52 years.
There must be reasons why Ileft the United States.
I'm depressed, I'm angry.
I should have more distancefrom this, but I don't.
And I've tried to speak aboutthis and write about it.
But it's terribly worrying, notjust in terms of the United
(36:12):
States, but in terms of theworld.
This is a tectonic shift inglobal politics and most of it
is negative.
On the other side, I get upevery day with my American
friends when we speak, and we'reso privileged to live in
Switzerland.
Many of my friends have givenup their American citizenship I
(36:33):
haven't.
But it is shocking, stunning.
But in a sense it's not allthat surprising.
I mean, he did get 75 millionvotes the first time, and so
there must be something going onin the United States.
How long, as I said, how longthat will last, I'm not sure.
But if the price of eggs goesup in the United States, the
(36:57):
price of gasoline goes up, thenmaybe people will start to say
he's not coming through withwhat he said he would do.
He has not reduced inflation,but I don't know how that's
going to happen and when.
But I do think the pendulumwill start going down.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
And in the meantime, the humanitarian agencies that
we have been focusing on thisprogram have to wait.
There's the 90 days.
My feeling if I want to sum upagain, it's a bit pessimistic is
that I don't think that money'scoming back after 90 days and I
don't think that it will comeback while this administration
(37:35):
is in.
And we all know that even whena different administration comes
in, if somebody saved money,that money gets saved.
Speaker 4 (37:43):
There is an election coming up in two years and there
will be determinant of how wellhe's doing with the general
public.
He could lose control of boththe House and the Senate.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
Okay, well, on that note, sorry if it's been a bit
pessimistic, but we did think itwas important to bring to
listeners more in depth what thebasically execution of USAID
and the US freezing of funds toforeign aid means to not just
people who work in Geneva that'sa pretty privileged lifestyle
(38:18):
but the kind of programs theyrun all over the world, from
demining to maternal healthclinics in Afghanistan to
support for human rightsdefenders in Venezuela or China.
You've heard from all of themtoday.
I hope it did enlighten some ofour listeners or reinforce a
feeling that maybe foreign aidis worthwhile, not just for the
(38:42):
people who benefit directly, butfor you taxpayers too, to make
our world a more stable,peaceful and harmonious place.
On that note, that's the end ofthis edition of inside geneva.
My thanks to dawn and danny foranalysis and don't forget to
join us next week for ourspecial on Ukraine.
Is this a peace or is it asurrender?
(39:04):
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva from
Swiss Info, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland, and just before wego, here's some news about a new
podcast series out now fromSwiss Info.
Speaker 8 (39:26):
Hi, I'm Angela Saini, a science journalist and author
.
I've written four booksexploring humanity's fascination
with science as a solution tosocial problems with science as
a solution to social problemsand I'm the host of Lost Cells,
a thrilling new investigativepodcast that will make you
question the promises behindprivate stem cell banking.
(39:48):
This gripping podcast followsthe stories of families from
Spain, serbia, italy and manyother countries as they embark
on a global quest to find theone thing they need the most
life itself.
Will they succeed in theirsearch for the stem cells that
they pinned their hopes on?
(40:10):
Tune in to Lost Cells, anoriginal Swissinfo podcast.
To find out, listen on ApplePodcasts, spotify or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
That does sound pretty interesting.
Do join Angela Saini with LostCells and, of course, do join us
next time on Inside Geneva.
We'll be back with that specialepisode on Ukraine on Monday,
february 24th.
Before that, if you wantobjective clarity about conflict
, climate change, human rights,international law or any other
(40:44):
of today's global challenges,then take a look at our previous
episodes and subscribe to us.
Wherever you get your podcasts,I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks for listening.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
In today's program, Late today, the US State
Department suspended all foreignassistance around the world for
at least three months.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
In Colombia they've just had to lay off 200 staff
that were doing the demining inthe south of the country.
So all of a sudden thesefamilies have no work and the
alternative in the area you knowwhat it is Coca plants.
So how is that in the USinterest?
Speaker 4 (00:42):
The suspension freezing is not democratic.
Congress has voted for some ofthese programs and it's Mr Trump
, mr Musk, etc.
Who are cutting them outwithout the approval of Congress
, so legally, I don't see howthey can do this.
Speaker 5 (01:00):
President Trump and Musk will say that these cuts to
USAID it's about shrinking abloated bureaucracy, it's about
getting rid of waste and fraud,but I'd say that this whole
thing has more to do withideology and politics.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
It's not just American isolationism, it's not
just America.
First, there seems to be aquite deliberate undermining of
fundamental freedoms.
Speaker 6 (01:30):
We don't have four years.
The international legalframework and universal human
rights are at a criticaljuncture and are being eroded
and threatened andinstrumentalised in some
unprecedented ways.
Now is the time to step up.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Vokes and today Iknow we touched on this in our
last episode but given the moodhere in Geneva, we're going to
have to talk about this more theconsequences of the United
States cuts in foreign aid, theactual closure, it seems, of US
(02:12):
aid and what that is going tomean for humanitarian work
worldwide.
I've got two guests.
Our listeners will be familiarwith them, you've heard of them
before.
Our listeners will be familiarwith them.
You've heard of them beforeDanny Warner, here in Geneva,
long-time analyst of all thingsGeneva international affairs,
(02:37):
and Dawn Clancy, our friend ofthe podcast, based at the UN in
New York.
They are going to bring ustheir take on what's been
happening.
But first, as I said, we havetalked about this but the
consequences we are hearing moreand more of.
I'm just going to play you alittle bit which I recorded in
the last few days here at UNBriefings in Geneva, first from
(02:59):
the UN Population Fund and thenfrom UNAIDS, about what the
consequences of this cut in USfunding means.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
On 24 January, the US administration paused nearly
all US foreign aid programspending a 90-day review.
In response, UNFPA hassuspended services funded by US
grants that provide a lifelinefor women and girls in crises,
including in South Asia.
What happens when our work isnot funded?
Women give birth alone inunsanitary conditions.
(03:32):
The risk of obstetric fistulais heightened.
Newborns die from preventablecauses.
Survivors of gender-basedviolence have nowhere to turn
for medical or psychologicalsupport.
We hope that the United Statesgovernment will retain its
position as a global leader indevelopment and continue to work
with UNFPA to alleviate thesuffering of women and their
(03:55):
families as a result ofcatastrophes they did not cause.
Speaker 7 (03:59):
There is still a lot of confusion, especially in
communities, how the waiver willbe implemented and we're seeing
a lot of disruption of deliveryof treatment services,
especially at the communitylevel.
So, for example, in Ethiopia,we have 5,000 public health
worker contracts that are fundedby US assistance and all of
(04:22):
these, in all regions ofEthiopia, have been terminated
and 10,000 data clerks veryimportant in Ethiopia so that we
continue monitoring andensuring that people are on
treatment.
As UNAIDS, we estimate that ifPEPFAR wasn't reauthorized
between 2025 and 2029, and otherresources were not found for
(04:43):
the HIV response, there would bea 400% increase in AIDS death,
that's, 6.3 million people, 6.3million AIDS-related deaths that
will occur in the future.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
So, welcome Dani, welcome Dawn.
Pretty stark warnings.
I'm going to come to you first,dani, because you know, as I do
, the humanitarian communityhere in Geneva very well.
What's the mood, what reactionshave you been hearing?
Speaker 4 (05:11):
Well, it's pretty gloomy, imogen.
People are really stunned,surprised and searching for what
to do.
I want to point out there arethree levels of the problem.
First is obviously, asmentioned, the recipients of the
aid assistance in the field.
The second, of course, is thepeople working for these
(05:32):
organizations in the field.
One organization, terre desHommes, has had to lay off over
400 people working for themthroughout the world.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
And let's just remind our listeners, Terre des Hommes
, Swiss-based charity that worksprimarily with children in
conflict zones or intransitioning from conflict.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
I have seen their work, for example years ago in
Albania.
Excellent work.
Speaker 4 (05:59):
And the third, of course, is the people in Geneva.
The estimate is about 350people working in
non-governmental organizationsare out of a job or will be out
of a job, and it's such anemergency that the Geneva
government has proposed 10million francs for 90 days to
(06:20):
try to help some of theseorganizations.
That's how bad it is.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Yeah, I mean I would share that.
The shock in Geneva we allexpected, as we'll hear in some
of our forthcoming interviews.
We expected changes with theTrump administration, but not as
savage as this Dawn.
How's this going down in theUnited States?
I mean, we heard from the UNPopulation Fund maternal health
(06:46):
clinics in Afghanistan or UNAIDS.
You know, hiv prevention amongchildren.
Are people at all aware of this?
Speaker 5 (06:54):
where they were talking about USAID and I would
say, if you listen to thatbriefing, there's very little
acknowledgement of what'shappening on the receiving end
of this USAID funding, freezeand layoffs and all the
(07:16):
craziness that it's causing.
So I would say that here in theStates, especially with
Republicans who back this kindof audit, they're not
acknowledging what's happeningon the Geneva end.
You know, as Danny explained it, they're just talking about
USAID is corrupt and it'sabusing money and it's
(07:37):
fraudulent and it's exportingwoke leftist woke ideology all
around the world.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
They're not acknowledging the other side of
it, which is um, which is reallyinteresting to hear and we
should say there that at time ofdiscussion, nobody has come up
with any evidence to say that usaid is corrupt or fraudulent.
What I will say is that itsfunding and the UN humanitarian
(08:08):
community has made this clear,the US funding is absolutely
crucial to humanitarian workworldwide.
At the same time, what UStaxpayers maybe don't quite know
is that what the US spends onforeign aid is not very much.
It's around 0.2% of its grossnational income, which is, as a
(08:32):
colleague of mine in the UK said, a rounding error.
Not spending this money willmake no difference to US
taxpayers, and yet not spendingit is life or death to some of
the poorest people on the planet, and that debate just does not
seem to be being had in theUnited States.
Speaker 5 (08:51):
You know, imogen.
I would just add when you talkabout evidence, I think that's a
really important point of this,because we've had the White
House Press Secretary, carolynLeavitt, rattling off these
programs that USAID supposedlysupports about transgender plays
in Colombia and transgendercomic books in Peru, and they've
shown no evidence.
That's the White House presssecretary, president Trump
(09:14):
himself he gave an impromptupress briefing in the Oval
Office yesterday.
He did the same thing noevidence.
That discussion isn't happeningeither, which is quite
interesting.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
Danny, you want to come in, yeah one of the things
that I find interesting is thesuspension freezing is not
democratic, with a small d, Imean.
Congress has voted for some ofthese programs and it's Mr Trump
, mr Musk, etc.
Who are cutting them outwithout the approval of Congress
(09:45):
.
So legally I don't see how theycan do this, and I do know
there are certain court findingscoming up which said that this
can't be done.
Now, whether the presidentobeys the court rulings is
another problem as well, butdemocratically this doesn't fly.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Yeah, that's right, it doesn't.
I mean it is a constitutionalissue and that's another program
is whether the US is now insome constitutional crisis.
Is this actually a coup, whichI've heard some people say?
It's a bit chilling.
Danny, I know I said the wordcoup, your ears pricked up On
you go and then we need to moveon and you started smiling.
Speaker 5 (10:24):
It's not about the coup.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
but I do want to make a comment early on about the
organizations.
The United States pays about40% of all humanitarian
assistance around the world andI do think that there should
have been some anticipation anddiversification of the donor
funding, because now they're ina desperate situation.
(10:47):
To find that amount of money isgoing to be extremely difficult
and I don't see how they'regoing to do it.
But they shouldn't have been sodependent on the United States.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Yeah, I don't disagree with you, danny, there,
but let's not forget that,although the US is the biggest
contributor, as we said, interms of its GNI, it's not
contributing that much A countrylike Norway or Sweden, or even
the UK.
Uk is up at 0.5%.
Some of these Scandinaviancountries are up at 1% of their
(11:17):
gross national income.
So you know, and they're allfacing the same economic
headwinds.
They all had to cope with COVID.
They are all stepping up forUkraine, another whole entire
programme and listeners, we willbe devoting ourselves entirely
to that in a special episodenext week.
What I wanted to come back to,though, dawn, was saying this
(11:42):
debate is not being had in theUnited States.
Instead, there's a lot ofaccusation and slurs basically
against USAID, and barefacedlies, like condoms for Gaza,
which it turned out to be acomplete lie and nobody's
actually said sorry for.
So one of the purposes of thisprogram is to actually go a bit
(12:06):
deeper into what USAID has beenfunding in the hope of providing
some enlightenment across thepond, and one of the things
which has also been cut prettybadly since this announcement of
the freeze is deminingworldwide Now.
I've been talking to TamarGabelnik, she's head of the
(12:27):
international campaign to banlandmines and they coordinate
with demining groups all overthe world, and I asked her how
things had been and her reactionto these cuts.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
I think everybody was absolutely shocked by this.
First of all, no one expected aglobal freeze in foreign aid
across the board and certainlyno one expected that it would
affect the mine action sector,which has always had a lot of
bipartisan support.
So, yes, total surprise and notime to prepare or even do any
(13:03):
kind of contingency planning.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Could you give some specific examples of that?
Things that have had to stopwork, maybe?
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Well, most importantly, it's the demining,
which means taking out basicallydeadly threats explosive
threats that lie in the groundwaiting for anybody to come
along, and every mine that'staken out, every cluster
munition, submunition that'sremoved means a life or many
lives saved.
So the United States givesaround $310 million a year to
(13:35):
mine action, which is about 40%of the global budget for
international assistance to mineaction.
So having a budget cut by 40%overnight is going to have
severe consequences.
In countries like Ukraine.
That's 30% of their budget cutovernight and they're stopping
work.
Now, are they?
Yes, everyone was issued a stopwork order.
(13:56):
We were too, the coalition.
We are advocacy, but we also doa research project.
The US government funds part ofthat research project on
exactly this the impact ofclearance and on victim
assistance and funding for mineaction.
So that was a big chunk of ourbudget gone overnight as well,
but it's the life-saving work ofthe deminers that's really in
(14:16):
question.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Why is this happening , do you think?
I mean, we expected some thingsfrom a new Trump administration
, but this?
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Shock and awe.
Let's cut, see what thereaction is and then maybe put
it back.
We're still hoping thatthere'll be a reprieve and then
it won't last the full 90 days.
I did hear a rumor this morningthat at least one operation in
one country was told that theycould start working again, so
maybe there's hope.
I mean, president Trump istalking about going into Gaza,
(14:47):
and that's a whole other subjectthat we won't get into now.
But you're not going to be ableto rebuild, no matter who's
doing it, unless you clear allthe unexploded ordnance first,
and all that money is now halted.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
You were talking about.
Some people are hoping, oh,maybe after the 90 days we'll be
restored.
Is that why some aid agenciesare very quiet, that they think
if they are kind of meek andpatient things might get better?
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Definitely there is fear about retribution by
President Trump and hisadministration.
He obviously plays favorites.
You do the most minor thingthat he perceives as an affront
and you're no longer in favor.
Whether the people making thedecisions lower down on specific
demining projects will keepthat in mind or not, I don't
(15:37):
know, but yes, everyone is beingextraordinarily careful not to
ruffle feathers right now.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Is there any way of appealing in language that the
people who are making the cutsunderstand?
I mean, I've often heard thecase for demining is also a very
economic one, that land canbecome productive again,
economies can become productiveagain.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Well, this gets into a much larger conversation about
what's in the United States'interest and the perception of
that among the United States'interest and the perception of
that among the administration,lawmakers and the American
public.
Our opinion, as civil societyworking for the protection of
civilians, is that it is in theUS interest to exercise their
influence soft power, biggerpower by being a good actor and
(16:26):
showing leadership, removing adaily threat to the well-being
and to the life and thelivelihoods of communities
around the world.
But yes, as you say,economically as well.
You're not going to be able torefarm a field that's been
covered in landmines unlessyou're sure there's no more
mines there, because otherwiseyour tractor rides over
something, be it anti-tank oreven anti-personnel.
And you're sure there's no moremines there, because otherwise
your tractor rides oversomething, be it anti-tank or
(16:48):
even anti-personnel, and you'rein trouble.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
What feedback or messages are you getting from
local NGOs on the ground?
Because it's not just agenciessituated here in Geneva with a
lot of quite comfortableinternational staff.
There's local staff all overthe world doing the hard graft
of this kind of work.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
Absolutely.
The Cambodian government hassaid it will have to lay off
1,000 people.
It's 93 teams.
Just to give you an example,they said over the past year and
a half or so they've taken outalmost 30,000 landmines from the
ground, 30,000 threats topeople, civilians.
The war is long gone there.
(17:31):
We're not talking aboutsoldiers, civilians that can
walk in.
Yes, yes, there is aresponsibility of the US
government in Laos as well, withthe cluster munitions and the
cluster munitions, or thesubunitions that remain in
Cambodia as well 17,000 of thoseand each of those has such an
amount of explosive in it thatoften, if they go off, they'll
kill not just the person thatpicked it up by accident, but
(17:54):
people around.
But another example in Colombia, we have a campaign member
there and they've just had tolay off 200 staff that were
doing the demining in the southof the country.
So all of a sudden, thesefamilies have no work and the
alternative in the area you knowwhat it is Coca plants.
So how is that in the USinterest that these people that
(18:15):
were doing something good forthe community are now, probably
in order to survive, having togo back to coca farms?
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Dani, we did hear from Dawn all of the kind of
stuff that's being talked aboutin the United States, about
fraud and corruption andspending money on nonsense.
They say, Again, no evidence.
Here we have Tamar with a cleareye on what the money is spent
(18:43):
on and she also makes the pointthat something like demining in
Colombia it's not just nice forColombia, it's actually in the
US interest.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
Well, I agree.
I mean, it certainly is aquestion of status and prestige,
and one of the things that MrTrump doesn't follow is the
Harvard professor, joe Nye'sconcept of soft power.
Soft power is defined asgetting someone to want to do
what you want them to do.
(19:14):
An easier definition Joe gavein Geneva was it's how a parent
deals with an adolescent child.
And the United States is now incompetition with China, and
China is spending billionsaround the world on its Silk and
Belt Road initiative, and theUnited States AID is part of an
(19:36):
image of the United Statesaround the world.
Places are not going to getAmerican aid.
They're probably going to askChina or someone else, which
reduces American prestige andleadership, and I think that's
something that the Americansshould understand, if they
understand the competition withChina.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
Dawn.
What do you think about that?
Because I sense that thecurrent administration for Trump
is not interested in soft power.
They're interested in strongmanpower.
But at the same time, trump hasmade a huge play about fentanyl
and other drugs coming over theborder.
And there is Colombia, as Tamarso clearly says.
(20:20):
You know the other option if wedon't help and we don't get
farmers land demined to growtheir stuff, they'll go back to
the drug barons and coca.
Surely a transactional Trump?
That argument might appeal tohim.
Speaker 5 (20:34):
Yes, I think for a transactional Trump, that would
make sense, but I don't thinkthat that's the version of Trump
that we're dealing with at themoment.
You know, president Trump andMusk will say that these cuts to
USAID it's about shrinking abloated bureaucracy, it's about
getting rid of waste and fraud,but I'd say that this whole
(20:55):
thing has more to do withideology and politics.
I would say that for Trump andhis Republican allies, this is
about going after an agency thatthey see as part of the lunatic
left.
That's how Trump refers to theleft often.
Is the lunatic left Going afterthis agency and tearing it down
(21:17):
?
Because he sees Americantaxpayer dollars going towards
these agencies that promote andexport woke ideology?
You know, like I mentionedbefore, well, imogen, you
mentioned, you know, condoms forGaza.
That turned out to be not true,but now they're talking about
condoms for the Taliban.
So that's what I think this isabout.
(21:39):
If we were dealing with thetransactional Trump, that would
make sense, but that's not whowe're dealing with.
This is more ideological.
That would make sense, butthat's not who we're dealing
with.
This is more ideological.
Going after the left, who Trumpbelieves stole the election
from him in 2020, going afterthe left who, you know, got
(21:59):
Trump into the courtroom.
So that's why I think, perhapsin Geneva maybe not that people
aren't thinking about this inGeneva, but that's what I think
is dominating this right now,geneva, but that's what I think
is dominating this right now.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
That's quite petty, danny, though, isn't it
Vengeance?
And making hundreds ofthousands of the world's poorest
suffer because you want to getrid of a political clique that
you see personally as a threat?
Speaker 4 (22:19):
He is who he is.
He's from the Queens, I'm fromBronx.
Maybe we understand that aspectof each other.
But I wanted to add to whatDawn said.
It's not just any bureaucracy.
There's a difference betweenhis attacking domestic
bureaucracies and his gutfeeling against anything
(22:41):
international and especiallymultilateralism.
So this is a combination of abureaucracy and a foreign
bureaucracy and I think that'spart of his vengeance against
some of the programs, but alsohis larger ideology against
multilateralism, against the UNand anything that deals with
(23:02):
that world.
Speaker 5 (23:03):
Yeah, absolutely, if I can just add to that that
deals with that world.
Yeah, absolutely, if I can justadd to that yesterday Trump had
a press conference in the OvalOffice and he had just had a
conversation with Putin and hewas very serious about ending
the war in Ukraine.
People are dying, we have toend it.
And then he went and he rambledfor a little bit and then he
got on this topic of USAID andhis whole demeanor changed.
(23:25):
He became more aggressive, hebecame angrier.
I think the next project thathe and Elon Musk has is they're
going after the Department ofEducation and they're going to
just completely cut it down,because I think Trump described
it as a con job, the Departmentof Education.
I don't know where he gets thatfrom, but if you go back and
(23:47):
look at that press briefing,what we're talking about here
will be clearly illustrated thisvengeance and this anger.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
So I personally find this quite concerning and
dismaying because, although I'venever been somebody who
subscribes to, you know, americais the determiner of our
freedom in the world.
I've never really believed thatand I do think Europe has made
(24:18):
its own standards, which,unfortunately, the Americans
because most of them don'ttravel don't know anything about
.
They might come over and findthat we live quite well without
them.
Thank you very much, but wherewe're going with this now?
It's not just Americanisolationism, it's not just
America.
First, there seems to be aquite what I fear, a quite
(24:44):
deliberate undermining offundamental freedoms, and that
is another aspect in that I saidto you at the start, we're
going to look in depth at whatthese cuts mean, because they
are also affecting human rightswork worldwide.
I talked to Phil Lynch from theInternational Service for Human
Rights.
Now they support human rightsdefenders in some of the most
(25:08):
difficult, challenging parts ofthe world, including Russia,
including China.
Now here's what he had to say.
Speaker 6 (25:15):
We're supporting human rights defenders and
democracy activists who areworking on the front line in
highly restrictive andrepressive contexts.
Places like China, likeVenezuela, where the role of
human rights defenders isabsolutely critical in promoting
justice, in promoting equalityand in promoting good and
(25:37):
transparent and accountablegovernment that respects
international law and is aresponsible international
citizen.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
You've put out a statement in the last couple of
days saying that yourorganisation has been hit hard
by the US funding freeze.
What exactly have you had to do?
How are you coping?
Speaker 6 (25:56):
The suspension of government funding has meant
that we've had to terminate orto defer or to reduce a number
of activities, particularlyactivities in support of human
rights defenders working in someof the most highly restrictive
and repressive contexts.
We've also had to take a numberof anticipatory cost-saving
(26:17):
measures, which has reduced ouroverall capacity to support
human rights defenders globallyat a time of great need.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
Did you expect this from the United States?
I mean, we all expected somechanges with President Trump 2.0
, but did you expect cuts assavage as these seem to be?
Speaker 6 (26:34):
No, I didn't, because the US, like all states, tends
to act in its self lives.
It also contributes very muchto a more safe, secure and
(27:03):
prosperous international order,which is to the benefit of the
United States and all globalcitizens, frankly, who do you
think's listening, though, inthe United States?
Speaker 1 (27:12):
now I mean these terms international world order,
etc.
Etc.
They just they don't seem toresonate across the pond anymore
.
Speaker 6 (27:19):
Right?
Well, I mean, I think it'sabsolutely imperative that they
do.
The United States is not anisland.
It can't exist in completeisolation and the United States,
like all states, rely on aninternational order which is
rules-based, which has somelevel of fairness.
International order which isrules-based, which has some
level of fairness, consistency,predictability, without which we
(27:41):
descend to a completemight-is-right type situation,
which frankly, undermines globalpeace and security.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
You talked about everybody having an interest in
the rule of law.
That includes international law.
The problem is, every day seemsto bring a new blow to it.
We've seen the United Stateswithdraw from the International
Criminal Court and actually itintroduced a whole raft of
things which will punish anybodywho engages with it.
(28:10):
That could include you mighteven include me, as a journalist
.
What can we do?
Speaker 6 (28:16):
How can we stand up for this rules-based order to
come together collectively andsay we have a shared interest in
international law, in theobservance of universal human
(28:41):
rights and in the rule of lawand we're going to collectively
speak out in defense of thoseprinciples and stand up and take
concrete action where thoseprinciples are violated.
And just by way of example, thesanctions announced by the
Trump administration against theInternational Criminal Court
constitute an interference inthe international administration
(29:03):
of justice.
They constitute a violation offundamental principles of
international human rights lawand international criminal law.
And it's incumbent on statesthat support the international
criminal justice system tocollectively come together and
say we're going to hold you toaccount as a perpetrator and we
will adopt countermeasures andlevy our own sanctions against
(29:25):
individuals and institutions whothreaten and interfere with the
international administration ofjustice in this way.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
So you would counsel against saying we're just going
to have to wait four years andbe consorted out after that.
Speaker 6 (29:37):
We don't have four years.
The international legalframework and universal human
rights are at a criticaljuncture and are being eroded
and threatened andinstrumentalized in some
unprecedented ways.
Now is the time to step up andinvest politically and
financially in the internationalhuman rights system, because
(30:00):
the stakes could not be higherand the counterfactual one in
which the international humanrights system is completely and
utterly eroded is acounterfactual in which we all
lose enormously.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
Phil Lynch is looking at a wider threat to our
fundamental rights and freedoms.
Coming from what used to becalled the land of the free and
the home of the brave Americansworry that these basic freedoms,
(30:41):
which they have told us, theysupport and they're sharing with
the rest of the world thatthey're being undermined.
Speaker 5 (30:45):
Yeah, I think if you're paying attention, you're
scared or you're frightened,absolutely you know.
Just going back on somethingthat Danny said about soft power
, trump isn't a soft power guy.
I mean, anytime he describesanyone that he brings into his
fold it's because they're strongand they're tough and they
adhere to his motto of peacethrough strength.
(31:07):
And I think that's what we'reseeing is a turn away from
international law I hate to sayinternational norms, but I guess
there's.
There is a certain amount ofdiplomacy that countries use to
interact with one another.
That keeps things civil, but Isee Trump going towards the,
(31:27):
towards the mightier side,thinking well, this is what
we're going to do.
You know Europe, and if youdon't like it, then I'm going to
send troops into your country.
I mean, that's probablyprobably a stretch.
I shouldn't have send troopsinto your country.
Speaker 7 (31:38):
I mean that's probably a stretch I shouldn't
have said that.
Speaker 5 (31:41):
No, but you know he's a strong man.
He doesn't care about the law,it doesn't bother him to like
steamroll over some courtdecision.
He sees himself as being thestrong guy that can sit down
with Putin and make a deal.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
Well, I mean on the Swiss media.
Today, my colleague, who is theMoscow correspondent for Swiss
media, described it as I'll sayit in German der folgenreiche
Kniefall von Trump.
Ie, he's prostrated himself infront of Putin and it will have
consequences.
As I said, listeners, we'regoing back to that next week
because it's a whole otherprogram Trump and Putin and
(32:26):
Ukraine.
But, danny, you have your handup.
We heard from Phil Lynch thatwe seem to be moving and Don
hinted at it to amight-makes-right world.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
What we call hegemonic masculinity it to a
might makes right world what wecall hegemonic masculinity and
the rule of law both in theUnited States and
internationally is in greattrouble, and there are certain
fundamental values that weassociate with the United States
, we associate with the UnitedNations.
My take on this to try to getsome happiness and some kind of
optimism is that Trump, sinceJanuary 20th, is at the summit
(33:01):
of his power.
He thinks he can do whatever hewants to do, but the pendulum
does swing and the courts arestarting to come back against
him.
I think the population in theUnited States is going to also
start moving against himInternationally.
There's going to be blowback aswell.
So to me, the question is howlong he can have this kind of
(33:24):
absolute power with Elon Muskand when it will start to
descend, how it will descend andwhat that will mean.
I do think it's going to take along, long time to come back
internationally to beforeJanuary 20th.
These cuts are very strong andvery deep and you can't just say
(33:44):
tomorrow it's all going to goback to the way it was before,
but I don't think this cancontinue indefinitely.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
So a note of semi-optimism, almost to end
this program.
I've got just to end a personalquestion for you both, because
you're both American.
I mean, we've heard a bit fromDanny.
He thinks it won't last forever.
But how do you feel about it?
I mean, I'm not American, but Iwas a student there.
(34:13):
I'd spent first years of mylife there and I do see, I do
feel like we're witnessing ahuge, huge change which probably
won't be changed back veryeasily.
Speaker 5 (34:25):
Yeah, I agree, I am frightened, for sure.
You know, during Trump's firstpresidency I kind of had the
attitude like this is who wasvoted into office, we just have
to deal with it, let's see whathappens.
But this time I feel much morefrightened that we're headed in
(34:45):
the wrong direction, not justwith the US and our relationship
with the rest of the world, butwithin the United States
Domestically.
What does this mean?
I don't think that we're headedfor civil war or anything like
that, but I think our civilliberties, the things like free
speech, I think all of that isgoing to be coming into question
(35:06):
.
And Trump has already signed anexecutive order that makes
certain language prohibited.
So things like that that willcreep up on you.
You know, won't be somebodyoutside your door with a gun,
because you know here in theStates we love our guns.
I don't have a gun, but I'mjust saying that's what I worry
about, because it'll be slow andit won't necessarily be
(35:28):
something that hits you in theface right away, but over time
you'll say, hmm, I remember atime when I could say that in
public and now I have to worrybecause you know, this police
officer over here might questionme.
I mean, maybe that's being abit dramatic, but I'm thinking
of everything, danny, what aboutyou?
Speaker 1 (35:45):
And maybe also from the Geneva, an American in
Geneva perspective.
Speaker 4 (35:50):
I don't want to get too personal, imogen, but I've
lived here for 52 years.
There must be reasons why Ileft the United States.
I'm depressed, I'm angry.
I should have more distancefrom this, but I don't.
And I've tried to speak aboutthis and write about it.
But it's terribly worrying, notjust in terms of the United
(36:12):
States, but in terms of theworld.
This is a tectonic shift inglobal politics and most of it
is negative.
On the other side, I get upevery day with my American
friends when we speak, and we'reso privileged to live in
Switzerland.
Many of my friends have givenup their American citizenship I
(36:33):
haven't.
But it is shocking, stunning.
But in a sense it's not allthat surprising.
I mean, he did get 75 millionvotes the first time, and so
there must be something going onin the United States.
How long, as I said, how longthat will last, I'm not sure.
But if the price of eggs goesup in the United States, the
(36:57):
price of gasoline goes up, thenmaybe people will start to say
he's not coming through withwhat he said he would do.
He has not reduced inflation,but I don't know how that's
going to happen and when.
But I do think the pendulumwill start going down.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
And in the meantime, the humanitarian agencies that
we have been focusing on thisprogram have to wait.
There's the 90 days.
My feeling if I want to sum upagain, it's a bit pessimistic is
that I don't think that money'scoming back after 90 days and I
don't think that it will comeback while this administration
(37:35):
is in.
And we all know that even whena different administration comes
in, if somebody saved money,that money gets saved.
Speaker 4 (37:43):
There is an election coming up in two years and there
will be determinant of how wellhe's doing with the general
public.
He could lose control of boththe House and the Senate.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
Okay, well, on that note, sorry if it's been a bit
pessimistic, but we did think itwas important to bring to
listeners more in depth what thebasically execution of USAID
and the US freezing of funds toforeign aid means to not just
people who work in Geneva that'sa pretty privileged lifestyle
(38:18):
but the kind of programs theyrun all over the world, from
demining to maternal healthclinics in Afghanistan to
support for human rightsdefenders in Venezuela or China.
You've heard from all of themtoday.
I hope it did enlighten some ofour listeners or reinforce a
feeling that maybe foreign aidis worthwhile, not just for the
(38:42):
people who benefit directly, butfor you taxpayers too, to make
our world a more stable,peaceful and harmonious place.
On that note, that's the end ofthis edition of inside geneva.
My thanks to dawn and danny foranalysis and don't forget to
join us next week for ourspecial on Ukraine.
Is this a peace or is it asurrender?
(39:04):
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva from
Swiss Info, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland, and just before wego, here's some news about a new
podcast series out now fromSwiss Info.
Speaker 8 (39:26):
Hi, I'm Angela Saini, a science journalist and author
.
I've written four booksexploring humanity's fascination
with science as a solution tosocial problems with science as
a solution to social problemsand I'm the host of Lost Cells,
a thrilling new investigativepodcast that will make you
question the promises behindprivate stem cell banking.
(39:48):
This gripping podcast followsthe stories of families from
Spain, serbia, italy and manyother countries as they embark
on a global quest to find theone thing they need the most
life itself.
Will they succeed in theirsearch for the stem cells that
they pinned their hopes on?
(40:10):
Tune in to Lost Cells, anoriginal Swissinfo podcast.
To find out, listen on ApplePodcasts, spotify or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
That does sound pretty interesting.
Do join Angela Saini with LostCells and, of course, do join us
next time on Inside Geneva.
We'll be back with that specialepisode on Ukraine on Monday,
february 24th.
Before that, if you wantobjective clarity about conflict
, climate change, human rights,international law or any other
(40:44):
of today's global challenges,then take a look at our previous
episodes and subscribe to us.
Wherever you get your podcasts,I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com