Article shared by John Gilmartin
I suppose this is Lancet’s obituary for AID as most people call it who worked with it.
My caveat’s about Lancet's views. Be careful about proclaiming the death of anything as broad and complex as AID and the global aid business. I worked for AID for a year, while keeping my desk open In NYC Unicef. At the end of the year and completion of their Children’s Vaccine Initiative program design, they asked my to stay on in the Health Bureau of AID. This was during the HW Bush years, and I was technically seconded to the State Department. AID has always been under the broad management of State. I declined because I liked Unicef better, and I didn’t like the much higher level of uncertainty that came with working inside Aid. Many of the Aid folks at that time told funny stories about Aid being 20,000 staff until Reagan “fired” 16,000 of them. The joke they expressed was that Aid then rehired 16,000 contractors / consultants. In the design group I was part of there were about 16 staff working daily during that year. They all travelled globally all the time, and generally were highly skilled. The surprise for me was learning that only two of the 16 in the group were actual USAID employees, the chief and her deputy chief of the group. Many of the contractors were fired former Aid staff members. They would boast they earned more as contractors than when they were employed by the agency.
While the news here is focused on staff and program cuts at Aid, the one that concerns and surprises me more is the Norwegian decision to cut its funding to UN humanitarian aid in half. Norway is a huge and steady funder and implementing agency of many humanitarian crises. They do excellent work and keep a low profile. They don’t clog up the venues of high level foreign aid discussion meetings (which USAID did in my experience).
John Gilmartin
Click here for the article
Summary
This Lancet editorial responds to the effective dismantling of USAID by the Trump administration, with 83% of its programs cut and the rest absorbed by the State Department. The move halts over $30 billion in global aid, affecting health, humanitarian, and development programs worldwide. It marks a major blow to U.S. soft power and raises alarm about the future of global health funding.
While acknowledging the flaws of foreign aid—dependency, bureaucracy, and neocolonial influence—the editorial urges a rethink rather than a retreat. It highlights growing calls, especially from African leaders, to build more self-reliant, locally led systems. The sudden collapse of USAID, it warns, must trigger a serious global re-evaluation of how aid is structured and delivered.
Quotes
"The Trump Administration's dismantling of USAID is a catastrophe for global health, the consequences of which will be felt for generations."
"The sweeping, chaotic, and ill-considered unilateral halt of global health programmes is no way to institute reforms."
I suppose this is Lancet’s obituary for AID as most people call it who worked with it.
My caveat’s about Lancet's views. Be careful about proclaiming the death of anything as broad and complex as AID and the global aid business. I worked for AID for a year, while keeping my desk open In NYC Unicef. At the end of the year and completion of their Children’s Vaccine Initiative program design, they asked my to stay on in the Health Bureau of AID. This was during the HW Bush years, and I was technically seconded to the State Department. AID has always been under the broad management of State. I declined because I liked Unicef better, and I didn’t like the much higher level of uncertainty that came with working inside Aid. Many of the Aid folks at that time told funny stories about Aid being 20,000 staff until Reagan “fired” 16,000 of them. The joke they expressed was that Aid then rehired 16,000 contractors / consultants. In the design group I was part of there were about 16 staff working daily during that year. They all travelled globally all the time, and generally were highly skilled. The surprise for me was learning that only two of the 16 in the group were actual USAID employees, the chief and her deputy chief of the group. Many of the contractors were fired former Aid staff members. They would boast they earned more as contractors than when they were employed by the agency.
While the news here is focused on staff and program cuts at Aid, the one that concerns and surprises me more is the Norwegian decision to cut its funding to UN humanitarian aid in half. Norway is a huge and steady funder and implementing agency of many humanitarian crises. They do excellent work and keep a low profile. They don’t clog up the venues of high level foreign aid discussion meetings (which USAID did in my experience).
John Gilmartin
Click here for the article
Summary
This Lancet editorial responds to the effective dismantling of USAID by the Trump administration, with 83% of its programs cut and the rest absorbed by the State Department. The move halts over $30 billion in global aid, affecting health, humanitarian, and development programs worldwide. It marks a major blow to U.S. soft power and raises alarm about the future of global health funding.
While acknowledging the flaws of foreign aid—dependency, bureaucracy, and neocolonial influence—the editorial urges a rethink rather than a retreat. It highlights growing calls, especially from African leaders, to build more self-reliant, locally led systems. The sudden collapse of USAID, it warns, must trigger a serious global re-evaluation of how aid is structured and delivered.
Quotes
"The Trump Administration's dismantling of USAID is a catastrophe for global health, the consequences of which will be felt for generations."
"The sweeping, chaotic, and ill-considered unilateral halt of global health programmes is no way to institute reforms."
Comments
Post a Comment
Please ensure you leave your name, bei either selecting your google account (if you have one), or selecting 'name' from the drop down menu. Enter your name there. If confused, leave your name in the text of your comment.