Millions of people around the world have been plunged into uncertainty since January 20. They are the people directly affected by abrupt the a freeze on US aid, the largest in terms of amounts, decided by Donald Trump as soon as he took office.
The Republican believes, according to the executive order that instantly blocked thousands of food and health programs, that these "are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values." Trump even asserted that these programs "serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries."
Such a statement raises doubts. It's obvious that funding AIDS treatment for over 20 million African patients, food aid for a war-torn country such as Sudan and demining operations in many countries, among a range of other programs, all contribute to well-being and stability. In some cases, such as development aid programs in Central America, the consequences of such a freeze for countries plagued by various forms of social violence could even fuel what Trump wants to curb: immigration.
True, the freeze is only officially in force for three months, the time needed for a program-by-program review, which no expert in the field considers possible in such a short time. The chaos caused by the executive order led the new US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, to issue emergency exemptions for Israel and Egypt, adding to the confusion. The fear of retaliation from the new US administration, which is keeping many of its players silent, is probably not allowing the full extent of the disaster to be gauged.
A pillar of soft power
While it has become popular for some to gawk at the US president's willingness to mindlessly slash federal spending, conducting a detailed review of this international aid instead of uniformly freezing it would have been a far better policy. There was already an outcry following a similar action targeting federal funds voted for by American citizens. The executive order was immediately blocked by a federal judge and it proved to be the first serious lurch of his administration, which was forced to backtrack.
In the case of international aid, other factors must be taken into account in addition to the narrow vision of wasting taxpayers' money. The $70 billion (€67.5 billion) allocated by Congress, three-quarters of which is devoted to humanitarian aid, health and development, is a pillar of the US's soft power in the face of China, which has been conducting active infrastructure diplomacy in many countries for decades. Beijing is undoubtedly taking note of these retreats by Washington, just as it is attentive to the unease created by the US president's untimely leading with his chin vis-à-vis his allies.
Gesticulating is one thing, wielding a chainsaw is quite another, but doing both simultaneously is inadvisable when one's aim is to defend the interests of one's country.