Wednesday, February 5, came with an announcement on the website of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to the effect that thousands of employees will be put on administrative leave from the night of Friday, February 7, except for those “on mission-critical functions, core leadership and especially designated programmes.”
The statement continued: “Essential personnel expected to continue working will be informed by Agency leadership by Thursday, February 6, at 3pm (EST).”
Given the storied and sometimes controversial multi-decade history of the organisation, this was the kind of statement that was not remotely thinkable only a few weeks ago. Such is the world in which we live; one US election and everything we knew is upended.
USAID traces its roots to the signing of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by then President John F. Kennedy, who famously said of the reasoning behind forming the agency:
“There is no escaping our obligations: our moral obligations as a wise leader and good neighbour in the interdependent community of free nations – our economic obligations as the wealthiest people in a world of largely poor people, as a nation no longer dependent upon the loans from abroad that once helped us develop our own economy – and our political obligations as the single largest counter to the adversaries of freedom.”
And so started the journey for an agency that has worked in education, healthcare, governance, human rights etc.; impacting hundreds of millions of lives and shaping the future of innumerable countries. It hasn’t come without controversy and a great deal of horse-trading.
American politics is rife with polarised views that would easily make a $42 billion annual spend on a $30 trillion nominal economy seem like the most important decision the world’s largest economy’s future hinges on. It really isn’t. The last 64 years provide this evidence.
But depending on which side of the US political divide you listen to, outside World War II, USAID is either the most impactful foreign policy initiative in the United States’ 245-year history or it’s the most wasteful global force fused within the fabric of the new world order and orchestrated by left-leaning, gay-agenda-pushing regime change enthusiasts hiding behind CIA-request covert operations like colour revolutions riding on USAID’s alleged politically skewed selective financing of in-country activist movements.
Leading this charge is former progressive and now newly minted conservative movement flag bearer, the billionaire owner of X (formerly Twitter), Elon Musk, who referred to the current USAID as “not just an apple with a worm but a bowl of worms” and proceeded to recommend closure, in much the same way a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist shuts down a loss-making production line.
Add to this the multitude of despots who previously benefited from USAID’s largesse to governance movements but are now, in the interest of self-preservation, eager to take away the same ladder that got them to the top. It surprises no one, the world over, that they’ll push this angle; except in countries like Uganda, this is a life-and-death decision.
According to Ministry of Health statistics, only 14 percent of the funding for HIV care in Uganda comes from the Government of Uganda, with the rest being donor-driven. The US alone contributes nearly 81 percent of this. It is impossible to overstate the devastation that a sudden blockade presents to the health of more than one and a half million Ugandans accessing these services.
Add to this disease surveillance, pandemic countermeasures, specialised services etc. We haven’t spoken about their contributions to education, where entire university departments are sending home hundreds.
Bottom line: however one’s pendulum swings regarding self-determination of the world’s developing countries, it’s nearly impossible for one to argue that the abrupt withdrawal of USAID financing will leave the world, or even the US, a better, safer, more prosperous place.
Buckle up.
