June 23, 2026 • 29 mins
This week, Inside Geneva presents the newest instalment of our “Books to make you think” series.
We talk to an author who had a ringside seat as the US development agency USAID was being destroyed.
“The people who so recklessly tore down the agency [...] are still sitting in high government positions and have not been held accountable for their actions, so I intentionally named names in the book and explained exactly who was responsible and why,” says Nicholas Enrich, author of Into the Wood Chipper.
“USAID was destroyed by people who really had no idea what they were doing, and because of the vindictive ego of Elon Musk,” continues Enrich.
And we hear about a forensic analysis of the language used by US media to report the war in Gaza.
“The New York Times referred to the killing of Israelis on October 7 as a ‘massacre’ 124 times, and a ‘slaughter’ 53 times. In the same time frame, they used similar language zero times to describe the killing of Palestinians, despite the fact that, in the first 100 days, the death toll was seven or eight times higher than on October 7. Zero, not once, did they describe anything Israel did to the Palestinians in that period as a massacre or a slaughter,” says Adam H. Johnson, author of How to Sell a Genocide.
Did the mainstream media sanitise war crimes?
“Do you think that it is possible Israel killed 20,000 children at least – that’s the official number that no one disputes – over two years and never once committed a massacre or a slaughter? Does that feel statistically likely to you? I think the answer is, on its face, ‘no’,” says Johnson.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva.
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
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_05 (00:00):
SwissInfo podcasts.
SPEAKER_04 (00:09):
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
Swiss Info, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's program.
SPEAKER_02 (00:25):
The people who so recklessly tore down the agency
and put so many lives at riskaround the world are still
sitting in high positions ofgovernment and have not been
held accountable for theiractions.
And so I I intentionally namenames in the book and describe
exactly who is responsible andwhy.
SPEAKER_03 (00:58):
I think the answer is on its face no.
SPEAKER_04 (01:05):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
And in today's program, we bringyou the latest in our occasional
Books to Make You Think series.
We'll take you behind the scenesduring the dismantling of the
United States Aid andDevelopment Department, USAID,
with a book by a former staffmember who saw the consequences
(01:27):
of Elon Musk's famouswoodchipper close up.
SPEAKER_02 (01:31):
The idea that USAID was destroyed because it was
wasteful or because it wasn'tworking or for any other reasons
that you're hearing now.
It was destroyed by people whoreally had no idea what they
were doing, um, and because ofthe the vindictive um ego of
Elon Musk.
SPEAKER_04 (01:47):
And we'll bring you a forensic analysis of how the
media, in this case the USmedia, covered the war in Gaza.
Did the language journalistsused make the violence somehow
more normal and more acceptable?
SPEAKER_03 (02:02):
The New York Times referred to the killing of
Israelis on October 7th as amassacre 124 times and a
slaughter 53 times.
And they referred in in the sametime frame to the killing of
Palestinians, despite the factin the first hundred days the
killing was seven or eight timesmore than October 7th.
They use similar language zerotimes, zero not once.
Did they refer to anythingIsrael to the Palestinians in
(02:23):
the first hundred days as amassacre or a slaughter?
SPEAKER_04 (02:25):
That was Adam Johnson, whose book, How to Sell
a Genocide, has caused a lot ofsoul searching among the US
media.
But first, let's hear fromNicholas Enrich, author of Into
the Wood Chipper, awhistleblower's account of how
the Trump administrationshredded USAID.
(02:45):
As President Donald Trump beganhis second term in office in
early 2025, Enrich was still atwork at USAID.
SPEAKER_02 (03:08):
Since then, um, have written a book called Into the
Wood Chipper, a whistleblower'saccount of how the Trump
administration shredded USAID.
SPEAKER_04 (03:16):
I find it very interesting, observing the
United States, that you wentahead and did this, because this
must have been traumatic for youand your colleagues.
And some people might have said,I just need to get away.
I've got a young family.
I need to get away and recoverfrom this.
SPEAKER_02 (03:36):
Yeah, um, I mean, there was definitely an urge to
do this and to just move past.
But for me, there were severalreasons that I felt that I
really needed to do this.
Mostly I think my primarymotivation was for the potential
of accountability because thepeople who so recklessly tore
down the agency and put so manylives at risk around the world
(03:59):
are still sitting in uh highpositions of government and have
not been held accountable fortheir actions.
And so I I intentionally namenames in the book and describe
exactly who is responsible andwhy.
But I also wanted to kind ofraise this as a warning at a
time when this was acongressionally established
federal agency with broadbipartisan support that was able
(04:21):
to be destroyed in a matter ofweeks by people who didn't even
understand what the agency didand couldn't care less about the
costs.
It was able to be torn down thateasily because people did not
stand up and speak out againstwhat was happening.
So I also hope this book is abit of a call to action for
people who are seeing thatsomething is maybe fundamentally
(04:43):
breaking in American democracyand trying to recognize when is
the right time to stand up andsay this is not okay.
SPEAKER_04 (04:50):
You have raised there half a dozen different
points that I want to dig deeperinto during this interview.
But you said the people who camealong to destroy it didn't
really know anything aboutUSAID.
I want to come back to that.
But why don't you start bytelling our listeners what you
did and what made you motivated,proud even to work at USAID?
SPEAKER_02 (05:14):
Sure.
Yeah, I worked at USAID forabout uh a little over 12 years
under four differentpresidential administrations.
I started in uh tuberculosis,was in charge of making sure
that our funding in TB was usedto achieve the most results,
affect the most uh patients, andidentify and get the most
(05:34):
patients treated as possible forthe amount of money that we had.
And then ultimately, basically,I was the director of policy
programs and planning for uhglobal health when the Trump
administration came in.
So my job was basically to makesure that we were being good
stewards of American taxpayerdollars specifically for global
health and to make sure thatthey were being used to achieve
(05:55):
the maximum impact possible.
And we did have an enormousimpact.
I mean, for a shoestring budgetthat was about uh less than 1%
of the US federal budget, we wesaved over 92 million lives over
the past 20 years alone, whichis kind of an incredible impact.
So it was a wonderful job.
I I can't imagine uh being ableto find another job where I'd be
(06:17):
able to have such a broad impactand help so many people.
Yes, I was very proud of what Idid.
SPEAKER_04 (06:23):
So November 2024, you obviously knew new
administration in the WhiteHouse.
Here in Geneva, we knew toothere are going to be cuts.
The big aid agencies wereexpecting cuts from the US.
I have to say, we didn't expectthe kind of scorched earth, did
(06:44):
you?
SPEAKER_02 (06:45):
No, no, I did not.
And we also saw writing on thewall when Trump was elected,
right?
We weren't going into thisblind.
We we had been here for thefirst Trump administration and
kind of had a sense of what hispolicy priorities were.
But you know, there were somehints that while there there
were going to be changes forsure, there was broad support
(07:05):
even among the administrationfor global health.
I mean, that our objectives ofincreasing global life
expectancy and expanding accessto medical services and
healthcare access were prettyuniversally supported.
So we weren't that concerned.
And then when the Secretary ofState was announced to be Marco
Rubio, we again kind of breatheda collective uh sigh of relief
(07:26):
because Marco Rubio had been anenormous supporter of USAID and
international development ingeneral, and had been one of our
strongest supporters in theSenate for years.
And so, of course, the bigdifference with this
administration was they had thisnew thing called the Department
of Government Efficiency, youknow, run by Elon Musk.
In theory, to me, it actuallydidn't sound like a terrible
(07:49):
idea that would bring in anoutsider to find ways to make
our programs more efficient.
And that was actually what myjob was.
And I had a long list of thingsthat I thought we could do to
make uh USAID more efficient.
Not that it wasn't efficientbefore, but there's always ways
to improve it.
Um, and naively I had developeda list that I was looking
forward to talking to the Dogeteam when they came to explain
(08:10):
how I could help them make USAIDmore efficient, but of course,
never got that opportunity.
SPEAKER_04 (08:15):
You write compellingly about how this then
unfolded in early 2025.
For our listeners, give them alittle flavor.
What are the kind of things thathappened as the kind of
dismantling of USAID began?
SPEAKER_02 (08:31):
Yeah, I think maybe the most shocking piece was the
ignorance and indifference ofthe people who came in in
charge, the doge teams and thepolitical appointees.
So the first time that Iactually got the chance to brief
them on what we did in globalhealth and just gave them a very
broad overview of what we did interms of infectious diseases,
(08:51):
maternal and child health,family planning, et cetera.
Just very, you know, 30,000-footview of what we do.
They were shocked.
And actually, the chief of staffof the agency, the guy who's in
charge of what's going to happenwith USAID, said, Oh, I had no
idea that USA did all this work.
When I thought of what USAID didin global health, I assumed it
(09:11):
was just, you know, abortions.
SPEAKER_04 (09:13):
So he's just been reading misinformation,
disinformation propaganda onsocial media, if he thinks that.
SPEAKER_02 (09:19):
That's correct.
SPEAKER_04 (09:20):
Whoever that is has not bothered to actually really
look at what USAID does and ismaking major policy.
SPEAKER_02 (09:27):
That's right.
I think that um there was a lotof willful ignorance.
It wasn't just an ignorance ofglobal health or international
development.
It was a complete ignorance ofhow the government works.
These were people that didn'thave a lot of experience even
being managers.
So as they came in with thisextremely high-stakes task of
ripping apart an agency that wastasked with saving lives all
(09:49):
around the world, as problemsarose, as of course they would,
they had absolutely no idea howto fix them and ended up causing
infighting and squabblingbetween the political appointees
and doge and the career staffthat were left there were just
kind of left, you know, shakingour heads as we witnessed the
destruction and the damagewithout really having any way to
(10:10):
try to help resolve theproblems.
SPEAKER_04 (10:12):
So some people, my friends and colleagues, when
they go on a really steeplearning curve, and as
journalists, kind of thishappens quite a lot if we go
somewhere brand new, that weperhaps have a preconception of
how things will be.
But when we get there, our wholestory changes because it's not
like that.
Did you ever hope that thepeople who are who were
(10:33):
dismantling USAID might mightreconsider once you told them
what it really did?
SPEAKER_02 (10:38):
Yes, I did.
I held out hope for a while.
And frankly, that's probably whyI stayed there so long.
And there were a couple ofmoments when I was able to kind
of provide a little bit ofcontext for what they were
destroying that I think did givethem pause.
I remember, for example,describing that their freeze on
foreign aid had interruptedclinical trials testing new
tuberculosis drugs ondrug-resistant tuberculosis, and
(11:00):
that the interruptions to thosetrials and that treatment not
only threatened the lives ofthose patients that were on the
treatment, but also riskedfurther mutations of the
bacteria that would potentiallyresult in the development of new
and untreatable strains of aairborne infectious disease and
(11:20):
the way that that was a nationalsecurity threat to the US.
And so I think that there weretimes that I was starting to be
able to break through there andthey say, well, we have to fix
that.
But then I had to explain, well,you know, you put the entire
tuberculosis division ontoadministrative leave.
And so we don't have our expertshere anymore.
Even by that point, it wasalready too late, and the damage
(11:41):
had been done, our systems hadbeen destroyed and the problems
couldn't be resolved.
SPEAKER_04 (11:45):
You quite powerfully say in your book that some of
the actions taken by this dogeteam were illegal.
Now, I'm gonna give you aperspective, which is
increasingly common here inEurope, that there's an awful
lot of stuff going on inWashington that's illegal.
And what I hear frequently hereis when are the Americans gonna
(12:08):
say enough is enough?
SPEAKER_02 (12:10):
Yeah, I I think that that's uh an excellent
perspective and I share it.
Um and I wonder when we're goingto say enough is enough.
We saw Doge absolutely flauntfederal court orders to stop the
termination of contracts.
We saw them take apart theexpertise in a way that violated
(12:30):
federal law.
We saw them violate the intentof Congress in terms of funding
that they had appropriated forspecific disease areas or health
areas just be divertedcompletely and that entire help
stream have all its contractsterminated.
And so, yeah, there were quite afew illegal actions that I
witnessed by Doge.
(12:50):
And the fact was that was partof their plan.
Their goal was to destroy asmuch as they could as quickly as
possible, so that even if whenMarco Rubia, the Secretary of
State, issued a waiver to thePAWs on foreign assistance for
life-saving work, they haddestroyed so much of the system.
They had broken the paymentsystem, they had locked people
out that were the experts thatwere needed to implement the
(13:13):
programs, they terminated thecontracts.
It was impossible to even do thesmall pieces that politically
the leadership in the StateDepartment was trying to save
because of the destruction thatDoge had brought.
SPEAKER_04 (13:25):
Some people might say you're pretty brave writing
this book, given the penchantfor retribution that uh this
administration, or I mean, youmust be blunt, the president
seems to have for people who arewho are critical.
SPEAKER_02 (13:39):
Well, I appreciate that.
I mean, at the time, itcertainly did not feel brave.
It felt like it was the decisionthat I had to make.
I I tried for a very long timeto work within the system to try
to save parts of our programs.
And by the at the point that allof our contracts were terminated
by Doge, it I realized thatthere was nothing that was going
to be able to be saved.
(14:00):
And I felt like I couldn't staysilent.
I needed to let the world knowwhat was actually happening
inside USAID and what it wouldmean for people around the world
and for American nationalsecurity if these cuts were
allowed to continue.
So it didn't feel brave, it justfelt like it was what needed to
happen given how much was beingdestroyed so quickly.
SPEAKER_04 (14:18):
Where does the US go from here in terms of
humanitarian aid?
And where do you go personally?
SPEAKER_02 (14:25):
Well, to me, I think it's going to become very clear.
It's already clear to me that weneed to re-establish an agency
for international developmentand foreign assistance.
I it and when I sayre-establish, I don't mean we
need to set up the exact samething that we had before.
But I think the first thing weneed to break down, and I hope
to do this in my book, is theidea that USAID was destroyed
(14:49):
because it was wasteful orbecause it wasn't working or for
any of the other reasons thatyou're hearing now.
It was destroyed by people whoreally had no idea what they
were doing, and because of thevindictive ego of Elon Musk.
So I think that that needs to bethe starting point.
It was working and served anincredible purpose both in terms
of humanitarian need andAmerican national security.
(15:11):
And I think that we do have anenormous opportunity to what we
bring back to be different andbetter and address some of the
concerns and inefficiencies thatwe all were had been fighting
against.
But we absolutely need to see,and and I believe we'll see at
some point an independent agencyto administer international
(15:32):
development within the USgovernment.
SPEAKER_04 (15:40):
Nicholas Enrich there with an insider's account
of dramatic days and terribleconsequences for the work of
what was once a globallyimportant aid and development
agency saving lives around theworld, destroyed in weeks.
(16:01):
And now to our next book, andit's one being a journalist
myself, I was especiallyinterested to read, and
especially interested to talk toits author.
The questions it poses arechallenging.
When we report on terribleconflicts, on atrocities, on
possible war crimes, what kindof language do we use?
(16:23):
And is the outrage that shouldprobably agree every atrocity
diminished by our attitude tothose committing the violations?
Adam Johnson knows what hethinks, and he feels so strongly
about it, he's produced aforensic, data-driven book to
prove his case.
SPEAKER_03 (16:51):
And I am a the co-host of the Citations Needed
podcast, a media criticismpodcast.
SPEAKER_04 (16:56):
Tell me about the book then, because the obviously
this is our podcast books tomake you think.
What prompted you to write howto sell a genocide?
SPEAKER_03 (17:08):
Well, uh, I had written about the what I viewed
as propaganda or misleadingmedia narratives justifying the
genocide from the verybeginning.
Um I'm someone who had writtenabout Gaza in particular and
Israel and the US's relationshipin particular for over almost a
decade now.
Um as of course, as you know,almost virtually every major
human rights and aidorganization has found Gaza to
(17:30):
be a genocide.
Human Rights Watch, AmosyInternational, uh Oxfam, Doctors
Without Borders.
SPEAKER_04 (17:37):
So United Nations The Commission of Inquiry.
SPEAKER_03 (18:00):
So it's more or less universal consensus that it is a
genocide.
SPEAKER_04 (18:04):
Let me just jump in there.
Um, because this was this was ina way my my next uh question for
you.
You looked at mainstream USmedia, I mean traditionally
liberal, the ones that that weoften hear called fake news
these days.
You know, they're called fakenews by the current US
(18:25):
administration, but they havelong decades, centuries, that
some of them, of what many of uswould regard as high standards
of objectivity.
SPEAKER_03 (18:37):
Yes.
Which is what which is whatgives them such purchase.
Uh just like you needed the NewYork Times editorial board to
support the war in Iraq and theWashington Post editorial board
to prop up Colin Powell, uhColin Powell in front of the UN
talking about chemical weaponsin Iraq.
You need liberal buy-in to sellsomething like this, a a
sustained genocide, the thekilling, the mass slaughter of
tens of thousands, potentiallyuh over a hundred thousand, uh
(19:00):
in Gaza over a period of of ayear, the the time frame the
book is is positioned in.
Um and that requires uh liberalmedia buy-in.
New York Times, CNN, and so thisthis book is about the crisis of
liberalism at its core and howIsrael and how Gaza to a great
extent exposed those thosecontradictions uh pretty
(19:20):
nakedly.
SPEAKER_04 (19:22):
So I want to get into this because you've done a
really impressive forensicexamination of the kind of
language used by some of themedia you mentioned, the New
York Times would be one.
But I mean, do you genuinelythink this was a a conscious
that journalists at those mediaoutlets consciously decided to
(19:43):
support a genocide?
SPEAKER_03 (19:44):
What they consciously or what's in their
hearts is irrelevant to me.
There's a famous adage, the thepurpose of a system is what it
does.
What your intent is is notreally relevant to me as an as a
as a as a as a as a mediaanalyst.
Uh what I'm interested in iswhat you do.
And so you can use outcome-basedmetrics to show obvious
manifests racism uh in coverage.
(20:06):
And so uh we document those as astarting place.
This is indeed the first twochapters, right?
So we established bias as a as aas a premise, and then from
there we ask the question as towhy.
Uh, and so we have, for example,asymmetry of emotive terms,
right?
Which is when an Israeli iskilled, it is put in these
tabloid emotive language.
When a Palestinian is killed, itis put in more anodyne, almost
(20:29):
medical-like language.
This this is a proxy forhumanization, because people who
die in medical-like ways are notconsidered humans.
They're considered kind ofproto-cadavers that we can
vaguely lament, but we're notreally going to um put in
emotionally charged ways.
And so, for example, the termsmassacre and slaughter were used
overwhelmingly asymmetrical inin US media.
(20:50):
Uh, our survey of the firsthundred days uh found that the
New York Times referred to thekilling of Israelis on October
7th as a massacre 124 times anda slaughter 53 times.
And they referred in in the sametime frame to the killing of
Palestinians, despite the factin the first hundred days the
killing was seven or eight timesmore than October 7th.
Uh, they used similar languageuh zero times.
(21:12):
Uh the Washington Post was 50 to0.
Zero, not once.
Did they refer to anythingIsrael did the Palestine
Palestinians in the firsthundred days as a massacre or a
slaughter, or as we'll alsodiscuss, barbaric or savage.
By definition, these are termsonly reserved for the killing of
Israelis who are considered uhcivilized and more human.
Washington Post had a similaroutcome: 50 to zero for
massacre, 25 to zero forslaughter.
(21:34):
AP was 80 to 0 for massacre and18 to zero for slaughter.
CNN.com was 43 to 0, 14 to 0 formassacre and slaughter,
respectively.
Uh and then this was alsoreflected uh on cable.
So CNN in the first uh duringour survey period of the first
hundred days, or rather, firstyear, uh used the term massacre
to describe the killing ofIsraelis 225 times.
(21:56):
This is this includes uh on airanchors, reporters, and
punchers.
And used the term massacre forthe killing of Palestinians 16
times.
So 225 to 16.
Slaughter was 79 to 2.
Savage was 13 to 0.
And Barbaric was 56 to 0.
So slaughter and savage arenever ever used for Israel for
Israel.
And the question I propose is: do you think that it's possible (22:14):
undefined
Israel killed 20,000 children atleast?
That's the official number thatno one disputes.
20,000 children over two yearsand never once committed a
massacre or slaughter.
Does that feel statisticallylikely to you?
I think the answer is on itsface, no.
SPEAKER_04 (22:32):
Well, I think myself and my colleagues in Geneva
would not disagree with you.
We have multiple aid agencies.
We can't go there.
That's one of the things.
This is a deep question for me,because you have outlined
humanizing versus dehumanizinglanguage, which has been used.
And I'm just wondering, you saidyou wanted to get to the why.
(22:54):
Why do you think that happened?
Did you talk to journalists fromsome of these organizations
about the kind of pressure?
Because there has been a lot.
SPEAKER_03 (23:07):
Yeah, we have several sources at CNN, MSNBC.
There were very a lot of themwere very happy to talk.
A lot of them had felt guilty,frankly, for what they felt like
their coverage was and needed toexercise some demons.
Um we had several from CBS, uh,from the Washington Post and LA
Times, and uh a story begins toemerge, and it's a story that I
(23:28):
I have not heard anyone reallybother to contest.
So I'll give you one potentexample.
We talked to several sources whohad their social media
monitored, sometimes bycoworkers who are even in their
union, who were pro-Israel, andif even the most generic
milkedtoast sentiments insupport of Palestine, like just
calling for the bringing in ofaid, were framed as uh violating
(23:48):
these, again, somewhat ad hocand obviously very much
asymmetrically enforcedneutrality standards, whereas
the most genocidal statements ormost pro-Israel statements were
simply allowed.
And anyone, especially anyonewho was perceived as
Muslim-coded uh or sympatheticto Palestine, were immediately
disciplined, and in the case ofuh Ayman Moyadin, effectively
(24:08):
demoted, uh, or in the case ofMedia Sun, effectively pushed
out.
Um, and so this was somethingyou saw time and time again.
Um you know, and and I will sayto the extent to which groups
like Human Rights Watch orAmnesty International had to
maintain their credibility, theyvery belatedly acknowledged it
was a genocide.
Uh in human rights, Human RightsWatch's case, I think it took
them roughly six months or so tostate what was obvious.
(24:31):
Um I will say other institutionscame out looking much better.
SPEAKER_04 (24:34):
Um Well, I think I work out of Geneva, so I I would
say um I have a certain amountof respect for not bandying the
word genocide around too rapidlyor too lightly because it is a
very it's a very big word, avery motive word.
SPEAKER_03 (24:49):
Aaron Powell Yeah, it's a word that carries certain
implications and obligations.
But in the instance of Gaza, theyou know Israeli leaders were
saying genocidal statements atthe very least within within a
week, uh making making promisesto cut off aid, food, fuel.
Again, I think one should bevery careful about how they
bandy about that word.
Um but when you have the theprime minister give a speech as
he did on the eve of theinvasion of Gaza in mid-October
(25:09):
of 2023, when he talks aboutAmloc, which is inherently a
genocidal reference, when youhave uh Johav Galant talk about
human animals, which is straightout of Rwanda, when you have
supposedly liberal presidentIsaac Herzog talking about how
there's no innocence in Gaza,I'm paraphrasing, but he said
something to the effect of thisthing about there being
innocence in Gaza, they they allknew.
Uh, these are genocidallanguage, and they were
(25:31):
presented as such by you know atthe International Court of
Justice on January 26, 2024, uh,because that's that's the thing
that precedes genocide.
And every single thing that waspromised by Galant and Netanyahu
ended up happening.
They were gonna live in tents,that ended up happening.
Uh, they were gonna cut off foodand fuel, that ended up
happening, mass starvationhappened, uh, preventable
disease, death by preventabledisease skyrockets.
(25:53):
So every single genocidalstatement they made was a
statement of intent, and it wasan intent that actually
happened.
SPEAKER_04 (26:06):
Adam Johnson, author of How to Sell a Genocide.
For those of us reporting fromGeneva who have struggled
sometimes even to get theaccounts of the aid agencies,
the doctors or nurses who areworking in Gaza onto our
editorial agenda, or who havefaced pressure to tone down our
(26:28):
language, or been told thatverified facts around
malnutrition or the number ofchildren who have died are not
verified facts at all.
This is a book that will strikea chord and remind us to stand
up for facts and always checkthe kind of language we use.
(26:56):
And that brings us to the end ofBooks to Make You Think on
Inside Geneva.
But before we go, here's a quicktaster of our next podcast,
where we're going to hear fromsome of the people running to be
the next UN Secretary General.
The United Nations is 80 yearsold, but it's never had a woman
(27:16):
as its leader.
Is this the year?
SPEAKER_06 (27:19):
I'm running to be Secretary General because I
think I am the best person forthe job.
Okay.
Short and free.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_01 (27:29):
I think that when it comes to an election, national
or international, we areelecting the best person for the
job.
We are not electing a gender forthe job.
SPEAKER_04 (27:40):
And what about the UN's importance today?
Can it make its way back torelevancy by solving conflicts
and restoring peace, perhaps?
Or will the next SecretaryGeneral, possibly finally a
woman, inherit a dyinginstitution?
SPEAKER_07 (27:58):
I think the UN does not suffer from a crisis of
purpose or principles enshrinedin the Charter.
It suffers from a crisis ofdelivery, of impact, of
accountability, and ofinclusion.
SPEAKER_00 (28:13):
We must win the button of development by
promoting jobs for youth, women,investment, infrastructure,
climate justice, and access tofinance.
SPEAKER_06 (28:29):
Sometimes silence cannot happen.
If civilians are being killed,the civil general has to speak.
But also has to work anddialogue with all member states.
That doesn't mean dialoguedoesn't mean endorsement.
I mean you can dialogue and workwith countries that you have, or
governments you have criticized.
I have worked with governments Ihave publicly criticized.
But that doesn't meanendorsement means that you have
(28:52):
to engage.
SPEAKER_04 (28:53):
That episode is out on July 7th.
Do join us then on InsideGeneva.
For now, I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks for listening.
A reminder, you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
(29:13):
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.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
SwissInfo podcasts.
SPEAKER_04 (00:09):
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
Swiss Info, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's program.
SPEAKER_02 (00:25):
The people who so recklessly tore down the agency
and put so many lives at riskaround the world are still
sitting in high positions ofgovernment and have not been
held accountable for theiractions.
And so I I intentionally namenames in the book and describe
exactly who is responsible andwhy.
SPEAKER_03 (00:58):
I think the answer is on its face no.
SPEAKER_04 (01:05):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
And in today's program, we bringyou the latest in our occasional
Books to Make You Think series.
We'll take you behind the scenesduring the dismantling of the
United States Aid andDevelopment Department, USAID,
with a book by a former staffmember who saw the consequences
(01:27):
of Elon Musk's famouswoodchipper close up.
SPEAKER_02 (01:31):
The idea that USAID was destroyed because it was
wasteful or because it wasn'tworking or for any other reasons
that you're hearing now.
It was destroyed by people whoreally had no idea what they
were doing, um, and because ofthe the vindictive um ego of
Elon Musk.
SPEAKER_04 (01:47):
And we'll bring you a forensic analysis of how the
media, in this case the USmedia, covered the war in Gaza.
Did the language journalistsused make the violence somehow
more normal and more acceptable?
SPEAKER_03 (02:02):
The New York Times referred to the killing of
Israelis on October 7th as amassacre 124 times and a
slaughter 53 times.
And they referred in in the sametime frame to the killing of
Palestinians, despite the factin the first hundred days the
killing was seven or eight timesmore than October 7th.
They use similar language zerotimes, zero not once.
Did they refer to anythingIsrael to the Palestinians in
(02:23):
the first hundred days as amassacre or a slaughter?
SPEAKER_04 (02:25):
That was Adam Johnson, whose book, How to Sell
a Genocide, has caused a lot ofsoul searching among the US
media.
But first, let's hear fromNicholas Enrich, author of Into
the Wood Chipper, awhistleblower's account of how
the Trump administrationshredded USAID.
(02:45):
As President Donald Trump beganhis second term in office in
early 2025, Enrich was still atwork at USAID.
SPEAKER_02 (03:08):
Since then, um, have written a book called Into the
Wood Chipper, a whistleblower'saccount of how the Trump
administration shredded USAID.
SPEAKER_04 (03:16):
I find it very interesting, observing the
United States, that you wentahead and did this, because this
must have been traumatic for youand your colleagues.
And some people might have said,I just need to get away.
I've got a young family.
I need to get away and recoverfrom this.
SPEAKER_02 (03:36):
Yeah, um, I mean, there was definitely an urge to
do this and to just move past.
But for me, there were severalreasons that I felt that I
really needed to do this.
Mostly I think my primarymotivation was for the potential
of accountability because thepeople who so recklessly tore
down the agency and put so manylives at risk around the world
(03:59):
are still sitting in uh highpositions of government and have
not been held accountable fortheir actions.
And so I I intentionally namenames in the book and describe
exactly who is responsible andwhy.
But I also wanted to kind ofraise this as a warning at a
time when this was acongressionally established
federal agency with broadbipartisan support that was able
(04:21):
to be destroyed in a matter ofweeks by people who didn't even
understand what the agency didand couldn't care less about the
costs.
It was able to be torn down thateasily because people did not
stand up and speak out againstwhat was happening.
So I also hope this book is abit of a call to action for
people who are seeing thatsomething is maybe fundamentally
(04:43):
breaking in American democracyand trying to recognize when is
the right time to stand up andsay this is not okay.
SPEAKER_04 (04:50):
You have raised there half a dozen different
points that I want to dig deeperinto during this interview.
But you said the people who camealong to destroy it didn't
really know anything aboutUSAID.
I want to come back to that.
But why don't you start bytelling our listeners what you
did and what made you motivated,proud even to work at USAID?
SPEAKER_02 (05:14):
Sure.
Yeah, I worked at USAID forabout uh a little over 12 years
under four differentpresidential administrations.
I started in uh tuberculosis,was in charge of making sure
that our funding in TB was usedto achieve the most results,
affect the most uh patients, andidentify and get the most
(05:34):
patients treated as possible forthe amount of money that we had.
And then ultimately, basically,I was the director of policy
programs and planning for uhglobal health when the Trump
administration came in.
So my job was basically to makesure that we were being good
stewards of American taxpayerdollars specifically for global
health and to make sure thatthey were being used to achieve
(05:55):
the maximum impact possible.
And we did have an enormousimpact.
I mean, for a shoestring budgetthat was about uh less than 1%
of the US federal budget, we wesaved over 92 million lives over
the past 20 years alone, whichis kind of an incredible impact.
So it was a wonderful job.
I I can't imagine uh being ableto find another job where I'd be
(06:17):
able to have such a broad impactand help so many people.
Yes, I was very proud of what Idid.
SPEAKER_04 (06:23):
So November 2024, you obviously knew new
administration in the WhiteHouse.
Here in Geneva, we knew toothere are going to be cuts.
The big aid agencies wereexpecting cuts from the US.
I have to say, we didn't expectthe kind of scorched earth, did
(06:44):
you?
SPEAKER_02 (06:45):
No, no, I did not.
And we also saw writing on thewall when Trump was elected,
right?
We weren't going into thisblind.
We we had been here for thefirst Trump administration and
kind of had a sense of what hispolicy priorities were.
But you know, there were somehints that while there there
were going to be changes forsure, there was broad support
(07:05):
even among the administrationfor global health.
I mean, that our objectives ofincreasing global life
expectancy and expanding accessto medical services and
healthcare access were prettyuniversally supported.
So we weren't that concerned.
And then when the Secretary ofState was announced to be Marco
Rubio, we again kind of breatheda collective uh sigh of relief
(07:26):
because Marco Rubio had been anenormous supporter of USAID and
international development ingeneral, and had been one of our
strongest supporters in theSenate for years.
And so, of course, the bigdifference with this
administration was they had thisnew thing called the Department
of Government Efficiency, youknow, run by Elon Musk.
In theory, to me, it actuallydidn't sound like a terrible
(07:49):
idea that would bring in anoutsider to find ways to make
our programs more efficient.
And that was actually what myjob was.
And I had a long list of thingsthat I thought we could do to
make uh USAID more efficient.
Not that it wasn't efficientbefore, but there's always ways
to improve it.
Um, and naively I had developeda list that I was looking
forward to talking to the Dogeteam when they came to explain
(08:10):
how I could help them make USAIDmore efficient, but of course,
never got that opportunity.
SPEAKER_04 (08:15):
You write compellingly about how this then
unfolded in early 2025.
For our listeners, give them alittle flavor.
What are the kind of things thathappened as the kind of
dismantling of USAID began?
SPEAKER_02 (08:31):
Yeah, I think maybe the most shocking piece was the
ignorance and indifference ofthe people who came in in
charge, the doge teams and thepolitical appointees.
So the first time that Iactually got the chance to brief
them on what we did in globalhealth and just gave them a very
broad overview of what we did interms of infectious diseases,
(08:51):
maternal and child health,family planning, et cetera.
Just very, you know, 30,000-footview of what we do.
They were shocked.
And actually, the chief of staffof the agency, the guy who's in
charge of what's going to happenwith USAID, said, Oh, I had no
idea that USA did all this work.
When I thought of what USAID didin global health, I assumed it
(09:11):
was just, you know, abortions.
SPEAKER_04 (09:13):
So he's just been reading misinformation,
disinformation propaganda onsocial media, if he thinks that.
SPEAKER_02 (09:19):
That's correct.
SPEAKER_04 (09:20):
Whoever that is has not bothered to actually really
look at what USAID does and ismaking major policy.
SPEAKER_02 (09:27):
That's right.
I think that um there was a lotof willful ignorance.
It wasn't just an ignorance ofglobal health or international
development.
It was a complete ignorance ofhow the government works.
These were people that didn'thave a lot of experience even
being managers.
So as they came in with thisextremely high-stakes task of
ripping apart an agency that wastasked with saving lives all
(09:49):
around the world, as problemsarose, as of course they would,
they had absolutely no idea howto fix them and ended up causing
infighting and squabblingbetween the political appointees
and doge and the career staffthat were left there were just
kind of left, you know, shakingour heads as we witnessed the
destruction and the damagewithout really having any way to
(10:10):
try to help resolve theproblems.
SPEAKER_04 (10:12):
So some people, my friends and colleagues, when
they go on a really steeplearning curve, and as
journalists, kind of thishappens quite a lot if we go
somewhere brand new, that weperhaps have a preconception of
how things will be.
But when we get there, our wholestory changes because it's not
like that.
Did you ever hope that thepeople who are who were
(10:33):
dismantling USAID might mightreconsider once you told them
what it really did?
SPEAKER_02 (10:38):
Yes, I did.
I held out hope for a while.
And frankly, that's probably whyI stayed there so long.
And there were a couple ofmoments when I was able to kind
of provide a little bit ofcontext for what they were
destroying that I think did givethem pause.
I remember, for example,describing that their freeze on
foreign aid had interruptedclinical trials testing new
tuberculosis drugs ondrug-resistant tuberculosis, and
(11:00):
that the interruptions to thosetrials and that treatment not
only threatened the lives ofthose patients that were on the
treatment, but also riskedfurther mutations of the
bacteria that would potentiallyresult in the development of new
and untreatable strains of aairborne infectious disease and
(11:20):
the way that that was a nationalsecurity threat to the US.
And so I think that there weretimes that I was starting to be
able to break through there andthey say, well, we have to fix
that.
But then I had to explain, well,you know, you put the entire
tuberculosis division ontoadministrative leave.
And so we don't have our expertshere anymore.
Even by that point, it wasalready too late, and the damage
(11:41):
had been done, our systems hadbeen destroyed and the problems
couldn't be resolved.
SPEAKER_04 (11:45):
You quite powerfully say in your book that some of
the actions taken by this dogeteam were illegal.
Now, I'm gonna give you aperspective, which is
increasingly common here inEurope, that there's an awful
lot of stuff going on inWashington that's illegal.
And what I hear frequently hereis when are the Americans gonna
(12:08):
say enough is enough?
SPEAKER_02 (12:10):
Yeah, I I think that that's uh an excellent
perspective and I share it.
Um and I wonder when we're goingto say enough is enough.
We saw Doge absolutely flauntfederal court orders to stop the
termination of contracts.
We saw them take apart theexpertise in a way that violated
(12:30):
federal law.
We saw them violate the intentof Congress in terms of funding
that they had appropriated forspecific disease areas or health
areas just be divertedcompletely and that entire help
stream have all its contractsterminated.
And so, yeah, there were quite afew illegal actions that I
witnessed by Doge.
(12:50):
And the fact was that was partof their plan.
Their goal was to destroy asmuch as they could as quickly as
possible, so that even if whenMarco Rubia, the Secretary of
State, issued a waiver to thePAWs on foreign assistance for
life-saving work, they haddestroyed so much of the system.
They had broken the paymentsystem, they had locked people
out that were the experts thatwere needed to implement the
(13:13):
programs, they terminated thecontracts.
It was impossible to even do thesmall pieces that politically
the leadership in the StateDepartment was trying to save
because of the destruction thatDoge had brought.
SPEAKER_04 (13:25):
Some people might say you're pretty brave writing
this book, given the penchantfor retribution that uh this
administration, or I mean, youmust be blunt, the president
seems to have for people who arewho are critical.
SPEAKER_02 (13:39):
Well, I appreciate that.
I mean, at the time, itcertainly did not feel brave.
It felt like it was the decisionthat I had to make.
I I tried for a very long timeto work within the system to try
to save parts of our programs.
And by the at the point that allof our contracts were terminated
by Doge, it I realized thatthere was nothing that was going
to be able to be saved.
(14:00):
And I felt like I couldn't staysilent.
I needed to let the world knowwhat was actually happening
inside USAID and what it wouldmean for people around the world
and for American nationalsecurity if these cuts were
allowed to continue.
So it didn't feel brave, it justfelt like it was what needed to
happen given how much was beingdestroyed so quickly.
SPEAKER_04 (14:18):
Where does the US go from here in terms of
humanitarian aid?
And where do you go personally?
SPEAKER_02 (14:25):
Well, to me, I think it's going to become very clear.
It's already clear to me that weneed to re-establish an agency
for international developmentand foreign assistance.
I it and when I sayre-establish, I don't mean we
need to set up the exact samething that we had before.
But I think the first thing weneed to break down, and I hope
to do this in my book, is theidea that USAID was destroyed
(14:49):
because it was wasteful orbecause it wasn't working or for
any of the other reasons thatyou're hearing now.
It was destroyed by people whoreally had no idea what they
were doing, and because of thevindictive ego of Elon Musk.
So I think that that needs to bethe starting point.
It was working and served anincredible purpose both in terms
of humanitarian need andAmerican national security.
(15:11):
And I think that we do have anenormous opportunity to what we
bring back to be different andbetter and address some of the
concerns and inefficiencies thatwe all were had been fighting
against.
But we absolutely need to see,and and I believe we'll see at
some point an independent agencyto administer international
(15:32):
development within the USgovernment.
SPEAKER_04 (15:40):
Nicholas Enrich there with an insider's account
of dramatic days and terribleconsequences for the work of
what was once a globallyimportant aid and development
agency saving lives around theworld, destroyed in weeks.
(16:01):
And now to our next book, andit's one being a journalist
myself, I was especiallyinterested to read, and
especially interested to talk toits author.
The questions it poses arechallenging.
When we report on terribleconflicts, on atrocities, on
possible war crimes, what kindof language do we use?
(16:23):
And is the outrage that shouldprobably agree every atrocity
diminished by our attitude tothose committing the violations?
Adam Johnson knows what hethinks, and he feels so strongly
about it, he's produced aforensic, data-driven book to
prove his case.
SPEAKER_03 (16:51):
And I am a the co-host of the Citations Needed
podcast, a media criticismpodcast.
SPEAKER_04 (16:56):
Tell me about the book then, because the obviously
this is our podcast books tomake you think.
What prompted you to write howto sell a genocide?
SPEAKER_03 (17:08):
Well, uh, I had written about the what I viewed
as propaganda or misleadingmedia narratives justifying the
genocide from the verybeginning.
Um I'm someone who had writtenabout Gaza in particular and
Israel and the US's relationshipin particular for over almost a
decade now.
Um as of course, as you know,almost virtually every major
human rights and aidorganization has found Gaza to
(17:30):
be a genocide.
Human Rights Watch, AmosyInternational, uh Oxfam, Doctors
Without Borders.
SPEAKER_04 (17:37):
So United Nations The Commission of Inquiry.
SPEAKER_03 (18:00):
So it's more or less universal consensus that it is a
genocide.
SPEAKER_04 (18:04):
Let me just jump in there.
Um, because this was this was ina way my my next uh question for
you.
You looked at mainstream USmedia, I mean traditionally
liberal, the ones that that weoften hear called fake news
these days.
You know, they're called fakenews by the current US
(18:25):
administration, but they havelong decades, centuries, that
some of them, of what many of uswould regard as high standards
of objectivity.
SPEAKER_03 (18:37):
Yes.
Which is what which is whatgives them such purchase.
Uh just like you needed the NewYork Times editorial board to
support the war in Iraq and theWashington Post editorial board
to prop up Colin Powell, uhColin Powell in front of the UN
talking about chemical weaponsin Iraq.
You need liberal buy-in to sellsomething like this, a a
sustained genocide, the thekilling, the mass slaughter of
tens of thousands, potentiallyuh over a hundred thousand, uh
(19:00):
in Gaza over a period of of ayear, the the time frame the
book is is positioned in.
Um and that requires uh liberalmedia buy-in.
New York Times, CNN, and so thisthis book is about the crisis of
liberalism at its core and howIsrael and how Gaza to a great
extent exposed those thosecontradictions uh pretty
(19:20):
nakedly.
SPEAKER_04 (19:22):
So I want to get into this because you've done a
really impressive forensicexamination of the kind of
language used by some of themedia you mentioned, the New
York Times would be one.
But I mean, do you genuinelythink this was a a conscious
that journalists at those mediaoutlets consciously decided to
(19:43):
support a genocide?
SPEAKER_03 (19:44):
What they consciously or what's in their
hearts is irrelevant to me.
There's a famous adage, the thepurpose of a system is what it
does.
What your intent is is notreally relevant to me as an as a
as a as a as a as a mediaanalyst.
Uh what I'm interested in iswhat you do.
And so you can use outcome-basedmetrics to show obvious
manifests racism uh in coverage.
(20:06):
And so uh we document those as astarting place.
This is indeed the first twochapters, right?
So we established bias as a as aas a premise, and then from
there we ask the question as towhy.
Uh, and so we have, for example,asymmetry of emotive terms,
right?
Which is when an Israeli iskilled, it is put in these
tabloid emotive language.
When a Palestinian is killed, itis put in more anodyne, almost
(20:29):
medical-like language.
This this is a proxy forhumanization, because people who
die in medical-like ways are notconsidered humans.
They're considered kind ofproto-cadavers that we can
vaguely lament, but we're notreally going to um put in
emotionally charged ways.
And so, for example, the termsmassacre and slaughter were used
overwhelmingly asymmetrical inin US media.
(20:50):
Uh, our survey of the firsthundred days uh found that the
New York Times referred to thekilling of Israelis on October
7th as a massacre 124 times anda slaughter 53 times.
And they referred in in the sametime frame to the killing of
Palestinians, despite the factin the first hundred days the
killing was seven or eight timesmore than October 7th.
Uh, they used similar languageuh zero times.
(21:12):
Uh the Washington Post was 50 to0.
Zero, not once.
Did they refer to anythingIsrael did the Palestine
Palestinians in the firsthundred days as a massacre or a
slaughter, or as we'll alsodiscuss, barbaric or savage.
By definition, these are termsonly reserved for the killing of
Israelis who are considered uhcivilized and more human.
Washington Post had a similaroutcome: 50 to zero for
massacre, 25 to zero forslaughter.
(21:34):
AP was 80 to 0 for massacre and18 to zero for slaughter.
CNN.com was 43 to 0, 14 to 0 formassacre and slaughter,
respectively.
Uh and then this was alsoreflected uh on cable.
So CNN in the first uh duringour survey period of the first
hundred days, or rather, firstyear, uh used the term massacre
to describe the killing ofIsraelis 225 times.
(21:56):
This is this includes uh on airanchors, reporters, and
punchers.
And used the term massacre forthe killing of Palestinians 16
times.
So 225 to 16.
Slaughter was 79 to 2.
Savage was 13 to 0.
And Barbaric was 56 to 0.
So slaughter and savage arenever ever used for Israel for
Israel.
And the question I propose is: do you think that it's possible (22:14):
undefined
Israel killed 20,000 children atleast?
That's the official number thatno one disputes.
20,000 children over two yearsand never once committed a
massacre or slaughter.
Does that feel statisticallylikely to you?
I think the answer is on itsface, no.
SPEAKER_04 (22:32):
Well, I think myself and my colleagues in Geneva
would not disagree with you.
We have multiple aid agencies.
We can't go there.
That's one of the things.
This is a deep question for me,because you have outlined
humanizing versus dehumanizinglanguage, which has been used.
And I'm just wondering, you saidyou wanted to get to the why.
(22:54):
Why do you think that happened?
Did you talk to journalists fromsome of these organizations
about the kind of pressure?
Because there has been a lot.
SPEAKER_03 (23:07):
Yeah, we have several sources at CNN, MSNBC.
There were very a lot of themwere very happy to talk.
A lot of them had felt guilty,frankly, for what they felt like
their coverage was and needed toexercise some demons.
Um we had several from CBS, uh,from the Washington Post and LA
Times, and uh a story begins toemerge, and it's a story that I
(23:28):
I have not heard anyone reallybother to contest.
So I'll give you one potentexample.
We talked to several sources whohad their social media
monitored, sometimes bycoworkers who are even in their
union, who were pro-Israel, andif even the most generic
milkedtoast sentiments insupport of Palestine, like just
calling for the bringing in ofaid, were framed as uh violating
(23:48):
these, again, somewhat ad hocand obviously very much
asymmetrically enforcedneutrality standards, whereas
the most genocidal statements ormost pro-Israel statements were
simply allowed.
And anyone, especially anyonewho was perceived as
Muslim-coded uh or sympatheticto Palestine, were immediately
disciplined, and in the case ofuh Ayman Moyadin, effectively
(24:08):
demoted, uh, or in the case ofMedia Sun, effectively pushed
out.
Um, and so this was somethingyou saw time and time again.
Um you know, and and I will sayto the extent to which groups
like Human Rights Watch orAmnesty International had to
maintain their credibility, theyvery belatedly acknowledged it
was a genocide.
Uh in human rights, Human RightsWatch's case, I think it took
them roughly six months or so tostate what was obvious.
(24:31):
Um I will say other institutionscame out looking much better.
SPEAKER_04 (24:34):
Um Well, I think I work out of Geneva, so I I would
say um I have a certain amountof respect for not bandying the
word genocide around too rapidlyor too lightly because it is a
very it's a very big word, avery motive word.
SPEAKER_03 (24:49):
Aaron Powell Yeah, it's a word that carries certain
implications and obligations.
But in the instance of Gaza, theyou know Israeli leaders were
saying genocidal statements atthe very least within within a
week, uh making making promisesto cut off aid, food, fuel.
Again, I think one should bevery careful about how they
bandy about that word.
Um but when you have the theprime minister give a speech as
he did on the eve of theinvasion of Gaza in mid-October
(25:09):
of 2023, when he talks aboutAmloc, which is inherently a
genocidal reference, when youhave uh Johav Galant talk about
human animals, which is straightout of Rwanda, when you have
supposedly liberal presidentIsaac Herzog talking about how
there's no innocence in Gaza,I'm paraphrasing, but he said
something to the effect of thisthing about there being
innocence in Gaza, they they allknew.
Uh, these are genocidallanguage, and they were
(25:31):
presented as such by you know atthe International Court of
Justice on January 26, 2024, uh,because that's that's the thing
that precedes genocide.
And every single thing that waspromised by Galant and Netanyahu
ended up happening.
They were gonna live in tents,that ended up happening.
Uh, they were gonna cut off foodand fuel, that ended up
happening, mass starvationhappened, uh, preventable
disease, death by preventabledisease skyrockets.
(25:53):
So every single genocidalstatement they made was a
statement of intent, and it wasan intent that actually
happened.
SPEAKER_04 (26:06):
Adam Johnson, author of How to Sell a Genocide.
For those of us reporting fromGeneva who have struggled
sometimes even to get theaccounts of the aid agencies,
the doctors or nurses who areworking in Gaza onto our
editorial agenda, or who havefaced pressure to tone down our
(26:28):
language, or been told thatverified facts around
malnutrition or the number ofchildren who have died are not
verified facts at all.
This is a book that will strikea chord and remind us to stand
up for facts and always checkthe kind of language we use.
(26:56):
And that brings us to the end ofBooks to Make You Think on
Inside Geneva.
But before we go, here's a quicktaster of our next podcast,
where we're going to hear fromsome of the people running to be
the next UN Secretary General.
The United Nations is 80 yearsold, but it's never had a woman
(27:16):
as its leader.
Is this the year?
SPEAKER_06 (27:19):
I'm running to be Secretary General because I
think I am the best person forthe job.
Okay.
Short and free.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_01 (27:29):
I think that when it comes to an election, national
or international, we areelecting the best person for the
job.
We are not electing a gender forthe job.
SPEAKER_04 (27:40):
And what about the UN's importance today?
Can it make its way back torelevancy by solving conflicts
and restoring peace, perhaps?
Or will the next SecretaryGeneral, possibly finally a
woman, inherit a dyinginstitution?
SPEAKER_07 (27:58):
I think the UN does not suffer from a crisis of
purpose or principles enshrinedin the Charter.
It suffers from a crisis ofdelivery, of impact, of
accountability, and ofinclusion.
SPEAKER_00 (28:13):
We must win the button of development by
promoting jobs for youth, women,investment, infrastructure,
climate justice, and access tofinance.
SPEAKER_06 (28:29):
Sometimes silence cannot happen.
If civilians are being killed,the civil general has to speak.
But also has to work anddialogue with all member states.
That doesn't mean dialoguedoesn't mean endorsement.
I mean you can dialogue and workwith countries that you have, or
governments you have criticized.
I have worked with governments Ihave publicly criticized.
But that doesn't meanendorsement means that you have
(28:52):
to engage.
SPEAKER_04 (28:53):
That episode is out on July 7th.
Do join us then on InsideGeneva.
For now, I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks for listening.
A reminder, you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
(29:13):
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.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
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.