Trump’s 90-day freeze on foreign aid could be the precursor to the collapse of UN, its corollary agencies, WB, IMF and the entire post-World War Two international order
By Tom Arms
Trump’s 90-day freeze on foreign aid could be the precursor to the collapse of the UN, its corollary agencies, the World Bank, the IMF and the entire post-World War Two international order. These are not my words. They come from Sir Myles Wickstead, Britain’s leading expert on development issues whom I spoke to on Friday.
“The whole international system,” said Sir Myles, “depends on each country paying its fair share based on their national income. If a major player like the US pulls out the entire edifice is endangered.”
He also said that many would die as an immediate result of the freeze and thousands of aid workers would lose their jobs, which would have an impact on distribution in the future even if there are no long-term cuts. “Philanthropic organizations such as the Gates Foundation will be able to fill some of the gaps,” said Sir Myles, “but they have only a fraction of the money available to the US government.”
The United States is the world’s largest contributor to international development aid. In 2023 it provided $73 billion in foreign aid—more than twice as much as the next biggest contributor—the EU at $35 billion. Germany was third at £32 billion, followed by Japan $28 billion and the UK (which reduced its foreign budget from 0.7 percent of GDP to 0.5 percent).
The American freeze and anticipated cut is expected to have an especially disastrous effect on Sub Saharan Africa. More than half a dozen countries rely on development aid—mainly American—for half of their GDP. It makes up 20 per cent for more for another dozen. All 54 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa receive proportion of their income in aid.
Read: Which countries will Trump’s foreign aid suspension hurt most?
American aid has been especially important in combatting HIV/AIDS around the world through its PEPFAR program. It is reckoned that PEPFAR has saved 25 million lives since it was initiated in 2003. A government spokesman for South Africa, where 19 per cent of 14 to 49-year-olds suffer from HIV/AIDS, said: “Millions may die as a result of this freeze. Patients need to receive their treatments on a regular basis. If they don’t they could die. And heavens knows what will happen if there is a permanent cut.”

US aid also provides cash for mine-clearing in Southeast Asia, support and medical services for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and humanitarian aid in Ukraine as well as funding pro-democracy work in countries threatened by Russia.
Not all aid has been cut. Egypt and Israel are still receiving military aid. Israel receives $3.8 billion and Egypt $1.3 billion. Since the initial announcement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made exceptions for “life-saving humanitarian assistance,” but made it clear that aid would not be extended to programs that involved abortion, family planning or transgender surgeries. Also, that all waivers to the initial catch-all announcement have to be made on a case-by-case basis.
An additional problem has been the sacking of about 600 USAID officials before the State Department—which has been tasked with taking over responsibility for American aid distribution—arrive to take their place. It is clear from statements out of the White House and the State Department that transactional diplomacy has replaced benevolence. Trump said: “Why should we give money to countries who hate us?” A State Department spokesman added: “Every dollar we spend. Every program we fund. Every policy we pursue, must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make American safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”
Sir Myles said that it was “perfectly reasonable” to re-examine spending priorities. “But not in this cack-handed way.” He added that after World War Two the Western governments financially supported countries that were on our side. It was seen as a way of keeping countries in our sphere of influence. “But it was agreed among the developed world that the primary beneficiaries of aid would always be the partner countries.”
Sir Myles also expressed concern about the long-term impact on how America is viewed by the rest of the world. He said that aid was an important in soft power diplomacy tool which is becoming increasingly important. The Trump Administration is more focused on hard power. “I am in no doubt,” he added, “that the US reputation around the world will suffer.”
Sir Myles also agreed that the cuts in American aid offered opportunities to Russia and China. Russia not so much because its economy was too weak and it is tied down in the Ukraine. China, however, has the resources, but it would need to shift them from investment to aid.
World Review
Lost in the blizzard of President Trump’s presidential decrees was the throwaway line that he plans to build an Israeli-style “iron dome” over the United States.
There are problems with such an ambition. For a start, the United States is 50 times bigger than Israel. Next problem is that Israel’s iron dome protects against drones, artillery attacks and short to intermediate-range missiles. Any American system would have to add long-range hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missiles to that list.
Next is the cost. Israel’s iron dome is estimated to cost $4-5 billion a year. Using the same technology, an American iron dome would cost about $120 billion. At the moment America’s entire missile defense budget is $29 billion and the total defense budget for 2025 is projected to be $852.3 billion.
The above figures are for a ground and sea-based iron dome. One of Trump’s greatest first-term boasts was the creation of the US Space Force (USSF). The force is 8,400-strong and under the command of General John Raymond. It would seem likely that Trump would want his USSF to at least contribute to the proposed iron dome.
This would involve basing satellites in space which would be armed with laser guns and kinetic missiles. There would also have to be a huge fleet of satellites based over enemy territory to spot missile launches. The advantage of a space-based system would be that the missiles could be intercepted before they reach US territory.
The disadvantages are that it would likely be construed as a breach of the 1967 UN treaty on Outer Space which prohibits the basing or use of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in space. There is also the problem of the price tag—an estimated $1 trillion.
But a space-based system cannot do the job alone. Some missiles will inevitably sneak past the laser guns. For protection against them there will need to be a complementary ground-based system as well.
Trump is nothing if not stubborn. You could also say obstinate, inflexible, mulish, or, if you want to be kind, persistent.
His suggestion that the Gazan Palestinians be relocated in brand new homes somewhere in Jordan and/or Egypt is the latest manifestation of the first administration’s “Peace to Prosperity” program which was negotiated by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Kushner’s January 2020 plan did not explicitly call for the resettlement of Palestinians. But it hinted that the US would provide financial incentives for them to move– $50 billion over ten years. But where? Kushner privately proposed Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon. But before publishing those thoughts he contacted the leaders of those countries and was told: “No way!!!”
Resettlement of Palestinian refugees is not a new idea. It is, literally, as old as the founding of the modern state of Israel. David Ben-Gurion proposed it almost as soon as the Israeli flag was first raised. Others who have resurrected it periodically over the past 76 years include: John Foster Dulles, John Bolton, Ariel Sharon, Leader of Lebanon’s Phalange Party Bashir Gemayel, Menahem Begin, Benjamin Netanyahu, all of Israeli’s far-right religious leaders and even an Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Said.
Each time the suggestion has been raised it has been knocked down by the Palestinians and the wider Arab world. For them it has always been a non-starter
Jordan has historically been touted as the most likely home for resettled Palestinians. This is because the British Mandate included the present-day Jordan and Israel. After the 1948 war a number of Palestinian refugees fled to Jordan and were granted Jordanian citizenship. Currently about 50-70 percent of Jordan’s citizens are classified as Palestinian. But problems arose in the late 1960’s when the PLO used Jordan as its main base for guerrilla attacks on Israel. The Israelis responded in kind.
The result was that in 190-71, Jordan’s King Hussein expelled the PLO in what became known as “Black September.” Palestinians are welcome in Jordan, but not those that would antagonize Israel as many who are currently in Gaza and the West Bank might do.
As for those in Gaza and the West Bank, their views were forcefully expressed, by displaced Gazan Abu Yahya Rashid. “We are the ones who decide our fate and what we want,” he said. “This land is ours and the property of our ancestors throughout history. We will not leave it accept as corpses.”
Palestinians and Gazans are holding out for the two-state solution. Once again, Trump is consistent—this time in his opposition to what every other western country supports. The 2020 Peace to Prosperity plan proposed only a fragmented Palestinian state with limited sovereignty. The Palestinians rejected it. Mike Huckabee, Trump’s newly-appointed evangelical ambassador to Israel, has taken a step further than Kushner. “There will never,” he insisted, “be a Palestinian state.”
Trump has claimed that the air crash in Washington DC was likely the result of the Biden’s Administration Diversity, Equality, Inclusion (DEI) program. The implication was that the responsible air traffic controller at Reagan National Airport was hired because they were from an ethnic minority group, transgender, gay, bisexual or seriously disabled in some way.
He then went on to quote a passage from the website of the Federal Aviation Authority which said that the FAA was recruiting people with “missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability or dwarfism.”
The passage did not say that such applicants would become air traffic controllers. In fact, it was highly unlikely that they would. The FAA employs 45,000 people. About a third of them are air traffic controllers.
It is a tough job, and it is difficult to get. Only 3.2 percent of those who apply to become air traffic controllers are accepting for the training program. Of those who are accepted, only five percent make it to the level of fully certified controller which allows them to work unsupervised.
To become an American air traffic controller you have to attend a degree course in air traffic control at one of 30 FAA-approved colleges. Then you are put through a rigorous medical exam with special emphasis on hearing, sight and spatial awareness as well as general health. Any history of drug use rules out applicants and they can’t be over 31 unless they have worked in air traffic control for the military. They must retire at 56. Starting salary for an American air traffic controller is $40,000 to $50,000. Top salary is about $100,000.
At the moment the FAA is short of the necessary number of air traffic controllers by about 3,000. The Biden Administration asked Congress for money to hire an additional 2,000 controllers. They did not specify that they had to be African-American, Hispanic, and Indian, gay, bisexual, transgender or disabled. But they did have to pass the rigorous scholastic and medical requirements.
__________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and the author of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain.”