- Joined
- Mar 15, 2019
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 5
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
In early March 2019, as part of the discussion of the US federal budget for 2020, the D. Trump administration announced a proposal to cut funding for development aid and humanitarian aid projects by 24% next year. Of course, this proposal could have a very negative impact on the humanitarian situation in the most complicated armed conflicts, the most share of which relates to the region of the Middle East and North Africa.
Using the example of 2019, only the countries of the region are in the top five largest UN humanitarian response plans, namely Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, Sudan, Somalia.
Based on the current military and political realities, the region of the Middle East and North Africa may become the main catalyst for new humanitarian crises. Over the past few years, the number of refugees from North Africa and the Middle East has reached more than 25 million people. Needless to say, to what negative consequences can lead the United States refuse to finance even a quarter of its voluntary commitments? At the end of 2018, the US government allocated over $ 7 billion for humanitarian funding alone, which amounted to about 30% of the total humanitarian budget. At the same time, 80% of these funds were directed to humanitarian programs through the UN World Food Program, the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).
If we analyze the specific implications of the proposed budget cuts in selected countries of the Middle East region, the UN programs in Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Yemen will get the hardest hit, which in turn will worsen the humanitarian situation in these countries.
But why did the United States suddenly decide to so significantly reduce the amount allocated to help crisis regions? Geopolitical competitors pushed the US position in some states, and Washington decided to cut back on humanitarian funding for these countries. And since helping countries in crisis was a form of indirect support for loyal governments, the United States decided in a specific way to show them its discontent. As a result, millions of civilians were on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe, but for the United States their own interests are paramount.
Source: Trump Says Countries That Receive Foreign Aid Do 'Nothing for Us' — We Crunched the Numbers
Using the example of 2019, only the countries of the region are in the top five largest UN humanitarian response plans, namely Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, Sudan, Somalia.
Based on the current military and political realities, the region of the Middle East and North Africa may become the main catalyst for new humanitarian crises. Over the past few years, the number of refugees from North Africa and the Middle East has reached more than 25 million people. Needless to say, to what negative consequences can lead the United States refuse to finance even a quarter of its voluntary commitments? At the end of 2018, the US government allocated over $ 7 billion for humanitarian funding alone, which amounted to about 30% of the total humanitarian budget. At the same time, 80% of these funds were directed to humanitarian programs through the UN World Food Program, the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).
If we analyze the specific implications of the proposed budget cuts in selected countries of the Middle East region, the UN programs in Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Yemen will get the hardest hit, which in turn will worsen the humanitarian situation in these countries.
But why did the United States suddenly decide to so significantly reduce the amount allocated to help crisis regions? Geopolitical competitors pushed the US position in some states, and Washington decided to cut back on humanitarian funding for these countries. And since helping countries in crisis was a form of indirect support for loyal governments, the United States decided in a specific way to show them its discontent. As a result, millions of civilians were on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe, but for the United States their own interests are paramount.
Source: Trump Says Countries That Receive Foreign Aid Do 'Nothing for Us' — We Crunched the Numbers
