April 29, 2025 • 45 mins
On Inside Geneva this week, aid agencies count the costs of funding cuts.
“I am most sad for all the millions of people living with HIV and affected by HIV whose lives have been upended. They have lost access to life-saving medication. They have showed up at clinics for support, only to find no one there to help them,” says Angeli Achrekar, Deputy Executive Director for the Programme Branch at the Joint United Nations (UN) Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).
The cuts are hitting women and girls especially hard.
“Right now, a woman dies from a preventable form of maternal mortality every two minutes. That’s unacceptable. One of the grants that the United States has just cut supports the training and salaries of midwives,” says Sarah Craven, Director of the Washington Office of UNFPA, the UN Population Fund.
What will happen to local NGOs in crisis zones that relied on UN support?
“I have to have hope. I am the leader of the Sudanese Red Crescent Society. I have staff and 12,000 volunteers behind me. So, I always have to be really strong and give hope to everyone to continue serving Sudan,” says Aida Al-Sayed Abdullah, Secretary General of the Sudanese Red Crescent Society.
But could the cuts bring much-needed reform?
“Sure, the humanitarian system isn’t perfect. It can be inefficient and a little bit colonialistic at times. But it was delivering results. We were seeing actual progress. Now, in just a few months, decades of progress will be erased,” says Dorian Burkhalter, SWI swissinfo.ch journalist.
Or will the cuts cost lives and cause more crisis?
“We’re so close to ending AIDS, full stop. Now, we could very well be turning back completely. All those years of work, dedication and progress,” says Achrekar.
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 2 (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 1 (00:20):
In today's program, the Trump administration has
issued a halt to nearly allexisting foreign aid.
Creating safe zones for Syrianwomen in refugee camps,
providing medical assistance topregnant women in Burma this is
the type of action the UNPopulation Fund has led.
The US has been one of the UNagency's founders and main
(00:41):
donors.
It's now ceasing allcontributions.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Right now, a woman dies of a preventable form of
maternal mortality every twominutes.
Okay, so that's unacceptable.
What is one of the grants thatthe US just cut is to support
the training and salaries formidwives.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
The United Nations is saying that there could be
2,000 new cases of HIV due tothe USAID cuts.
This as President Donald Trumpputs millions of dollars of
foreign aid on pause.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
We actually had something that was successful.
We were one of the only 17sustainable development goals
that was able to see the end insight.
We're so close to ending AIDSfull stop and we could very well
be turning back completely.
In Sudan, the freeze on US aidhas forced up to 80% of
(01:34):
emergency food kitchens, orabout 1,100 facilities to close,
I will always have the hope andI have to have hope.
Speaker 5 (01:41):
I am a leader of the Sudanese Red Crescent Society.
I have a staff.
I have 12, hope.
I am a leader of the SudaneseRed Crescent Society.
I have a staff.
I have 12,000 volunteers behindme.
So I always have to be reallystrong and give the hope to
everybody to continue servingthe Sudan.
Speaker 6 (01:54):
Sure, the humanitarian system isn't
perfect, you know, it might beinefficient sometimes, it might
be a little bit colonialisticsometimes, but I mean it was
delivering results.
We were seeing actual progressand now, in a few months,
decades of progress will beraised.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
And in today's programme we'regoing to return because it is
such a huge subject for theUnited Nations here to the huge
cuts in funding for humanitarianaid, and I'm joined here in the
studio by Swiss Infocorrespondent, Dorianne
Burkhalter.
Good to have you with us,Dorianne.
Speaker 6 (02:36):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Now you've been covering this extensively and
also a bit later in theprogramme we're going to hear
from specific aid agencies abouthow their work has been
impacted so far, andparticularly the effect on women
and girls in crisis zones.
Dorian, I think it's hard tounderestimate the sense of shock
(03:02):
that there has been in Genevafrom the aid agencies about
these cuts.
Speaker 6 (03:07):
Yeah, no, you're right.
I mean there is a real sense ofworry about the impact those
cuts will have, mostly on peopleunderground.
But we've also heard, I mean,that the cuts will also touch UN
workers working here, otherworkers in other NGOs.
But I think really, initiallythere was surprise by just the
(03:29):
breadth of those cuts and howfast they came.
There was a 90 days periodreview.
Now we're at the end of it andthere's still a lot of
Theoretically.
Theoretically, there's still alot of uncertainty.
But I think it's important toalso remind the listeners just
about how much the US wascontributing to humanitarian aid
(03:50):
.
It was paying for 40% of globalaid and about half of that came
from USAID, which now we know,or think we know, will pretty
much disappear, with more than80% of its programs being closed
.
So I mean, in any case, we knowthe impact will be huge, but
it's hard to have a clearpicture of just what will happen
(04:12):
next.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Yeah, that's right.
Actually.
I mean, I think we heard this90-day period theoretically
ended this week.
This was the period in whichaid programs were theoretically
going to be assessed by theUnited States of whether they
were worthwhile or not.
But aid agencies are still inthe dark and I think, listeners,
you might be interested to knowthis, but it's kind of sneak
(04:35):
peek behind the scenes of whatwe do, briefing from the UN aid
agencies and it is really now alitany of confusion, anxiety and
misery.
So this Tuesday morning weheard of funding cuts for
(04:57):
millions of people in Ethiopia,which it's dropped off the radar
screens, but the conflict andsuffering there has not
disappeared.
So people there who areseverely malnourished the
warning signs even possibleimpending famine are there now
will not be getting food becausethere's no money.
And this morning we heard aboutwhat did we hear about?
(05:20):
Sudan?
Speaker 6 (05:20):
Sudan.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Ukraine.
Speaker 6 (05:23):
Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Ukraine.
Funding cuts for displacedpeople in Ukraine.
Funding cuts for food aid inSudan, where 25 million people
in Sudan are in need ofhumanitarian aid.
That's half the population.
Speaker 6 (05:39):
And Sudan is the cause of the world's largest
displacement crisis.
What is it?
12 million people displaced.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
I think it's closer to 13 now.
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (05:48):
Internally and externally.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Yeah, out into Chad, places like the neighboring
countries.
So every day, or at least twicea week, we hear from the aid
agencies we're going to have tostop this, we're going to have
to stop that.
But there's always a caveat atthe end, we think, because there
still seems to be a lot ofconfusion about what's actually
(06:13):
happening who's Deputy ExecutiveDirector of Programs at UNAIDS.
So what I asked her was sowhere do you stand now?
These 90 days are over and, asyou see, she was a bit
(06:34):
challenged to answer.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
Our expectation was that after 90 days, which would
effectively be April 19th, wewould have had a signal or
decision one way or the other,in terms of what the funding
landscape from the US governmentmight look like in the HIV
response, what kind ofparameters, considerations, et
cetera.
It might look like theunfortunate reality is that the
(07:01):
decisions have not yet been made.
We understand that the 90-dayreview has been extended by 30
days and that decisions will becommunicated on or around May
19th.
So still a lot of uncertainty.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
As we speak.
One of the things that I'mhearing from a number of
different aid agencies is theconcern, the impact some of
these cuts will havespecifically on women and girls.
Is that something that concernsyou too?
Are you seeing that?
Speaker 4 (07:34):
The disruption of services and the devastation of
services, both HIV preventionand treatment services, has
truly been seismic in terms ofwhat has happened at the country
level.
At the community level, womenand girls are, particularly on
the continent of Africa, are hitvery hard.
It is young women and girlsthat often suffer the most when
(07:56):
these kinds of major cuts happen.
As you know, women and girlsare more than three times more
likely than their malecounterparts in Africa to be
living with HIV and every week,for example, 4,000 adolescent
girls and young women becomeinfected with HIV globally.
(08:16):
3,100 of those live insub-Saharan Africa.
So the impact of what hashappened with the stop work
orders and the freeze and thecutting of funding has
definitely impacted women andgirls, especially in sub-Saharan
Africa.
It is deeply concerning what weare seeing, with pregnant women
(08:37):
, for example, going intoclinics, women that may have HIV
that are not tested for HIV,then their unborn child if they
are deemed positive, you know,and not put on treatment, then
their unborn child being bornpositive with HIV.
We're seeing preventionservices just shuttered
completely, while we're seeing1.3 million new infections all
(09:00):
around the world.
So we are very concerned aboutensuring prevention services for
women and girls, as well astreatment continuity for
adolescent girls and young women, and this is an area of focus
that we have to continue.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Well, you're in Washington at the moment.
Have you got a sympathetic earthere?
Have you found people whoperhaps do understand the
consequences of neglecting HIVprevention?
Speaker 4 (09:30):
We were grateful that a waiver came from Secretary
Rubio to protect comprehensivetesting and treatment services
HIV treatment services.
Part of that memo includedprevention for pregnant and
breastfeeding women.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
In my mind that is a very clear direction for
prevention for pregnant andbreastfeeding women Now just
clarify on the issue of thewaiver, because I've heard from
different aid agencies that theyhave got emails saying, yes,
you've got a waiver, but thatthe money to back that up that
waiver has not actually beenfreed up again.
(10:11):
Do you have clarity about?
Speaker 4 (10:12):
that what's been challenging, related to the
implementation of the waiver, asyou're describing, is that,
while the waiver was issued andput in place and has listed out
a number of these parameters,like comprehensive treatment,
like prevention ofmother-to-child transmission and
prevention for pregnant andbreastfeeding women, what was
(10:33):
also happening in the backgroundis significant structural
changes to other parts of the USgovernment.
For example, we've been seeing,as you've been seeing, all the
changes that have been happeningto the aid agency, usaid and
other parts of the US government.
So, while these changes arehappening in the background,
(10:54):
financial management systems,people that are within the US
government.
So, while these changes arehappening in the background,
financial management systems,people that are within the US
government that would normallybe working on the procurement
and the movement of money andthe contracting work.
These are people that existedone day and didn't the next, or
financial systems that werefunctional one day and not the
(11:15):
next, and so that's part of whathas prohibited the waiver from
being implemented successfullyacross the board.
The question now will also bewhat does the future look like
beyond the waiver?
How can we make sure that whatis prioritized is indeed what
needs to be prioritised for theHIV response?
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Kind of clear as mud really.
She really doesn't know whatmoney she's going to get and
what not, and whether preventionof HIV in pregnant women is
included in life saving.
She seems to think thatprevention for other people is
not included to think thatprevention for other people is
not included.
Speaker 6 (11:55):
I mean, it is a really worrying testimony and I
think with this question ofprevention, now we see that the
US is trying to says there willbe waivers for life-saving
initiatives, but over the yearsand this sometimes is criticized
the UN has been doing much morethan just life-saving
(12:18):
initiatives, and that's alsoother big NGOs, smaller NGOs,
but it's also just becausehumanitarian needs have exploded
over the last 20 years.
Right, there were 5 billion in2005.
There are now 50 billionDollars, dollars, dollars, yeah.
So now saying you won't doprevention is, I mean, really
(12:44):
complicated, because it's aneffective way of also
controlling those needs and thecost Exactly so.
There's a real tension herebetween saying you want to
prioritize and, at the same time, saving lives.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
I'm wondering though, because you have been talking
in depth and we should say thatDorian's going to have a whole
series on Swiss Info, series ofarticles about the aid cuts and
the reflection that's going onwithin aid agencies about the
future within aid agencies.
About the future, you know,there was a possibility.
It must have been lurking intheir minds for at least two
(13:18):
years that Trump might beelected again and that there
could be consequences forinternational aid.
Do you think they were badlyprepared?
Speaker 6 (13:28):
I think they never saw it coming that he would go
or that he would hit this hardthe humanitarian sector.
But the problem of theinfluence of the US funding and,
I think, more broadly, Westerncountries funding it's a handful
of countries that pay for aboutor more than 60% of the
humanitarian system.
This issue was identified yearsago and they've been calling
(13:52):
for more countries to contributeto aid operations worldwide,
but I think those calls have notreally been listened to because
there aren't really that manycountries beyond Western
countries that pay forhumanitarian aid.
In recent years we've seen someof the Gulf countries, in
(14:13):
particular Saudi Arabia and theUnited Arab Emirates.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
But they I mean these are wealthy, oil-rich countries
, they have money, but quiteoften it seems they spend money
bilaterally.
It doesn't go through the UNsystem and arguably it means
that some of the realhumanitarian priorities that the
UN identifies in its neutral,impartial way don't necessarily
(14:41):
get identified as clearly asthey should.
And we should also say becauseyou pointed out there that
majority of aid funding stillcomes from the same old
countries.
It's Europe, europe and it'sthe United States.
And although the United Statesis the biggest cutter, it's not
the only one.
Germany is cutting, the UK iscutting, not in the same public.
(15:05):
And I mean I have to say it doescome across quite mean-spirited
the language that's coming outof Washington about why they're
cutting.
I mean feeding USAID into thewood chipper, as Elon Musk said.
It's cruel language.
It doesn't really help thewhole debate at all.
But linked to that, we wantedto talk about whether, in
(15:30):
particular with the US approach,there is also ideology going on
.
We know that countries think ofaid as soft power.
We know that the United Statesyou say this very clearly in one
of your articles has fordecades thought of its
humanitarian aid as a way offurthering its ideological
(15:51):
beliefs.
But that also now is impactinghumanitarian aid.
Tell us about the questionnairethe aid agencies got, because
we haven't talked about it thatmuch on Inside Geneva.
Speaker 6 (16:04):
Yeah, so it was last month, I think about a month ago
.
We learned that a lot of NGOsin Geneva, but also some of the
UN agencies, had been receivingthis questionnaire from the US
government, asking them aboutquestions like are you receiving
any money from countries likeChina, like Russia?
(16:25):
Do you implement diversity andinclusion programs?
Do you support environmentalcauses?
What's your stand on genderidentity?
Sort of a checklist of MAGAcompliance.
Make America Great Again, yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
I mean very much the MAGA idea of what's good and
what's bad.
Speaker 6 (16:51):
Bad yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
And I think all of the aid agencies have been put
on the back foot by this,because I mean, frankly, if you
look at the World Food Programme, they are seeing people hungry
directly because of theconsequences of climate change.
They are seeing UNICEF or theUN Population Fund, which we're
going to come on to in a moment,clearly seeing the need for
(17:15):
programs to specifically supportwomen and girls in areas of
conflict, because of thevulnerability of women and girls
.
Speaker 6 (17:24):
And this is, I think I mean we were talking earlier
about uncertainty about whatthose cuts eventually will look
like.
I think this questionnairegives us a good indication of
the people that will be left out, and it will be women, it will
be minorities, it will be theenvironment as well.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
Yeah, and that could be quite devastating and in fact
already is proving devastating.
I want to play you a bit of aninterview with Sarah Craven, who
is the North American directorof the UN Population Fund.
Now, of all the aid agencieswhich perhaps should have
planned for a cut in funding isindeed the UNFPA, because they
(18:08):
have for years had a, shall wesay, complicated relationship
with Republican administrationsin Washington, because they
offer health support andreproductive health support that
can mean contraception to womenin developing countries, and
their funding has been cut byprevious administrations the
(18:29):
Bush administration, I thinkalso the Reagan administration.
So here's Sarah giving us aperhaps broader, out of the
tabloid headlines example ofwhat UNFPA actually does.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
I'll give you one example.
Last week, the UN issued areport.
We like to issue reports in theUN, and this one was a really
devastating one about maternalmortality.
You know, we've made progressin preventing maternal mortality
, but we're at a real risk of,you know, falling back on some
of that progress.
Right now, a woman dies of apreventable form of maternal
(19:07):
mortality every two minutes.
Okay, so that's unacceptable.
And you know, in this report ittalked about where is one of
the the most dangerous place fora woman to give birth right now
is in Chad.
You have a one in 24 chance ofdying in childbirth.
What is one of the grants thatthe US just cut is to support
the training and salaries formidwives midwives.
(19:36):
So we're talking about smallinterventions that can make a
difference in saving a womanfrom dying in childbirth having
a trained birth attendant or amidwife.
And then, with no reason, thatfunding was cut and was not seen
as life-saving.
So that's kind of what we'redealing with right now.
As I said, we had anticipatedthat there would be cut,
potentially, you know no futurefunding coming.
What we didn't reallyanticipate was that all of our
(19:57):
existing contracts, which wereover 300 million, would suddenly
face a stop work order.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
If you already had the funding, what was to stop
you just ignoring the stop workorder on the basis that stopping
work would risk the lives ofwomen and girls?
Speaker 3 (20:12):
Well, you know, we, like every other UN organization
, international organization,have signed contracts with the
US government.
So when they give you a stopwork order, that's under the
contractual obligations.
So we couldn't go rogue.
You know we have three biggoals that we're trying to
achieve.
One is to ensure that anyonewho would like to have access to
(20:33):
voluntary, effective, safemethods of birth control have
that access.
Two is to ensure that no onedies giving life and that we end
preventable maternal mortality.
And three, that women and girlsare protected from violence.
I mean these are big thingsthat impact.
Three, that women and girls areprotected from violence.
I mean these are big thingsthat impact the women of lives
and girls and I think everyoneagrees on them.
These are low-cost interventions.
(20:55):
I always say we're not lookingfor a cure, we're not looking
for trillion-dollar investment,but a small intervention like
one example is if your listenershad a visual is we have
something that's called a safedelivery kit costs about $5.
And it's very simple.
It's a sheet of plastic, a barof soap, plastic gloves, a
(21:18):
string, a razor blade and infoinstructions, like picture
instructions of how to deliver ababy safely.
So if you're a woman who'spregnant in a place where
there's no hospital, no midwife,no traditional birth attendant.
This might be your best shot athaving a sterile surface to
deliver a baby.
It's a very small interventionthat can make a huge difference
(21:39):
and you know, we haveinterventions that go from that
to larger ones, likehospitainers that could be
delivered to a humanitariansetting where women could be
receiving not only maternitycare but also protection and
treatment if they've beensubjected to sexual violence.
So these are the few pinningsof support that women and girls
(22:00):
who've lost everything can relyon.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
That makes me very sad.
To hear that, I mean, I've hadtwo children and you know, even
in a Swiss hospital, when you'rehaving a baby, you do realize
that the plastic sheet and thepair of scissors are the basics
that you need, and to think thatwomen can be without anything
just makes me really, really sad.
Speaker 6 (22:25):
And it's again a good example of a prevention measure
that costs little money but hasa huge impact and now is being
cut, possibly because it's nottargeting the right audience or
being seen as serving USinterests.
But I mean it also shows that,beyond what is considered
(22:45):
life-saving, all the otherprevention initiatives that the
UN does are having a real impact.
They're not just nice to have.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
No life-saving.
But I think it appears that theinterpretation of life-saving
well, as we heard from UN AIDS,the people they could discuss
whether a program waslife-saving or just kind of
life-improving are not at theirdesks anymore.
They've been fed into ElonMusk's woodchipper.
(23:15):
What is emerging for me, though, really here is, as we said,
you said, minorities and womenand girls, and we know that
women and girls are particularlyvulnerable in conflict Women,
girls and children, you knowthey get pushed out of the way
in chaotic food distributionoperations.
(23:37):
They are very vulnerable tosexual violence, particularly if
you've not got a well-run UNrefugee camp where they have
precisely those programs run byUNFPA or UNICEF, for example, to
try and prevent that.
I'm going to come back to Sudan, because we're beginning to
(24:00):
also ask ourselves, I think, whois left in crisis zones, and I
had the great good fortune tomeet up with the General
Secretary of the Sudanese RedCrescent.
She is Aida El-Sayed Abdullah,and she was here in Geneva for a
few days trying to raiseattention to the crisis in Sudan
(24:22):
, and there we have heard thatsexual violence is rife and
being used, as human rightsgroups say, as a weapon of war.
Here's what she had to say.
Speaker 5 (24:34):
The report about sexual violence is really
breaking the heart about whatthe Sudanese people is really
suffering.
We have found a lot of cases.
I have a doctor working with me.
I never know that she's adoctor.
She came as a volunteer andshe's giving tea and coffee and
by the end I said who is she?
They tell me she's a doctor andI just asked her the question
(24:57):
that why you are not in ahospital.
What are you doing hereshouting no, I am not a doctor,
I am a volunteer.
When we deep in her story, shehas been raped 30 times and by
the time they bring her to thehospital she is almost dying.
So it took one year from us totalk to her.
So this is only one case.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
We have millions of cases like that in Sudan.
You work sometimes with the UNPopulation Fund on programmes to
support survivors of sexualviolence, yet this is one aspect
of the UN that's being reallycut to the bone.
Does that worry you thatparticularly programmes for
women and girls seem to belosing out?
(25:43):
They're often neglected inconflict anyway, but now they
really seem to be losing out.
They're often neglected inconflict anyway, but now they
really seem to be losing out.
Speaker 5 (25:49):
The cut of the budget really makes us shaking,
because we get a good fund fromUNIVBA and UNICEF for these
cases and now, after the cut ofthe budget, if they pull out, we
only get the support from themovement and the appeal of IFRC
that we're working in that withthem.
That is only 30% funded.
(26:11):
In the beginning of the war,for a few months we can see
Sudan is there in the media.
You open the TV, open thesocial media, sudan is there.
But after that completelyforget it.
Nobody talk about Sudan, nobodytalk about the suffering of the
people there.
We launch appeals to supportthe Sudanese community.
Only 30% has been covered.
(26:31):
The international community isnot there for Sudan.
The war has to stop, peace hasto come, but the right of the
Sudanese people to go back totheir life, to go back to their
houses, this has to be put onthe table now.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
It feels like we're a long way from that.
I mean, I'm beginning to askmyself who is going to be left
in these crisis zones.
Speaker 6 (26:58):
I mean, I think the question of who will be there
last is really interesting,because I think if you're
running out of money and you'restill in Sudan, I mean what are
you going to do?
You're going to try to have thebiggest impact you can, but
then you also maybe won't belooking at who isn't getting aid
and you won't be able to reporton that very much, and so we
(27:21):
may also never know what happensin all those places where the
last people who were stillgetting a little bit of money no
longer has it.
They won't be telling the storyof the people they're not able
to help anymore if they justcompletely shut down their
operation.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
So we heard from the UN Population Fund that the UN
did a report, which it's good tohave, this data on maternal
mortality.
Which is it's good to have thisdata on maternal mortality?
We may never know what maternalmortality rises to in Sudan or
Chad or Yemen or Afghanistan,because the support for mothers
(27:57):
and babies has gone and thepeople even assessing the
problem are gone.
It's interesting also that theSudanese Red Crescent and we
hear so often about thenecessity of having local people
on the ground and Aida is fromKhartoum.
She's a displaced personherself.
(28:18):
She now lives in Port Sudan,but she will not leave and she
wants to support her country,and she is exactly the right
person, a woman from Sudan, toapproach Sudanese women who have
been subjected to sexualviolence.
But the Sudanese Red Crescentwas getting support from the UN
Population Fund to run itsprograms on sexual violence and
(28:40):
support for survivors, and thisis one of the interlinking
things, isn't it?
That's also causing hugeproblems.
Speaker 6 (28:46):
Yeah and this is also something I learned about while
writing my stories is I wastalking to MSF, and MSF is not
funded by the US government.
It gets 97 percent of itsglobal funding from the private
sector and actually mostlyindividuals, people like you and
me and yet they do rely, forexample, on local health
(29:10):
ministries for vaccines thatwere supported by the US aid.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Or via the World Health Organization or the World
.
Speaker 6 (29:18):
Health Organizations, or were using some of those
programs to get vaccines at abetter price.
So if these aren't thereanymore, they will have to pay
for vaccines.
That will increase their costs.
They were using the UN forlogistics as well, For example,
the UN Humanitarian Air Service,which is a service where you
(29:39):
can rent a small plane or anhelicopter to reach
hard-to-reach areas or areasthat are just too dangerous to
reach by road.
They won't be able to do thatanymore if funding decreases
there.
And also, I mean, what is thepoint for them on a refugee camp
to provide some of the healthservices they provide If there
(30:02):
isn't food, if there isn't water, if there isn't shelter?
They'll have to do that as well.
So it feels like a lot of NGOshave to increase their costs and
ask for more money becausetheir partners aren't here
anymore.
So there are a lot ofinterlinkings we don't even
think about.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
We don't, and I think it's one of those things.
I think it must be a source ofreal frustration, perhaps to the
UN and particularly OCHA,coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs, because they workedvery hard I mean, I've watched
this over 20 years to develop avery coherent system, a cluster
system, where one aid agency,the most fitted for the job,
(30:41):
would be the lead agency in acrisis, the lead agency in a
crisis, and then they would workoutwards with other UN agencies
and implementing partners,which is exactly what MSF
Doctors Without Borders is.
They have the trained doctors,they have their private money to
pay them, but they rely on thisUN infrastructure in the
(31:02):
background, and if that's gone,it will be very hard for MSF in
many parts of the world to work.
Do you think, then, we'relooking at an absolute, radical
shake up of how humanitarian aidis done?
I mean, for me, I just feellike we're looking almost a bit
at a smouldering ruin.
We don't see anything risingfrom the ashes yet.
Speaker 6 (31:23):
Yeah, no, I think we are.
I mean and I've heard this aswell from a few people in the
sector that this really is anexistential crisis for
humanitarian aid and also a lotof I guess analogy I heard a lot
is that it's easier to demolisha house than it is to build one
.
And I think this is exactlywhat's happening is NGOs are
(31:46):
closing, people are leaving thisfield and also just public
opinion will get used to a lowerlevel of funding.
And if we don't hear aboutcrisis anymore because no one's
there to talk about them, reallywho is going to step in?
We've seen that there seem tobe limited interest from other
countries to pay forhumanitarian aid, at least
(32:09):
through the UN system.
We can also talk about China,the world's second economy.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
A bit stingy.
Speaker 6 (32:16):
Yes, Last year paid for $8 million.
China paid $8 million, lastyear $8 million.
The US was paying $10 billion.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
Yeah, more than 1,000 times as much.
And there you can see theAmerican taxpayer getting a bit
frustrated, although I think wedid say once, point out, and we
should perhaps point out again,that the percentage of its GDP
that the US spends on foreignaid is much smaller than many
(32:49):
European countries.
We traditionally spend more.
It's just that our economy ismore proportionally just, our
economies aren't as big, so incold hard cash it's less.
Well, I think you know weshould revisit this in a year's
time, but I fear, I really fear,even from a journalistic point
of view, because my colleaguesand myself I've done it also.
(33:12):
When we go to crisis zones, weoften get there with the support
of the humanitarians on theground, and if they're not there
anymore, it's not only that,just money will not be going to
crisis, they will go unreportedand we will retreat further and
further into our littleprivileged enclaves and forget
(33:38):
about the rest of the world,which seems very sad.
Speaker 6 (33:42):
Not a very positive note to end on, but I agree.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
Well, we won't end quite yet.
Just before we go, I asked eachof the three women that I
interviewed just to give me alittle summing up for the future
where they think things aregoing.
And I want to start with Aidafrom Sudan, from the Sudanese
Red Crescent, because she willstay there.
(34:05):
She is a displaced person.
She can't give up on hercountry.
She doesn't have that choicehere in Europe or America.
We may have the choice to giveup on Sudan, but she doesn't
have that choice.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
I'm there in Port Sudan because I love my country,
I love my national society andI think I have to do something
for my country and for mynational society.
I will always have the hope andI have to have hope for my
country and for my nationalsociety.
I will always have the hope andI have to have hope.
I am a leader of the SudaneseRed Crescent Society.
I have a staff.
I have 12,000 volunteers behindme, so I always have to be
(34:38):
really strong and give the hopeto everybody to continue serving
the Sudan.
So we hope within one or twoyears everything will be
finished and we can go back home.
Because even Sudanese RedCrescent, we're all IDPs.
We are based in Khartoum, wehave been kicked and now we are
based in Port Sudan or otherareas and we try to do our best
(35:00):
to serve the Sudanese community.
But we never lose hope.
Sudan will go back community.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
But we never lose hope.
Sudan will go back.
It's shaming somehow to thinkthat she's there with 12,000
Sudanese volunteers, not paidvolunteers, and yet here in
Europe or in America we quibbleabout a dollar a month from the
population to support people incrisis like that.
From the population to supportpeople in crisis like that.
I will let you hear now Sarahfrom UNFPA.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
Our commitment is not going to change.
Our commitment to our mandateis unwavering, that we are going
to continue to do what we canto support vulnerable women and
girls, forgotten women and girlseverywhere we work, whether
it's in a development orhumanitarian context, and I
fundamentally believe that youknow others will continue to
(35:52):
support the UN system, continueto do their own support.
But it's troubling because it'snot just the US.
You see other countries thatare cutting their ODA, so it's a
very bleak funding picture andI think it's going to require
others to step up, others topartner, and it's a troubling
time.
It's a really troubling timebut I, you know, I guess I'm
(36:14):
still an optimist in that youknow people are fundamentally
good and want to help peoplearound the world.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
I hope.
Do you think her optimism isjustified?
Speaker 6 (36:25):
I don't really see it .
I mean, as she said, I think itis again important to stress
that it's not just the US that'sretreating from the
humanitarian sector.
It is also other Westerncountries, including Switzerland
, countries that are proud oftheir humanitarian tradition.
And I mean, I really amimpressed by the courage,
(36:49):
determination and optimism ofthese women, because I feel like
us journalists are a lot morepessimistic in general.
Speaker 2 (36:59):
I mean it's our job to try and analyze the situation
and I mean I agree with you.
I don't share the situation andI mean I agree with you.
I don't share the optimism.
I think the US money is gone,certainly for the next four
years, and the damage that couldbe done in those four years is
immense and I don't think hasquite sunk in.
(37:19):
But here let's listen just atthe last two Angele of UNAIDS,
because she gives for me theclearest and most impassioned,
in a way, explanation of whyit's really short-sighted for
all of us to disinvest inhumanitarian funding.
Speaker 4 (37:43):
Does this make me sad ?
The lack of global solidarityright now?
Funding Does this make me sad?
The lack of global solidarityright now?
Absolutely, I am most sad, notfor myself.
I am most sad for all themillions of people living with
HIV and affected by HIV whoselives have been upended in one
way, shape or form in the pastfew months.
(38:03):
They have lost access tolife-saving medication.
They have showed up at clinicsfor support with no one there to
support them.
You know, women have gone intoclinics to provide care for
their unborn child with nomedication or no testing or no
services.
(38:24):
What makes me sad also, imogen,is that we actually had
something that was successful.
We were making progress.
We were one of the only 17sustainable development goals
that was able to see the end insight.
So what makes me sad is thatwe're this close, we're so close
(38:44):
to ending AIDS full stop, andwe could very well be turning
back completely.
All these years of work,dedication and progress are
fragile and could be unraveled.
So while I am sad about thepeople that have been impacted
(39:04):
and I'm sad about the prospectthat we might be missing of
achieving the end of AIDS, Ihave to continue to be hopeful
that the world will cometogether, mobilize together in
solidarity to make sure that wefulfill our promise and we end
(39:26):
AIDS as a public health threatby 2030.
Speaker 2 (39:28):
It is possible, it is doable, and what it takes right
now is leaning in instead ofleaning away I mean, you're too
young to remember the 1980s, butI'm not and to see this illness
, which people were terrified of, and then find treatments for
it, find ways to prevent it andthen step away.
(39:51):
I mean, it was a shining beacon, the US funding for AIDS
treatment and prevention.
Speaker 6 (39:58):
And I mean I think, sure, the humanitarian system
isn't perfect, you know, itmight be inefficient sometimes,
it might be a little bitcolonialistic sometimes, but I
mean it was delivering results.
And I think we're back to thisidea of it's easier to destroy a
house than it is to build one.
(40:19):
We were seeing actual progressand now in a few months, in a
few years, decades of progresswill be raised and that's
extremely worrying.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
And I think this applies to AIDS, it applies to
other diseases as well, itapplies in Malaria, tb, maternal
mortality the list is long anddepressing and we don't want to
leave you on a really depressingnote, but we are going to have
to leave you.
But, dorian, when are your, isyour series of articles coming
(40:50):
out?
Because a lot of the questionsthat listeners might have based
on this conversation areaddressed there, too, in more
detail so they're going to comeout over the next two weeks,
starting in French.
Speaker 6 (41:03):
So for our French speaking listeners, they'll read
them first.
Speaker 2 (41:07):
Sneak preview francophones lucky you.
Speaker 6 (41:10):
And the English versions will follow, hopefully
shortly, but in the coming weeksas well.
Speaker 2 (41:15):
Okay, so you can find all of them on Swissinfoch.
That is it from us for thisedition of Inside Geneva.
Join us, though, in two weeks,where we're going to have that
long-promised discussion ontoxic masculinity and whether UN
Human Rights is correct.
(41:36):
The UN Human RightsCommissioner has said he sees it
as very concerning the rise inwhat he called toxic masculinity
.
We're going to have anall-woman show for that one.
Thank you, Dorianne, for thatone.
Thank you, Dorianne, forjoining us.
Thank you all for listening,and join us next time.
Thank you A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
(42:01):
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
(42:21):
.
I'm Imogen Folksowkes.
Thanks again 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 1 (00:20):
In today's program, the Trump administration has
issued a halt to nearly allexisting foreign aid.
Creating safe zones for Syrianwomen in refugee camps,
providing medical assistance topregnant women in Burma this is
the type of action the UNPopulation Fund has led.
The US has been one of the UNagency's founders and main
(00:41):
donors.
It's now ceasing allcontributions.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Right now, a woman dies of a preventable form of
maternal mortality every twominutes.
Okay, so that's unacceptable.
What is one of the grants thatthe US just cut is to support
the training and salaries formidwives.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
The United Nations is saying that there could be
2,000 new cases of HIV due tothe USAID cuts.
This as President Donald Trumpputs millions of dollars of
foreign aid on pause.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
We actually had something that was successful.
We were one of the only 17sustainable development goals
that was able to see the end insight.
We're so close to ending AIDSfull stop and we could very well
be turning back completely.
In Sudan, the freeze on US aidhas forced up to 80% of
(01:34):
emergency food kitchens, orabout 1,100 facilities to close,
I will always have the hope andI have to have hope.
Speaker 5 (01:41):
I am a leader of the Sudanese Red Crescent Society.
I have a staff.
I have 12, hope.
I am a leader of the SudaneseRed Crescent Society.
I have a staff.
I have 12,000 volunteers behindme.
So I always have to be reallystrong and give the hope to
everybody to continue servingthe Sudan.
Speaker 6 (01:54):
Sure, the humanitarian system isn't
perfect, you know, it might beinefficient sometimes, it might
be a little bit colonialisticsometimes, but I mean it was
delivering results.
We were seeing actual progressand now, in a few months,
decades of progress will beraised.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
And in today's programme we'regoing to return because it is
such a huge subject for theUnited Nations here to the huge
cuts in funding for humanitarianaid, and I'm joined here in the
studio by Swiss Infocorrespondent, Dorianne
Burkhalter.
Good to have you with us,Dorianne.
Speaker 6 (02:36):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Now you've been covering this extensively and
also a bit later in theprogramme we're going to hear
from specific aid agencies abouthow their work has been
impacted so far, andparticularly the effect on women
and girls in crisis zones.
Dorian, I think it's hard tounderestimate the sense of shock
(03:02):
that there has been in Genevafrom the aid agencies about
these cuts.
Speaker 6 (03:07):
Yeah, no, you're right.
I mean there is a real sense ofworry about the impact those
cuts will have, mostly on peopleunderground.
But we've also heard, I mean,that the cuts will also touch UN
workers working here, otherworkers in other NGOs.
But I think really, initiallythere was surprise by just the
(03:29):
breadth of those cuts and howfast they came.
There was a 90 days periodreview.
Now we're at the end of it andthere's still a lot of
Theoretically.
Theoretically, there's still alot of uncertainty.
But I think it's important toalso remind the listeners just
about how much the US wascontributing to humanitarian aid
(03:50):
.
It was paying for 40% of globalaid and about half of that came
from USAID, which now we know,or think we know, will pretty
much disappear, with more than80% of its programs being closed
.
So I mean, in any case, we knowthe impact will be huge, but
it's hard to have a clearpicture of just what will happen
(04:12):
next.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Yeah, that's right.
Actually.
I mean, I think we heard this90-day period theoretically
ended this week.
This was the period in whichaid programs were theoretically
going to be assessed by theUnited States of whether they
were worthwhile or not.
But aid agencies are still inthe dark and I think, listeners,
you might be interested to knowthis, but it's kind of sneak
(04:35):
peek behind the scenes of whatwe do, briefing from the UN aid
agencies and it is really now alitany of confusion, anxiety and
misery.
So this Tuesday morning weheard of funding cuts for
(04:57):
millions of people in Ethiopia,which it's dropped off the radar
screens, but the conflict andsuffering there has not
disappeared.
So people there who areseverely malnourished the
warning signs even possibleimpending famine are there now
will not be getting food becausethere's no money.
And this morning we heard aboutwhat did we hear about?
(05:20):
Sudan?
Speaker 6 (05:20):
Sudan.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Ukraine.
Speaker 6 (05:23):
Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Ukraine.
Funding cuts for displacedpeople in Ukraine.
Funding cuts for food aid inSudan, where 25 million people
in Sudan are in need ofhumanitarian aid.
That's half the population.
Speaker 6 (05:39):
And Sudan is the cause of the world's largest
displacement crisis.
What is it?
12 million people displaced.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
I think it's closer to 13 now.
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (05:48):
Internally and externally.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Yeah, out into Chad, places like the neighboring
countries.
So every day, or at least twicea week, we hear from the aid
agencies we're going to have tostop this, we're going to have
to stop that.
But there's always a caveat atthe end, we think, because there
still seems to be a lot ofconfusion about what's actually
(06:13):
happening who's Deputy ExecutiveDirector of Programs at UNAIDS.
So what I asked her was sowhere do you stand now?
These 90 days are over and, asyou see, she was a bit
(06:34):
challenged to answer.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
Our expectation was that after 90 days, which would
effectively be April 19th, wewould have had a signal or
decision one way or the other,in terms of what the funding
landscape from the US governmentmight look like in the HIV
response, what kind ofparameters, considerations, et
cetera.
It might look like theunfortunate reality is that the
(07:01):
decisions have not yet been made.
We understand that the 90-dayreview has been extended by 30
days and that decisions will becommunicated on or around May
19th.
So still a lot of uncertainty.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
As we speak.
One of the things that I'mhearing from a number of
different aid agencies is theconcern, the impact some of
these cuts will havespecifically on women and girls.
Is that something that concernsyou too?
Are you seeing that?
Speaker 4 (07:34):
The disruption of services and the devastation of
services, both HIV preventionand treatment services, has
truly been seismic in terms ofwhat has happened at the country
level.
At the community level, womenand girls are, particularly on
the continent of Africa, are hitvery hard.
It is young women and girlsthat often suffer the most when
(07:56):
these kinds of major cuts happen.
As you know, women and girlsare more than three times more
likely than their malecounterparts in Africa to be
living with HIV and every week,for example, 4,000 adolescent
girls and young women becomeinfected with HIV globally.
(08:16):
3,100 of those live insub-Saharan Africa.
So the impact of what hashappened with the stop work
orders and the freeze and thecutting of funding has
definitely impacted women andgirls, especially in sub-Saharan
Africa.
It is deeply concerning what weare seeing, with pregnant women
(08:37):
, for example, going intoclinics, women that may have HIV
that are not tested for HIV,then their unborn child if they
are deemed positive, you know,and not put on treatment, then
their unborn child being bornpositive with HIV.
We're seeing preventionservices just shuttered
completely, while we're seeing1.3 million new infections all
(09:00):
around the world.
So we are very concerned aboutensuring prevention services for
women and girls, as well astreatment continuity for
adolescent girls and young women, and this is an area of focus
that we have to continue.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Well, you're in Washington at the moment.
Have you got a sympathetic earthere?
Have you found people whoperhaps do understand the
consequences of neglecting HIVprevention?
Speaker 4 (09:30):
We were grateful that a waiver came from Secretary
Rubio to protect comprehensivetesting and treatment services
HIV treatment services.
Part of that memo includedprevention for pregnant and
breastfeeding women.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
In my mind that is a very clear direction for
prevention for pregnant andbreastfeeding women Now just
clarify on the issue of thewaiver, because I've heard from
different aid agencies that theyhave got emails saying, yes,
you've got a waiver, but thatthe money to back that up that
waiver has not actually beenfreed up again.
(10:11):
Do you have clarity about?
Speaker 4 (10:12):
that what's been challenging, related to the
implementation of the waiver, asyou're describing, is that,
while the waiver was issued andput in place and has listed out
a number of these parameters,like comprehensive treatment,
like prevention ofmother-to-child transmission and
prevention for pregnant andbreastfeeding women, what was
(10:33):
also happening in the backgroundis significant structural
changes to other parts of the USgovernment.
For example, we've been seeing,as you've been seeing, all the
changes that have been happeningto the aid agency, usaid and
other parts of the US government.
So, while these changes arehappening in the background,
(10:54):
financial management systems,people that are within the US
government.
So, while these changes arehappening in the background,
financial management systems,people that are within the US
government that would normallybe working on the procurement
and the movement of money andthe contracting work.
These are people that existedone day and didn't the next, or
financial systems that werefunctional one day and not the
(11:15):
next, and so that's part of whathas prohibited the waiver from
being implemented successfullyacross the board.
The question now will also bewhat does the future look like
beyond the waiver?
How can we make sure that whatis prioritized is indeed what
needs to be prioritised for theHIV response?
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Kind of clear as mud really.
She really doesn't know whatmoney she's going to get and
what not, and whether preventionof HIV in pregnant women is
included in life saving.
She seems to think thatprevention for other people is
not included to think thatprevention for other people is
not included.
Speaker 6 (11:55):
I mean, it is a really worrying testimony and I
think with this question ofprevention, now we see that the
US is trying to says there willbe waivers for life-saving
initiatives, but over the yearsand this sometimes is criticized
the UN has been doing much morethan just life-saving
(12:18):
initiatives, and that's alsoother big NGOs, smaller NGOs,
but it's also just becausehumanitarian needs have exploded
over the last 20 years.
Right, there were 5 billion in2005.
There are now 50 billionDollars, dollars, dollars, yeah.
So now saying you won't doprevention is, I mean, really
(12:44):
complicated, because it's aneffective way of also
controlling those needs and thecost Exactly so.
There's a real tension herebetween saying you want to
prioritize and, at the same time, saving lives.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
I'm wondering though, because you have been talking
in depth and we should say thatDorian's going to have a whole
series on Swiss Info, series ofarticles about the aid cuts and
the reflection that's going onwithin aid agencies about the
future within aid agencies.
About the future, you know,there was a possibility.
It must have been lurking intheir minds for at least two
(13:18):
years that Trump might beelected again and that there
could be consequences forinternational aid.
Do you think they were badlyprepared?
Speaker 6 (13:28):
I think they never saw it coming that he would go
or that he would hit this hardthe humanitarian sector.
But the problem of theinfluence of the US funding and,
I think, more broadly, Westerncountries funding it's a handful
of countries that pay for aboutor more than 60% of the
humanitarian system.
This issue was identified yearsago and they've been calling
(13:52):
for more countries to contributeto aid operations worldwide,
but I think those calls have notreally been listened to because
there aren't really that manycountries beyond Western
countries that pay forhumanitarian aid.
In recent years we've seen someof the Gulf countries, in
(14:13):
particular Saudi Arabia and theUnited Arab Emirates.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
But they I mean these are wealthy, oil-rich countries
, they have money, but quiteoften it seems they spend money
bilaterally.
It doesn't go through the UNsystem and arguably it means
that some of the realhumanitarian priorities that the
UN identifies in its neutral,impartial way don't necessarily
(14:41):
get identified as clearly asthey should.
And we should also say becauseyou pointed out there that
majority of aid funding stillcomes from the same old
countries.
It's Europe, europe and it'sthe United States.
And although the United Statesis the biggest cutter, it's not
the only one.
Germany is cutting, the UK iscutting, not in the same public.
(15:05):
And I mean I have to say it doescome across quite mean-spirited
the language that's coming outof Washington about why they're
cutting.
I mean feeding USAID into thewood chipper, as Elon Musk said.
It's cruel language.
It doesn't really help thewhole debate at all.
But linked to that, we wantedto talk about whether, in
(15:30):
particular with the US approach,there is also ideology going on
.
We know that countries think ofaid as soft power.
We know that the United Statesyou say this very clearly in one
of your articles has fordecades thought of its
humanitarian aid as a way offurthering its ideological
(15:51):
beliefs.
But that also now is impactinghumanitarian aid.
Tell us about the questionnairethe aid agencies got, because
we haven't talked about it thatmuch on Inside Geneva.
Speaker 6 (16:04):
Yeah, so it was last month, I think about a month ago
.
We learned that a lot of NGOsin Geneva, but also some of the
UN agencies, had been receivingthis questionnaire from the US
government, asking them aboutquestions like are you receiving
any money from countries likeChina, like Russia?
(16:25):
Do you implement diversity andinclusion programs?
Do you support environmentalcauses?
What's your stand on genderidentity?
Sort of a checklist of MAGAcompliance.
Make America Great Again, yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
I mean very much the MAGA idea of what's good and
what's bad.
Speaker 6 (16:51):
Bad yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
And I think all of the aid agencies have been put
on the back foot by this,because I mean, frankly, if you
look at the World Food Programme, they are seeing people hungry
directly because of theconsequences of climate change.
They are seeing UNICEF or theUN Population Fund, which we're
going to come on to in a moment,clearly seeing the need for
(17:15):
programs to specifically supportwomen and girls in areas of
conflict, because of thevulnerability of women and girls
.
Speaker 6 (17:24):
And this is, I think I mean we were talking earlier
about uncertainty about whatthose cuts eventually will look
like.
I think this questionnairegives us a good indication of
the people that will be left out, and it will be women, it will
be minorities, it will be theenvironment as well.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
Yeah, and that could be quite devastating and in fact
already is proving devastating.
I want to play you a bit of aninterview with Sarah Craven, who
is the North American directorof the UN Population Fund.
Now, of all the aid agencieswhich perhaps should have
planned for a cut in funding isindeed the UNFPA, because they
(18:08):
have for years had a, shall wesay, complicated relationship
with Republican administrationsin Washington, because they
offer health support andreproductive health support that
can mean contraception to womenin developing countries, and
their funding has been cut byprevious administrations the
(18:29):
Bush administration, I thinkalso the Reagan administration.
So here's Sarah giving us aperhaps broader, out of the
tabloid headlines example ofwhat UNFPA actually does.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
I'll give you one example.
Last week, the UN issued areport.
We like to issue reports in theUN, and this one was a really
devastating one about maternalmortality.
You know, we've made progressin preventing maternal mortality
, but we're at a real risk of,you know, falling back on some
of that progress.
Right now, a woman dies of apreventable form of maternal
(19:07):
mortality every two minutes.
Okay, so that's unacceptable.
And you know, in this report ittalked about where is one of
the the most dangerous place fora woman to give birth right now
is in Chad.
You have a one in 24 chance ofdying in childbirth.
What is one of the grants thatthe US just cut is to support
the training and salaries formidwives midwives.
(19:36):
So we're talking about smallinterventions that can make a
difference in saving a womanfrom dying in childbirth having
a trained birth attendant or amidwife.
And then, with no reason, thatfunding was cut and was not seen
as life-saving.
So that's kind of what we'redealing with right now.
As I said, we had anticipatedthat there would be cut,
potentially, you know no futurefunding coming.
What we didn't reallyanticipate was that all of our
(19:57):
existing contracts, which wereover 300 million, would suddenly
face a stop work order.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
If you already had the funding, what was to stop
you just ignoring the stop workorder on the basis that stopping
work would risk the lives ofwomen and girls?
Speaker 3 (20:12):
Well, you know, we, like every other UN organization
, international organization,have signed contracts with the
US government.
So when they give you a stopwork order, that's under the
contractual obligations.
So we couldn't go rogue.
You know we have three biggoals that we're trying to
achieve.
One is to ensure that anyonewho would like to have access to
(20:33):
voluntary, effective, safemethods of birth control have
that access.
Two is to ensure that no onedies giving life and that we end
preventable maternal mortality.
And three, that women and girlsare protected from violence.
I mean these are big thingsthat impact.
Three, that women and girls areprotected from violence.
I mean these are big thingsthat impact the women of lives
and girls and I think everyoneagrees on them.
These are low-cost interventions.
(20:55):
I always say we're not lookingfor a cure, we're not looking
for trillion-dollar investment,but a small intervention like
one example is if your listenershad a visual is we have
something that's called a safedelivery kit costs about $5.
And it's very simple.
It's a sheet of plastic, a barof soap, plastic gloves, a
(21:18):
string, a razor blade and infoinstructions, like picture
instructions of how to deliver ababy safely.
So if you're a woman who'spregnant in a place where
there's no hospital, no midwife,no traditional birth attendant.
This might be your best shot athaving a sterile surface to
deliver a baby.
It's a very small interventionthat can make a huge difference
(21:39):
and you know, we haveinterventions that go from that
to larger ones, likehospitainers that could be
delivered to a humanitariansetting where women could be
receiving not only maternitycare but also protection and
treatment if they've beensubjected to sexual violence.
So these are the few pinningsof support that women and girls
(22:00):
who've lost everything can relyon.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
That makes me very sad.
To hear that, I mean, I've hadtwo children and you know, even
in a Swiss hospital, when you'rehaving a baby, you do realize
that the plastic sheet and thepair of scissors are the basics
that you need, and to think thatwomen can be without anything
just makes me really, really sad.
Speaker 6 (22:25):
And it's again a good example of a prevention measure
that costs little money but hasa huge impact and now is being
cut, possibly because it's nottargeting the right audience or
being seen as serving USinterests.
But I mean it also shows that,beyond what is considered
(22:45):
life-saving, all the otherprevention initiatives that the
UN does are having a real impact.
They're not just nice to have.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
No life-saving.
But I think it appears that theinterpretation of life-saving
well, as we heard from UN AIDS,the people they could discuss
whether a program waslife-saving or just kind of
life-improving are not at theirdesks anymore.
They've been fed into ElonMusk's woodchipper.
(23:15):
What is emerging for me, though, really here is, as we said,
you said, minorities and womenand girls, and we know that
women and girls are particularlyvulnerable in conflict Women,
girls and children, you knowthey get pushed out of the way
in chaotic food distributionoperations.
(23:37):
They are very vulnerable tosexual violence, particularly if
you've not got a well-run UNrefugee camp where they have
precisely those programs run byUNFPA or UNICEF, for example, to
try and prevent that.
I'm going to come back to Sudan, because we're beginning to
(24:00):
also ask ourselves, I think, whois left in crisis zones, and I
had the great good fortune tomeet up with the General
Secretary of the Sudanese RedCrescent.
She is Aida El-Sayed Abdullah,and she was here in Geneva for a
few days trying to raiseattention to the crisis in Sudan
(24:22):
, and there we have heard thatsexual violence is rife and
being used, as human rightsgroups say, as a weapon of war.
Here's what she had to say.
Speaker 5 (24:34):
The report about sexual violence is really
breaking the heart about whatthe Sudanese people is really
suffering.
We have found a lot of cases.
I have a doctor working with me.
I never know that she's adoctor.
She came as a volunteer andshe's giving tea and coffee and
by the end I said who is she?
They tell me she's a doctor andI just asked her the question
(24:57):
that why you are not in ahospital.
What are you doing hereshouting no, I am not a doctor,
I am a volunteer.
When we deep in her story, shehas been raped 30 times and by
the time they bring her to thehospital she is almost dying.
So it took one year from us totalk to her.
So this is only one case.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
We have millions of cases like that in Sudan.
You work sometimes with the UNPopulation Fund on programmes to
support survivors of sexualviolence, yet this is one aspect
of the UN that's being reallycut to the bone.
Does that worry you thatparticularly programmes for
women and girls seem to belosing out?
(25:43):
They're often neglected inconflict anyway, but now they
really seem to be losing out.
They're often neglected inconflict anyway, but now they
really seem to be losing out.
Speaker 5 (25:49):
The cut of the budget really makes us shaking,
because we get a good fund fromUNIVBA and UNICEF for these
cases and now, after the cut ofthe budget, if they pull out, we
only get the support from themovement and the appeal of IFRC
that we're working in that withthem.
That is only 30% funded.
(26:11):
In the beginning of the war,for a few months we can see
Sudan is there in the media.
You open the TV, open thesocial media, sudan is there.
But after that completelyforget it.
Nobody talk about Sudan, nobodytalk about the suffering of the
people there.
We launch appeals to supportthe Sudanese community.
Only 30% has been covered.
(26:31):
The international community isnot there for Sudan.
The war has to stop, peace hasto come, but the right of the
Sudanese people to go back totheir life, to go back to their
houses, this has to be put onthe table now.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
It feels like we're a long way from that.
I mean, I'm beginning to askmyself who is going to be left
in these crisis zones.
Speaker 6 (26:58):
I mean, I think the question of who will be there
last is really interesting,because I think if you're
running out of money and you'restill in Sudan, I mean what are
you going to do?
You're going to try to have thebiggest impact you can, but
then you also maybe won't belooking at who isn't getting aid
and you won't be able to reporton that very much, and so we
(27:21):
may also never know what happensin all those places where the
last people who were stillgetting a little bit of money no
longer has it.
They won't be telling the storyof the people they're not able
to help anymore if they justcompletely shut down their
operation.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
So we heard from the UN Population Fund that the UN
did a report, which it's good tohave, this data on maternal
mortality.
Which is it's good to have thisdata on maternal mortality?
We may never know what maternalmortality rises to in Sudan or
Chad or Yemen or Afghanistan,because the support for mothers
(27:57):
and babies has gone and thepeople even assessing the
problem are gone.
It's interesting also that theSudanese Red Crescent and we
hear so often about thenecessity of having local people
on the ground and Aida is fromKhartoum.
She's a displaced personherself.
(28:18):
She now lives in Port Sudan,but she will not leave and she
wants to support her country,and she is exactly the right
person, a woman from Sudan, toapproach Sudanese women who have
been subjected to sexualviolence.
But the Sudanese Red Crescentwas getting support from the UN
Population Fund to run itsprograms on sexual violence and
(28:40):
support for survivors, and thisis one of the interlinking
things, isn't it?
That's also causing hugeproblems.
Speaker 6 (28:46):
Yeah and this is also something I learned about while
writing my stories is I wastalking to MSF, and MSF is not
funded by the US government.
It gets 97 percent of itsglobal funding from the private
sector and actually mostlyindividuals, people like you and
me and yet they do rely, forexample, on local health
(29:10):
ministries for vaccines thatwere supported by the US aid.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Or via the World Health Organization or the World
.
Speaker 6 (29:18):
Health Organizations, or were using some of those
programs to get vaccines at abetter price.
So if these aren't thereanymore, they will have to pay
for vaccines.
That will increase their costs.
They were using the UN forlogistics as well, For example,
the UN Humanitarian Air Service,which is a service where you
(29:39):
can rent a small plane or anhelicopter to reach
hard-to-reach areas or areasthat are just too dangerous to
reach by road.
They won't be able to do thatanymore if funding decreases
there.
And also, I mean, what is thepoint for them on a refugee camp
to provide some of the healthservices they provide If there
(30:02):
isn't food, if there isn't water, if there isn't shelter?
They'll have to do that as well.
So it feels like a lot of NGOshave to increase their costs and
ask for more money becausetheir partners aren't here
anymore.
So there are a lot ofinterlinkings we don't even
think about.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
We don't, and I think it's one of those things.
I think it must be a source ofreal frustration, perhaps to the
UN and particularly OCHA,coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs, because they workedvery hard I mean, I've watched
this over 20 years to develop avery coherent system, a cluster
system, where one aid agency,the most fitted for the job,
(30:41):
would be the lead agency in acrisis, the lead agency in a
crisis, and then they would workoutwards with other UN agencies
and implementing partners,which is exactly what MSF
Doctors Without Borders is.
They have the trained doctors,they have their private money to
pay them, but they rely on thisUN infrastructure in the
(31:02):
background, and if that's gone,it will be very hard for MSF in
many parts of the world to work.
Do you think, then, we'relooking at an absolute, radical
shake up of how humanitarian aidis done?
I mean, for me, I just feellike we're looking almost a bit
at a smouldering ruin.
We don't see anything risingfrom the ashes yet.
Speaker 6 (31:23):
Yeah, no, I think we are.
I mean and I've heard this aswell from a few people in the
sector that this really is anexistential crisis for
humanitarian aid and also a lotof I guess analogy I heard a lot
is that it's easier to demolisha house than it is to build one
.
And I think this is exactlywhat's happening is NGOs are
(31:46):
closing, people are leaving thisfield and also just public
opinion will get used to a lowerlevel of funding.
And if we don't hear aboutcrisis anymore because no one's
there to talk about them, reallywho is going to step in?
We've seen that there seem tobe limited interest from other
countries to pay forhumanitarian aid, at least
(32:09):
through the UN system.
We can also talk about China,the world's second economy.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
A bit stingy.
Speaker 6 (32:16):
Yes, Last year paid for $8 million.
China paid $8 million, lastyear $8 million.
The US was paying $10 billion.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
Yeah, more than 1,000 times as much.
And there you can see theAmerican taxpayer getting a bit
frustrated, although I think wedid say once, point out, and we
should perhaps point out again,that the percentage of its GDP
that the US spends on foreignaid is much smaller than many
(32:49):
European countries.
We traditionally spend more.
It's just that our economy ismore proportionally just, our
economies aren't as big, so incold hard cash it's less.
Well, I think you know weshould revisit this in a year's
time, but I fear, I really fear,even from a journalistic point
of view, because my colleaguesand myself I've done it also.
(33:12):
When we go to crisis zones, weoften get there with the support
of the humanitarians on theground, and if they're not there
anymore, it's not only that,just money will not be going to
crisis, they will go unreportedand we will retreat further and
further into our littleprivileged enclaves and forget
(33:38):
about the rest of the world,which seems very sad.
Speaker 6 (33:42):
Not a very positive note to end on, but I agree.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
Well, we won't end quite yet.
Just before we go, I asked eachof the three women that I
interviewed just to give me alittle summing up for the future
where they think things aregoing.
And I want to start with Aidafrom Sudan, from the Sudanese
Red Crescent, because she willstay there.
(34:05):
She is a displaced person.
She can't give up on hercountry.
She doesn't have that choicehere in Europe or America.
We may have the choice to giveup on Sudan, but she doesn't
have that choice.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
I'm there in Port Sudan because I love my country,
I love my national society andI think I have to do something
for my country and for mynational society.
I will always have the hope andI have to have hope for my
country and for my nationalsociety.
I will always have the hope andI have to have hope.
I am a leader of the SudaneseRed Crescent Society.
I have a staff.
I have 12,000 volunteers behindme, so I always have to be
(34:38):
really strong and give the hopeto everybody to continue serving
the Sudan.
So we hope within one or twoyears everything will be
finished and we can go back home.
Because even Sudanese RedCrescent, we're all IDPs.
We are based in Khartoum, wehave been kicked and now we are
based in Port Sudan or otherareas and we try to do our best
(35:00):
to serve the Sudanese community.
But we never lose hope.
Sudan will go back community.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
But we never lose hope.
Sudan will go back.
It's shaming somehow to thinkthat she's there with 12,000
Sudanese volunteers, not paidvolunteers, and yet here in
Europe or in America we quibbleabout a dollar a month from the
population to support people incrisis like that.
From the population to supportpeople in crisis like that.
I will let you hear now Sarahfrom UNFPA.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
Our commitment is not going to change.
Our commitment to our mandateis unwavering, that we are going
to continue to do what we canto support vulnerable women and
girls, forgotten women and girlseverywhere we work, whether
it's in a development orhumanitarian context, and I
fundamentally believe that youknow others will continue to
(35:52):
support the UN system, continueto do their own support.
But it's troubling because it'snot just the US.
You see other countries thatare cutting their ODA, so it's a
very bleak funding picture andI think it's going to require
others to step up, others topartner, and it's a troubling
time.
It's a really troubling timebut I, you know, I guess I'm
(36:14):
still an optimist in that youknow people are fundamentally
good and want to help peoplearound the world.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
I hope.
Do you think her optimism isjustified?
Speaker 6 (36:25):
I don't really see it .
I mean, as she said, I think itis again important to stress
that it's not just the US that'sretreating from the
humanitarian sector.
It is also other Westerncountries, including Switzerland
, countries that are proud oftheir humanitarian tradition.
And I mean, I really amimpressed by the courage,
(36:49):
determination and optimism ofthese women, because I feel like
us journalists are a lot morepessimistic in general.
Speaker 2 (36:59):
I mean it's our job to try and analyze the situation
and I mean I agree with you.
I don't share the situation andI mean I agree with you.
I don't share the optimism.
I think the US money is gone,certainly for the next four
years, and the damage that couldbe done in those four years is
immense and I don't think hasquite sunk in.
(37:19):
But here let's listen just atthe last two Angele of UNAIDS,
because she gives for me theclearest and most impassioned,
in a way, explanation of whyit's really short-sighted for
all of us to disinvest inhumanitarian funding.
Speaker 4 (37:43):
Does this make me sad ?
The lack of global solidarityright now?
Funding Does this make me sad?
The lack of global solidarityright now?
Absolutely, I am most sad, notfor myself.
I am most sad for all themillions of people living with
HIV and affected by HIV whoselives have been upended in one
way, shape or form in the pastfew months.
(38:03):
They have lost access tolife-saving medication.
They have showed up at clinicsfor support with no one there to
support them.
You know, women have gone intoclinics to provide care for
their unborn child with nomedication or no testing or no
services.
(38:24):
What makes me sad also, imogen,is that we actually had
something that was successful.
We were making progress.
We were one of the only 17sustainable development goals
that was able to see the end insight.
So what makes me sad is thatwe're this close, we're so close
(38:44):
to ending AIDS full stop, andwe could very well be turning
back completely.
All these years of work,dedication and progress are
fragile and could be unraveled.
So while I am sad about thepeople that have been impacted
(39:04):
and I'm sad about the prospectthat we might be missing of
achieving the end of AIDS, Ihave to continue to be hopeful
that the world will cometogether, mobilize together in
solidarity to make sure that wefulfill our promise and we end
(39:26):
AIDS as a public health threatby 2030.
Speaker 2 (39:28):
It is possible, it is doable, and what it takes right
now is leaning in instead ofleaning away I mean, you're too
young to remember the 1980s, butI'm not and to see this illness
, which people were terrified of, and then find treatments for
it, find ways to prevent it andthen step away.
(39:51):
I mean, it was a shining beacon, the US funding for AIDS
treatment and prevention.
Speaker 6 (39:58):
And I mean I think, sure, the humanitarian system
isn't perfect, you know, itmight be inefficient sometimes,
it might be a little bitcolonialistic sometimes, but I
mean it was delivering results.
And I think we're back to thisidea of it's easier to destroy a
house than it is to build one.
(40:19):
We were seeing actual progressand now in a few months, in a
few years, decades of progresswill be raised and that's
extremely worrying.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
And I think this applies to AIDS, it applies to
other diseases as well, itapplies in Malaria, tb, maternal
mortality the list is long anddepressing and we don't want to
leave you on a really depressingnote, but we are going to have
to leave you.
But, dorian, when are your, isyour series of articles coming
(40:50):
out?
Because a lot of the questionsthat listeners might have based
on this conversation areaddressed there, too, in more
detail so they're going to comeout over the next two weeks,
starting in French.
Speaker 6 (41:03):
So for our French speaking listeners, they'll read
them first.
Speaker 2 (41:07):
Sneak preview francophones lucky you.
Speaker 6 (41:10):
And the English versions will follow, hopefully
shortly, but in the coming weeksas well.
Speaker 2 (41:15):
Okay, so you can find all of them on Swissinfoch.
That is it from us for thisedition of Inside Geneva.
Join us, though, in two weeks,where we're going to have that
long-promised discussion ontoxic masculinity and whether UN
Human Rights is correct.
(41:36):
The UN Human RightsCommissioner has said he sees it
as very concerning the rise inwhat he called toxic masculinity
.
We're going to have anall-woman show for that one.
Thank you, Dorianne, for thatone.
Thank you, Dorianne, forjoining us.
Thank you all for listening,and join us next time.
Thank you A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
(42:01):
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
(42:21):
.
I'm Imogen Folksowkes.
Thanks again 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!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.