C-Suite Network™

Search
Close this search box.

Category: Geopolitics and History

Categories
Economics Geopolitics and History News and Politics

When Open Hands Become Clenched Fists

The Ungrateful World

When Open Hands Become Clenched Fists

For decades, the United States of America has stood as the reluctant yet reliable pillar holding up the world’s wobbling hopes. When typhoons decimated islands, it was U.S. planes that roared across oceans, dropping aid. When famine strangled nations, it was the American taxpayer—never consulted, never thanked—who unknowingly fed starving children oceans away. When war birthed millions of refugees, it was U.S. agencies that set up shelters, clinics, and clean water systems in the chaos. America didn’t just open its wallet; it signed the check, mailed the supplies, deployed the boots, and carried the burden.

And now that same world, whose trembling hands were once stretched in desperate gratitude, dares to clench its fists in indignation because the United States—after pouring trillions into foreign assistance—is pulling back?

Let’s be clear: The United States has not abandoned the world. The world has grown far too comfortable draining American generosity like a bottomless well—without refilling it, respecting it, or even acknowledging it.

Decades of Generosity, Measured in Billions

Between 2008 and 2023, the United States gave more in foreign aid than the next five donors combined. In 2024 alone, over $77 billion was allocated in foreign assistance, spanning food relief, education, healthcare, refugee resettlement, infrastructure, and governance reforms in over 150 countries. Not from obligation. Not from profit. But because it was the right thing to do.

Let’s talk specifics:

  • United Nations: The U.S. covered 22% of the UN’s regular budget and 27% of peacekeeping operations—by far the largest share.

  • World Health Organization: The U.S. delivered $958 million to WHO programs in 2024-25.

  • USAID: Deployed over $32 billion in 2024 alone to provide aid in more than 100 global crises.

  • World Food Programme, UNHCR, UNICEF: Billions in voluntary contributions flowed from the U.S., year after year, quietly propping up the world’s most desperate programs.

Meanwhile, many of the critics raising their eyebrows now contributed a mere fraction—some barely a percentage point of their GDPs—to these same efforts. They now cry betrayal because the hand that has fed them unceasingly has momentarily paused.

The Global Freeloading Problem

It’s time we stop pretending the rest of the world has pulled its weight.

The United States’ foreign aid makes up more than 40% of all tracked humanitarian relief under the UN. In contrast, countries like China—who love to play the global peacemaker on paper—remain conspicuously silent when it comes time to cut checks. Russia, whose military ambitions remain well-funded, has little to show in humanitarian investment. Even wealthy European nations, though more generous as a percentage of GDP, rarely match U.S. contributions in absolute terms. Yet they find no shame in wagging fingers from their glass houses.

Let’s not forget the absurdity: the same nations that depend on U.S. aid to stabilize their neighborhoods, backstop their health programs, or rebuild their infrastructure are the ones now criticizing America’s strategic recalibration.

When Charity is Mistaken for Obligation

America’s foreign aid wasn’t written in the stars—it was a conscious choice, born out of post-WWII leadership and Cold War strategy, reinforced by moral responsibility and humanitarian conviction. But at no point did it become a legally binding duty for the U.S. to bankroll the failures of corrupt regimes, carry the weight of entire continents, or absorb the world’s crises without end.

This growing sense of entitlement, not gratitude, has become the real rot in global aid.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the melodramatic outcry over USAID’s contraction. Critics act as if the very concept of global stability rests solely on the U.S. dollar. Perhaps it has for too long. But instead of stepping up, other nations sigh in relief that the pressure won’t fall to them, choosing apathy over accountability, silence over service.

They smirk not because they’re ready to lead—but because they assume America will eventually return to cleaning up the mess.

The Reckoning Is Earned, Not Given

The bitter truth is this: if the world wants American generosity, it must match American grit. No more free passes for countries whose own leaders siphon aid into Swiss accounts while their people starve. No more applause for nations that virtue signal in climate summits but vanish when it’s time to fund disaster relief. No more patience for the ungrateful elite who tweet outrage from first-class cabins while doing nothing to solve global suffering themselves.

If the United States decides to shift gears—to demand outcomes for its aid, to reduce its footprint, to prioritize national interest—it is not an act of abandonment. It is a long-overdue act of clarity. Because there is no justice in rewarding dependency, no sustainability in subsidizing irresponsibility.

A Final Word for the Smug Observers

To the nations rolling their eyes, shrugging shoulders, or whispering about American decline—what have you done? Where are your billions? Your rescue missions? Your refugee camps? Your planeloads of medicine?

Silence? Exactly.

It’s easy to criticize a giant when you stand safely in its shadow.

But when the giant steps back, the cold truth is exposed: the world is woefully unprepared to carry the weight it so eagerly judges.

Categories
Geopolitics Geopolitics and History News and Politics

Mexico’s Border Betrayal

Mexico’s Border Betrayal

How Aiding and Abetting with Mass Migration Created Its Own Humanitarian Collapse

It didn’t have to be this way. The camps. The kidnappings. The exploitation. The aid cuts. The headlines detailed women’s screams in the jungle and children lost at sea. These tragic events are often framed as fallout from U.S. immigration policy, particularly under President Donald Trump’s administration. But that analysis overlooks a glaring truth: Mexico is not an innocent bystander in this crisis—it is a co-conspirator.

Crisis of Mexico’s Own Making

By failing to enforce its own southern border, by allowing thousands, more than likely millions to flood through from Guatemala and beyond, and by participating in soft agreements that enabled mass caravans toward the United States, Mexico invited this humanitarian disaster upon itself. The suffering now engulfing Tapachula, Mexico City, and its northern borders is not an accidental byproduct—it is the direct result of a decision to abandon sovereignty in favor of appeasement, ideology, and tacit coordination with mass migration efforts.

Mexico’s Open Door Was Never Neutral

At the heart of the crisis is a moral inversion: Mexico allowed foreign nationals to traverse its territory under the pretense of humanitarian compassion while making no serious attempt to enforce its immigration laws. It opened its borders to hundreds of thousands from Cuba, Haiti, Honduras, Venezuela, and as far as India and China—not to resettle them, but to facilitate their movement toward the United States.

That’s not neutrality. That’s strategic collusion.

And Yet—The United States Screamed Warnings for Four Years

To be clear: the migrant crisis was not born under Trump. It was magnified and militarized under the Biden Administration, whose policies—by design—opened the floodgates to every sort of illegal alien, from economic migrants to traffickers and cartel-linked individuals. The border wasn’t just neglected. It was strategically dismantled. Entire federal systems were turned into conveyor belts of entry, not gates of defense.

This was not theoretical. It was televised. It was debated. It was condemned—loudly and consistently by the U.S. Conservative movement, whose cries and concerns were broadcast across international media, congressional hearings, community town halls, and border state press conferences.

The entire world saw it coming. And yet, Mexico did nothing.

Despite the chaos spilling over the Rio Grande, despite the massive increase in irregular crossings, and the cries of U.S. governors declaring states of emergency, Mexico refused to adopt, enforce, or take accountability for the crisis it was helping to manage, facilitate, and expand. The number of violent gang members as well as other evil perpetrators of illegal entry to the US created rape, sexual assault, murder, robbery, and theft that could have been avoided if there wasn’t complicity. Economic costs are only a part of the issue on both sides, but the Biden Administration as well as the complicity of Mexican leadership are now paying the price of this invasion.

Some hint that the coyotes, the human traffickers that profited by getting illegals to the US Southern Border are linked, and controlling the government of Mexico and other countries supporting this catastrophe.

It is no longer acceptable to blame the resulting suffering solely on American deterrence. What we are witnessing is Mexico paying the cost for its willful abdication of national responsibility. Every migrant in limbo in Tapachula, every woman violated in the Darién Gap, and every orphan on the street in Tuxtla Gutierrez is a life affected by a government that opened a door without preparing for the flood—and now wants sympathy for drowning in its basement.

The CBP One App Was Never a Solution—And Its Shutdown Is Irrelevant

Much has been made of the CBP One app, the legal pathway used by nearly a million migrants to schedule entry into the United States. Critics of Trump point to its shutdown as a catalyst for the current crisis. But this argument collapses on inspection.

The app was a band-aid applied to a massive bullet wound bleed. It did not prevent illegal crossings –it organized them. It did not relieve Mexico of its duties—it incentivized passivity. And when it was inevitably shut down, Mexico had no backup plan, no infrastructure, and no policy muscle to respond. Why? Because it had already handed over its migration strategy to American political cycles.

Mexico’s current turmoil isn’t due to CBP One’s termination. It’s due to Mexico relying on a foreign app instead of a national border.

Self-Inflicted Suffering: Predictable, Preventable, and Political

Let’s be clear: The migrant crisis engulfing Mexico is real, brutal, and heartrending. The sexual violence, the mental trauma, the destitution—these are all documented. But these tragedies are not merely “side effects” of American policies—they are self-inflicted wounds caused by Mexico’s failure to:

  1. Enforce its southern border with Guatemala.
  2. Dismantle illegal transit networks instead of turning a blind eye.
  3. Reject the narrative that it’s just a “transit country” with no responsibility.
  4. Develop and implement a sustainable national migration policy.
  5. Refuse participation in public relations theater with the United Nations or global NGOs that push ideological open-border frameworks without offering durable resettlement options.

Mexico chose political expedience over national coherence. And now, the people suffer. Not just the migrants. The Mexican citizens of Chiapas and Oaxaca, whose communities have been destabilized. The Mexican police, forced into violent confrontations. The cities stretched to their economic and social breaking points.

This is what the abdication of sovereign enforcement looks like. And it is not noble—it is negligent.

Cartels, Corruption, and the Consequences of Complicity

The report highlights how migrants are routinely kidnapped and extorted by cartels. It also describes how local police routinely abuse them. These are not isolated incidents; they are systemic symptoms of a state that let the wolves in through the front gate of the entire farm.

Every time a migrant is ransomed, raped, or robbed; it is a reminder that Mexico’s permissiveness fed criminal ecosystems. It handed human lives over to organized crime by creating a pipeline with no guardrails. Now, with foreign aid drying up and NGOs retreating, the vacuum is being filled by those most willing to profit from despair.

This is not a crisis of resources—it’s a crisis of responsibility.

The Fantasy of Repatriation and the Cost of Naivety

Mexico now finds itself in a surreal position: attempting to organize repatriation programs for people it never should have let in. Programs like the Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) run by the International Organization for Migration sound nice in theory. But the reality is that most migrants are undocumented, impoverished, and unwilling to return—either for fear of persecution or lack of options.

Mexico can’t even get its consular coordination to work, let alone enforce border policy for others. As aired reports illustrate, discrimination against non-Spanish speakers, the absence of translators, and bureaucratic chaos make resettlement nearly impossible. The result is a legally and morally unsustainable status quo: thousands of stateless individuals, all trapped in the country that invited them in but cannot now protect or process them.

The Moral Clarity of Borders

Here’s what the global commentariat won’t say: borders are not just lines on maps—they are moral boundaries. When a nation refuses to enforce them, it doesn’t just lose control over territory—it loses the ability to care for people properly. No nation can serve as a corridor and a caretaker simultaneously. Mexico tried—and failed.

Trump’s policies may be politically polarizing, but they sent a clear message: national security begins at national borders. Mexico sent the opposite message—and now faces a human catastrophe of its design.

To Mexico: The Bill Has Come Due

It’s time for Mexico to stop pretending it is merely a “victim of Trump” and start reckoning with its complicity in the chaos. It is not noble to let people flood through jungles, deserts, and cartel checkpoints with no plan and no promise. It is not humanitarian to facilitate human trafficking with a wink and a nod.

Mexico’s open-door policy was not compassionate. It was cowardly. And now, having enabled the migration surge, it must confront the consequences: overwhelmed shelters, cartel violence, destroyed families, economic strain, and international embarrassment.

This is not America’s fault. This is not CBP One’s fault. This is Mexico’s fault.

Despite the chaos spilling over the Rio Grande, despite the massive increase in irregular crossings, and the cries of U.S. governors declaring states of emergency, Mexico refused to adopt, enforce, or take accountability for the crisis it was helping to manage, facilitate, and expand.

To Mexico: The Bill Has Come Due

Mexico’s open-door policy was not compassionate. It was cowardly. And now, having enabled the migration surge, it must confront the consequences: overwhelmed shelters, cartel violence, destroyed families, economic strain, and international embarrassment.

This is not America’s fault. This is not CBP One’s fault.

This is Mexico’s fault—and the Biden Administration’s strategy of national self-destruction only made it worse.

Image Credit: The Guardian

Opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect any on this platform

 

Categories
Geopolitics Geopolitics and History Management

“Aid in Orgs in Meltdown – Stop Blaming the U.S.”

“Aid in Orgs in Meltdown – Stop Blaming the U.S.”

The real crisis isn’t the aid freeze—it’s decades of financial mismanagement finally catching up.

The crocodile tears are flowing, disgruntled fingers are wagging, angry voices are rebuking, and the world is supposed to sympathize with the humanitarian organizations now scrambling, floundering, and collapsing under the weight of their own incompetence. It’s natural to anguish, feel highly emotional pain, and be distraught for the poor souls caught up in conflict, abuse, abysmal refugee camps, and starving victims of war. I get that and feel it, too.

There IS a vital need for assistance. But that’s not this story’s topic.

It’s about those who “lead” these outfits I have a big beef with.

The U.S. turns off the aid faucet, and suddenly, there’s a full-blown crisis. Refugee programs are gutted. Food aid is stalled. Medical supplies are in limbo. Staff are laid off in droves. But let’s ask the hard question: Why?

Because these organizations built their entire existence on a single revenue source, they had no control over U.S. foreign aid. Instead of ensuring financial sustainability, they hijacked U.S. taxpayer money while making little effort to diversify, innovate, or prepare for the inevitable. And now? They’re blaming the donor instead of themselves.

Failures of Leadership, Failures of Planning, and Utter Dependence

Let’s look at the wreckage:

  • Texas’s Largest Immigrant Legal Aid Group Collapses Overnight – RAICES, Texas’s biggest immigration legal aid organization, just laid off 63 employees because the federal aid faucet was turned off.
    • Their business model? Total reliance on government money.
    • Their plan B? Nonexistent.
    • So, instead of being proactive, they’re slashing jobs and playing the victim.
  • International Aid Groups Cry Wolf After Failing to Budget Responsibly – Organizations like the International Rescue Committee (IRC), Catholic Relief Services, and the Danish Refugee Council are slashing thousands of jobs. But let’s be clear: These are multi-million-dollar nonprofits that have existed for decades. They had every opportunity to build endowments, create alternative funding streams, and implement self-sustaining models. Instead, they gambled their entire workforce on continued U.S. handouts. Now, their people pay the price.
  • Orphanages Running Out of Medicine- Because They Put All Their Faith in a Single Donor – In Kenya, the Nyumbani Children’s Home is running out of antiretroviral medicine for HIV-positive orphans because USAID funding was halted. This is tragic, but it’s also a colossal failure of leadership. How does a facility responsible for vulnerable children fail to secure diverse, sustainable funding for life-saving medicine? The only reason they are in this situation is that they chose dependency over financial stability.
  • Ethiopia’s Aid Sector ‘Shocked’– Despite Decades to Prepare – USAID funding has been a cornerstone of Ethiopia’s humanitarian efforts for years. But instead of using that time to build resilience, engage new donors, and develop alternative revenue sources, aid agencies let themselves become 100% reliant on a foreign government’s budget choices. Now that the money’s stopped, they’re acting surprised. Shocked. Unprepared. And utterly lost.
  • NGOs in Somalia Blaming the S. Instead of Themselves – The U.S. aid freeze has immobilized NGOs in Somalia that serve internally displaced persons. The media will say it’s a tragedy. But let’s ask the real question: What were these organizations doing to diversify funding while they had years of financial stability? Were they actively building a donor network? Creating community partnerships? Monetizing services where possible? Or were they just waiting for the next round of aid checks?

The same stories are playing out again and again. Entire organizations crumbling overnight because their executives–who many, many are paid six and seven-figure salaries to lead­ did nothing to ensure long-term viability.

The Real Crisis Is a Lack of Leadership

The issue here isn’t the aid freeze-it’s the sheer negligence and financial irresponsibility of these organizations.

If you are running a nonprofit, an NGO, or a humanitarian organization and your survival hinges entirely on whether or not U.S. aid money keeps coming in, you are not leading-you are just waiting for the next handout. And waiting is not a strategy.

The worst part? These failures were completely avoidable.

Eight Essential Revenue Streams for Survival & Growth

If these organizations had any sense of financial stewardship, they would have developed multiple income sources years ago. Here’s what every NGO should be focusing on Ten:

  1. Individual, One-Time Donors – These are most widely dependent upon small, local, or regional donors and are often the primary source of funding for startups but should never be ignored.
  2. Major Donors & Private Philanthropy- High-net-worth individuals, corporations, and impact investors should be a core part of any nonprofit’s funding strategy. Instead of whining about lost government aid, why weren’t these organizations actively courting sustainable private donors?
  3. Monthly Recurring Giving Programs – Organizations that rely on government money often ignore direct community support. Monthly giving programs create a predictable revenue stream. Where were the donor retention efforts? Where was the digital engagement?
  4. Grants from Diverse Sources (Not Just the U.S. Government) – These organizations acted as though USAID was the only grant funding available. What about corporate grants? European Union humanitarian grants? International development foundations?
  5. Earned Income & Social Enterprises – Every major NGO should have some revenue-generating activities. Whether it’s selling ethical products, running a skills­ training program with paid tuition, or licensing intellectual property, revenue should not be 100% dependent on donations.
  6. Corporate Partnerships & Sponsorships – Businesses are looking for meaningful CSR (corporate social responsibility). Why weren’t these NGOs partnering with brands that align with their missions?
  7. Investment & Endowment Strategies – Any serious nonprofit should have a financial cushion through investment funds and endowments. Where did all their previous years of funding go? Where’s the reserve? Where’s the financial planning?
  8. Crowdfunding & Digital Fundraising Campaigns – In the age of the internet, digital fundraising should be a primary year-round strategy, not an afterthought. If an organization can’t rally global grassroots donors before a crisis hits, that’s a failure of planning.

This Isn’t a U.S. Problem- It’s an Accountability Problem

Enough with the sob stories. Enough with the woe-is-me headlines. Enough with the blame game.

The U.S. is not responsible for the survival of these organizations. They were responsible for themselves. And they failed.

The organizations that collapse due to this aid freeze are not victims of injustice. They are victims of their financial incompetence.

The lesson here is simple: If you are in charge of a nonprofit, humanitarian group, or faith­ based organization, and you’re still betting your survival on the hope that government funding will continue indefinitely, you are committing professional malpractice.

And when your organization collapses under the weight of your mismanagement, don’t blame the donor. Blame yourself.

AUTHOR’S NOTE

 I have been involved with the nonprofit, foundation, humanitarian, and ministry sectors for decades. I have lived in numerous places in the US, England, Greenland, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Ecuador, and Uganda. Some of that time, I was in military service, but all of my life, I have been a person of service to others.

That is why I am so outraged at the world’s talking heads fixing the blame on this country that has been the majority source of humanitarian aid than any other country in the history of the world.

Now that we are getting right with the internal affairs of corruption, greed, malfeasance, mismanagement, and lack of accountability, the open hands are up in arms. Well, I say, Shame on You; DOUBLE SHAME ON YOU!

Get your houses in order, and do something about abhorent mismanagement, loss, malfeasance, and waste in your houses, and maybe, just maybe, some good can come out of this.

Categories
Geopolitics Geopolitics and History News and Politics

An Open Letter URGENT PLEA TO THE GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN COMMUNITY: JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIMS OF PEACEKEEPING ABUSES

An Open Letter

URGENT PLEA TO THE GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN COMMUNITY

JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIMS OF PEACEKEEPING ABUSES

To the Esteemed Leaders of the Humanitarian World,

The world has watched in silence for too long. We have documented the horrors, recorded the testimonies, and reported the unthinkable crimes. Yet, the impunity of those entrusted to protect, stabilize, and bring peace continues unchecked. Today, I write to you not just as a journalist, but as a witness to the profound betrayal suffered by the very people these forces were sworn to protect.

The atrocities committed by United Nations peacekeeping forces across multiple regions—Haiti, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and beyond—have long been the subject of damning reports. The abuses are well-documented: sexual exploitation, violence against civilians, and the reckless loss of life. Similarly, the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), now transitioning into the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS), has left a legacy marred by unconscionable war crimes.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in Somalia, where AMISOM troops, including those from Uganda, have been implicated in grave human rights violations. The recent revelations of mass executions—where civilians were reportedly murdered and their bodies deliberately exploded en masse—represent a new depth of cruelty that demands an immediate international response. These crimes go beyond the battlefield; they strike at the heart of our shared human conscience.

We cannot allow peacekeeping forces to operate as occupying armies above the law. We cannot allow governments funding these missions—including Uganda’s military leadership and other contributing nations—to escape scrutiny under the veil of diplomatic immunity. This is not peacekeeping; this is terror in uniform.

Where are the courts? Where is the justice for the victims? Where is the international community’s demand for accountability? If peacekeeping forces are to maintain legitimacy, they must be held to the highest standard, not the lowest. It is time for world governments, humanitarian organizations, and civil society to take definitive action:

  1. Immediate Independent Investigations – A neutral, international body must be granted full access to investigate the crimes reported in Somalia and beyond. Governments contributing troops to AU peacekeeping forces must open their records and cooperate fully with inquiries.
  2. Criminal Prosecution of Perpetrators – The chain of command responsible for these war crimes, from foot soldiers to commanding officers, must face prosecution in international courts. No amnesty, no diplomatic cover-ups.
  3. Sanctions Against Complicit Governments – Nations that continue to provide troops and resources to peacekeeping operations without enforcing discipline must face tangible consequences. Financial and diplomatic sanctions must be imposed on regimes that shield war criminals.
  4. Victim Reparations and Acknowledgment – Those who have suffered must be recognized, compensated, and given justice. Families of the slain deserve more than silence; they deserve accountability and restitution.

This letter is a plea to the world’s conscience. If those charged with upholding peace are the very perpetrators of horror, then the global humanitarian community must be the voice that demands their reckoning. The integrity of international peacekeeping is at stake. The dignity of innocent civilians in conflict zones is at stake. Our very humanity is at stake.

To all organizations and individuals dedicated to justice, now is the time to act. Now is the time to demand accountability. Now is the time to ensure that peacekeeping does not become a mask for impunity.

Justice must not wait. The world must not turn away.

Categories
Geopolitics and History Leadership News and Politics

Leadership Failures of Global Humanitarian Aid

Leadership Failures of Global Humanitarian Aid

Humanitarian leadership stands at the crossroads of crisis and hope, where decisions shape the survival and dignity of millions. Yet, despite the vast networks of international aid, deep fractures remain in the systems meant to alleviate suffering. The gap between intention and impact is often widened by leadership failures that perpetuate inefficiencies, inequities, and missed opportunities. These failures are not simply errors in execution but foundational weaknesses in the very structures governing humanitarian response—shortcomings that result in preventable suffering, misallocation of resources, and the marginalization of those most affected by crises.

At the heart of the problem lies a pattern of systemic neglect, where global leadership frequently prioritizes centralized control over localized solutions, bureaucratic procedures over urgent responsiveness, and political interests over humanitarian imperatives. The result is a landscape where well-funded initiatives falter due to mismanagement, where frontline responders are left unsupported, and where the voices of those in need are drowned out by competing agendas.

IMAGE CREDIT: devex.shorthandstories.com

This analysis examines the cracks in the foundation of humanitarian leadership, identifying the patterns of dysfunction that continue to hinder progress. While the symptoms of these failures are visible in every unfolding crisis, the deeper issues often remain unaddressed. Without confronting these fundamental weaknesses, the humanitarian sector risks perpetuating the very suffering it seeks to alleviate.

  1. Failures of Leadership and Strategic Direction
  • Lack of Vision and Coordination: The humanitarian system appears to be reactive rather than proactive, struggling to articulate its relevance and effectively navigate a fragmented global landscape. The focus on buzzwords like “efficiency” and “value for money” signals a defensive posture rather than a forward-looking strategy.
  • Token Promises without Structural Change: Leadership’s reliance on efficiency drives and anti-bureaucracy rhetoric often fails to translate into meaningful improvements. Promises of reform, such as the Grand Bargain, have repeatedly under-delivered, eroding trust within and outside the sector.
  • Politicization of Aid: Leadership has not effectively addressed the growing politicization of aid funding. Dependence on a narrow donor base, particularly the United States, leaves humanitarian organizations vulnerable to political volatility, such as Trump’s return and the global rise of right-wing, inward-looking administrations.
    1. Imbalanced Power Dynamics
    • Marginalization of Local Actors: Despite rhetoric around “localization,” local humanitarian groups remain underfunded and undervalued, despite evidence of their cost-effectiveness (e.g., 32% more efficient in Ukraine). International agencies often monopolize resources, credibility, and decision-making authority.
    • Token Support for Mutual Aid: While grassroots efforts like Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) demonstrate success, global agencies often co-opt or tokenize these initiatives rather than providing substantive support. This creates an impression of leveraging grassroots credibility without fostering genuine empowerment or equitable partnerships.
    1. Duty of Care Failures
    • Neglect of Frontline Staff: The humanitarian sector exhibits significant inequities in duty-of-care standards. Local staff and organizations, who bear the brunt of frontline risks, often lack basic protections like evacuation plans and insurance, leading to the perception of their disposability. This double standard underscores a lack of genuine commitment to safeguarding those most exposed to danger.
    • Mental Health and Long-Term Support: The absence of comprehensive mental health support for aid workers reflects a failure to recognize the human cost of humanitarian work. High-profile cases, such as the Steve Dennis lawsuit, highlight systemic gaps in duty of care, yet meaningful change remains slow.
    1. Inadequate Adaptation to Climate and Conflict Challenges
    • Fragmented Approaches: Humanitarian leadership has failed to adequately integrate climate, conflict, and development efforts, perpetuating a siloed approach. Theoretical discussions on the “nexus” between these sectors often lack actionable frameworks and tangible results.
    • Missed Opportunities in Climate Finance: While seeking access to climate funding, humanitarian leaders have not sufficiently demonstrated their unique value or articulated how they can prevent exacerbating local tensions. This undermines trust among donors and local communities alike.
    1. Inequitable and Ineffective Aid Allocation
    • Earmarked Funding and Political Bias: Donor preferences for “favored emergencies” perpetuate inequalities, leaving vulnerable populations in less politically palatable regions underserved. For example, communities governed by authorities estranged from Western donors are routinely overlooked.
    • Disproportionate Cuts to Women and Girls’ Services: Systematic funding cuts disproportionately affect services for women and girls, reflecting a lack of prioritization for gender equity despite its critical role in building resilient communities.
    1. Perpetuation of Systemic Inequities
    • Lip Service to Localization: Localization efforts are undermined by superficial implementation. Global agencies maintain hierarchical power structures, focusing on meeting their operational needs rather than addressing inequities in resource distribution and decision-making power.
    • Lack of Accountability for Donors and Agencies: The humanitarian sector has failed to hold itself or its donors accountable for underperformance, impunity, and double standards in aid delivery. For instance, governments supporting Israel have largely ignored its role in aid worker killings, highlighting a glaring lack of policy consistency.

    Recommendations for Leadership and Reform

    • Shift Power Dynamics: Establish equitable partnerships with local actors by decentralizing decision-making and ensuring direct, sustainable funding for local and grassroots organizations.
    • Reinforce Duty of Care: Develop enforceable global standards for protecting and supporting all aid workers, particularly local staff. Integrate mental health support and long-term recovery plans as core elements of humanitarian operations.
    • Rethink Funding Models: Diversify the donor base to reduce reliance on politically volatile funding sources. Advocate for funding mechanisms that prioritize need and equity over political agendas.
    • Integrate Climate, Conflict, and Development Strategies: Move beyond theoretical discussions by implementing coordinated, cross-sectoral programming that addresses the interlinked challenges of climate change, conflict, and development.
    • Foster Accountability and Transparency: Implement stronger accountability mechanisms for both donors and aid agencies. Publicly disclose funding allocations and their alignment with equity goals to rebuild trust.

    By addressing these failures, global humanitarian leadership can realign its mission to better serve the needs of the world’s most vulnerable populations while restoring credibility and relevance in a changing global landscape.

     

Categories
Geopolitics Geopolitics and History Leadership

“Lip Service to Localization: The Real Story of Inequity in Aid Systems”

“Lip Service to Localization”

The Real Story of Inequity in Aid Systems

This analysis identifies critical failures and shortcomings in global humanitarian leadership and the lack of support for local aid systems based on the content provided. The focus is on examining systemic issues, leadership gaps, and inequities in humanitarian practices.

  1. Failures of Leadership and Strategic Direction
  • Lack of Vision and Coordination: The humanitarian system appears to be reactive rather than proactive, struggling to articulate its relevance and effectively navigate a fragmented global landscape. The focus on buzzwords like “efficiency” and “value for money” signals a defensive posture rather than a forward-looking strategy.
  • Token Promises without Structural Change: Leadership’s reliance on efficiency drives and anti-bureaucracy rhetoric often fails to translate into meaningful improvements. Promises of reform, such as the Grand Bargain, have repeatedly under-delivered, eroding trust within and outside the sector.
  • Politicization of Aid: Leadership has not effectively addressed the growing politicization of aid funding. Dependence on a narrow donor base, particularly in the United States, leaves humanitarian organizations vulnerable to political volatility, such as Trump’s return and the global rise of right-wing, inward-looking administrations.
  1. Imbalanced Power Dynamics
  • Marginalization of Local Actors: Despite the rhetoric around “localization,” local humanitarian groups remain underfunded and undervalued, despite evidence of their cost-effectiveness (e.g., 32% more efficient in Ukraine). International agencies often monopolize resources, credibility, and decision-making authority.
  • Token Support for Mutual Aid: While grassroots efforts like Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) demonstrate success, global agencies often co-opt or tokenize these initiatives rather than providing substantive support. This creates an impression of leveraging grassroots credibility without fostering genuine empowerment or equitable partnerships.
  1. Duty of Care Failures
  • Neglect of Frontline Staff: The humanitarian sector exhibits significant inequities in duty-of-care standards. Local staff and organizations, who bear the brunt of frontline risks, often lack basic protections like evacuation plans and insurance, leading to the perception of their disposability. This double standard underscores a lack of genuine commitment to safeguarding those most exposed to danger.
  • Mental Health and Long-Term Support: The absence of comprehensive mental health support for aid workers reflects a failure to recognize the human cost of humanitarian work. High-profile cases, such as the Steve Dennis lawsuit, highlight systemic gaps in duty of care, yet meaningful change remains slow.
  1. Inadequate Adaptation to Climate and Conflict Challenges
  • Fragmented Approaches: Humanitarian leadership has failed to adequately integrate climate, conflict, and development efforts, perpetuating a siloed approach. Theoretical discussions on the “nexus” between these sectors often lack actionable frameworks and tangible results.
  • Missed Opportunities in Climate Finance: While seeking access to climate funding, humanitarian leaders have not sufficiently demonstrated their unique value or articulated how they can prevent exacerbating local tensions. This undermines trust among donors and local communities alike.
  1. Inequitable and Ineffective Aid Allocation
  • Earmarked Funding and Political Bias: Donor preferences for “favored emergencies” perpetuate inequalities, leaving vulnerable populations in less politically palatable regions underserved. For example, communities governed by authorities estranged from Western donors are routinely overlooked.
  • Disproportionate Cuts to Women and Girls’ Services: Systematic funding cuts disproportionately affect services for women and girls, reflecting a lack of prioritization for gender equity despite its critical role in building resilient communities.
  1. Perpetuation of Systemic Inequities
  • Lip Service to Localization: Localization efforts are undermined by superficial implementation. Global agencies maintain hierarchical power structures, focusing on meeting their operational needs rather than addressing inequities in resource distribution and decision-making power.
  • Lack of Accountability for Donors and Agencies: The humanitarian sector has failed to hold itself or its donors accountable for underperformance, impunity, and double standards in aid delivery. For instance, governments supporting Israel have largely ignored its role in aid worker killings, highlighting a glaring lack of policy consistency.

Recommendations for Leadership and Reform

  • Shift Power Dynamics: Establish equitable partnerships with local actors by decentralizing decision-making and ensuring direct, sustainable funding for local and grassroots organizations.
  • Reinforce Duty of Care: Develop enforceable global standards for protecting and supporting all aid workers, particularly local staff. Integrate mental health support and long-term recovery plans as core elements of humanitarian operations.
  • Rethink Funding Models: Diversify the donor base to reduce reliance on politically volatile funding sources. Advocate for funding mechanisms that prioritize need and equity over political agendas.
  • Integrate Climate, Conflict, and Development Strategies: Move beyond theoretical discussions by implementing coordinated, cross-sectoral programming that addresses the interlinked challenges of climate change, conflict, and development.
  • Foster Accountability and Transparency: Implement stronger accountability mechanisms for both donors and aid agencies. Publicly disclose funding allocations and their alignment with equity goals to rebuild trust.

By addressing these failures, global humanitarian leadership can realign its mission to better serve the needs of the world’s most vulnerable populations while restoring credibility and relevance in a changing global landscape.

 

Categories
Geopolitics Geopolitics and History Industries

Embracing Uncertainty: The Power of Ambiguity Tolerance in a Turbulent World

Embracing Uncertainty

The Power of Ambiguity Tolerance in a Turbulent World

Increasingly shaped by complexity and unpredictability, the world in which we inhabit becomes a challenge to challenge our collective ability to tolerate ambiguity. I would even venture to state that tolerance has emerged as an indispensable skill for leaders addressing global challenges. So-called Climate change, geopolitical instability, and pandemics (real or planned) demand solutions that transcend borders, ideologies, and traditional frameworks. Yet, these challenges often lack clear answers, definitive data, or predictable outcomes. The question then becomes: how do we lead effectively in a world where ambiguity is the only constant?

The Nature of Ambiguity in Global Challenges

Ambiguity tolerance is the capacity to stay composed and make decisions in the face of uncertainty, competing perspectives, and incomplete information. Nowhere is this skill more critical than in addressing global and environmental issues.

This much debated belief system known as Climate change presents a web of interconnected problems—rising sea levels, extreme weather, and shifting ecosystems—and they state defy simple solutions. Conversely, other opinions by just as vocal scientists claim it is nothing more than a fabrication of the truth to support a one world order. It’s a fact that climate changes, as we have lived through mini-ice ages, draughts, and other severe weather.

Similarly, pandemics (many say Planned-demics) like COVID-19 have highlighted the difficulty of making timely, informed decisions with limited data and ever-evolving variables. Contradictory “follow the science” narratives only exacerbated a confusing populace. There seems to be one “science-related” catastrophe occurring with regularity ever since.

Geopolitical instability adds yet another layer of complexity, where decisions often hinge on rapidly changing power dynamics and unpredictable human behaviors.

These multifaceted crises share one common trait: they require leaders to navigate uncertainty without succumbing to paralysis or rash decision-making. Leaders who embrace ambiguity are better equipped to explore creative solutions, engage diverse stakeholders, and adapt strategies as new information emerges.

Why Ambiguity Tolerance Matters

In a world dominated by “wicked problems”—issues so complex that they resist straightforward solutions—ambiguity tolerance is not just a leadership trait but a survival skill. This capacity fosters several critical qualities:

  1. Collaboration Across Divides
    Ambiguity tolerance allows leaders to bring together diverse stakeholders with conflicting priorities, finding common ground even when consensus seems unattainable.
  2. Adaptive Decision-Making
    Rather than clinging to rigid plans, leaders who embrace uncertainty are better able to pivot as new information arises, ensuring strategies remain relevant and effective.
  3. Resilience in the Face of Criticism
    Navigating ambiguity often means making unpopular decisions or accepting imperfect outcomes. Leaders with high ambiguity tolerance can weather criticism and stay focused on broader objectives.
  4. Innovation Under Constraints
    Ambiguity opens the door to creative problem-solving, encouraging leaders to explore unconventional solutions that might otherwise go overlooked.

Lessons for Future Leaders

To cultivate ambiguity tolerance, aspiring leaders must embrace several practices:

  • Seek Diverse Perspectives
    Engaging with a wide range of voices helps leaders understand the full scope of a problem, even when perspectives clash.
  • Develop Comfort with Uncertainty
    This means acknowledging what you don’t know while remaining open to learning and adapting.
  • Focus on Process Over Perfection
    Ambiguity demands a shift from expecting perfect solutions to valuing iterative progress and continuous improvement.
  • Communicate Transparently
    Clear, honest communication about the uncertainty involved can foster trust and collaboration, even in the absence of definitive answers.

An Inspirational Conclusion: Finding Clarity in the Unclear

The challenges we face as a global community demand leaders who can navigate the fog of ambiguity with courage and clarity of purpose. As individuals, communities, and nations, we must develop the capacity to embrace uncertainty. Ambiguity tolerance is not just for world leaders; it is a skill we all need to face the complexities of modern life. By working together, engaging in diverse perspectives, and staying committed to shared goals, we can transform ambiguity from a source of fear into a wellspring of innovation and collaboration.

Let us find strength not in certainty, but in the possibilities that uncertainty offers. The future, though unclear, is ours to shape. In ambiguity lies the promise of progress.

 

Categories
Geopolitics Geopolitics and History News and Politics

A Nation Divided National Conservatism vs Freedom Conservatism

A Nation Divided National Conservatism vs Freedom Conservatism

 

The American political landscape is marked by a profound and growing schism, one that delves deep into the heart of conservative ideology. This divide, encapsulated in the clash between National Conservatism and Freedom Conservatism, reflects a broader struggle over the future direction of the United States and the essence of Americanism. This dichotomy is more pronounced as we edge closer to the 2024 national elections just a few months away.

Political historians on both sides of this debate explore the origins, principles, and implications of these competing visions to understand the nature of this division and its potential impact on the nation. As Victor Davis Hanson has put it, we are in an “existential war for the soul of America.”

Freedom Conservatism is rooted in the libertarian and classical liberal traditions that prioritize individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. This faction champions economic freedom and personal autonomy, advocating for policies that reduce government intervention in both the marketplace and private lives. Freedom conservatives argue that true Americanism lies in maximizing individual choice and minimizing the role of the state, believing that the principles of liberty and free enterprise are the essence of the American spirit.

Around 2010, the notion of a “Woke” perspective (slang term of African American Vernacular English) entered mainstream American politics. Although not a new term, its origins date back to around 1930-Stay Woke. Adopted by modern-day Democrat ideology, Woke–Ism is a liberal FreCon objective to address the broader spectrum of racial injustice, LBGTQ+ rights, and other identity political aspirations.

Principles and Philosophies

National Conservatism is characterized by its commitment to preserving the cultural and moral foundations of American society. National conservatives argue that a strong, cohesive nation requires a shared cultural heritage and moral framework.

They emphasize the importance of the family unit, religious traditions, and patriotic values, believing that these elements are essential for maintaining social order and national unity. For them, Americanism is about preserving the nation’s cultural identity and moral integrity.

In contrast, Freedom Conservatism is driven by a belief in the primacy of individual rights and the power of free markets to drive prosperity and innovation. Freedom conservatives advocate for deregulation, tax cuts, and policies that promote entrepreneurship and economic growth. They contend that personal freedom and economic opportunity are the cornerstones of a thriving society and that the government should play a minimal role in regulating individual behavior or economic activity. Their vision of Americanism celebrates the entrepreneurial spirit, individual initiative, and the pursuit of personal liberty.

The Nature of the Conflict

The conflict between National Conservatism and Freedom Conservatism is not merely a theoretical debate; it has practical implications for policy and governance. National conservatives often support measures that protect American industries from foreign competition, restrict immigration to

preserve cultural integrity, and promote traditional values through public policy. They argue that such measures are necessary to safeguard the nation’s identity and stability in an increasingly globalized world.

Freedom conservatives, however, view many of these measures as antithetical to the principles of liberty and free enterprise. They advocate for open markets, limited immigration restrictions, and a government that refrains from imposing moral or cultural standards. Freedom conservatives believe that individual freedom and economic dynamism are the best means to ensure national prosperity and social progress.

Implications for American Politics

The divide between National Conservatism and Freedom Conservatism has profound implications for American politics. It influences the priorities and platforms of political candidates, shapes the policy debates within conservative circles, and affects the broader national discourse. This schism also complicates efforts to present a unified conservative front, as disagreements over fundamental principles can lead to internal strife and fragmentation.

Moreover, this ideological rift reflects broader societal tensions in America. Debates over national identity, cultural values, and the role of government are not confined to conservative circles; they resonate across the political spectrum. As such, the struggle between National Conservatism and Freedom Conservatism is part of a larger conversation about the future of the United States and its place in the world.

Similarities:

  • Commitment to Conservatism: Both National Conservatism (NatCon) and Freedom Conservatism (FreCon) are rooted in a commitment to conservative principles. They share a common foundation in valuing tradition, upholding the rule of law, and seeking to maintain a stable and prosperous society
  • Emphasis on Limited Government: Despite their differences, both NatCon and FreCon emphasize the importance of limiting government intervention. They agree that an overreaching government can infringe on personal freedoms and stifle economic growth
  • Patriotism: Both factions are deeply patriotic, believing in the importance of American exceptionalism and the unique role of the United States on the global stage. They are committed to preserving and promoting the nation’s strengths and values
  • Economic Prosperity: Both NatCon and FreCon aim to foster economic prosperity, although their methods may differ. They agree that a strong economy is vital for the nation’s well-being and that economic policies should encourage growth and opportunity

Differences:

  • Cultural Preservation vs. Individual Liberty: NatCon emphasizes the preservation of cultural and religious traditions, advocating for policies that protect and promote these values. FreCon, on the other hand, prioritizes individual liberty and personal autonomy, arguing that the state should not impose cultural or moral standards on individuals
  • National Sovereignty vs. Global Markets: NatCon places a strong emphasis on national sovereignty and is often skeptical of globalization, advocating for policies that protect American industries and jobs. FreCon, in contrast, champions free trade and open markets, believing that global economic integration is beneficial for growth and innovation
  • Immigration Policies: NatCon typically supports more restrictive immigration policies to preserve cultural integrity and national security. FreCon generally advocates for more open immigration policies, arguing that immigration is a source of economic dynamism and cultural enrichment

NOTE: These are additional Differences from the previous list

  • Role of Government in Moral Issues: NatCon supports a more active role for government in promoting and enforcing traditional moral values. FreCon, however, believes that the government should refrain from legislating morality and that individuals should be free to make their own choices in matters of personal and moral significance
  • Economic Approach: While both value economic prosperity, NatCon may support protectionist measures and government intervention to safeguard national interests, whereas FreCon advocates for minimal government interference in the economy, believing that free markets should operate with minimal regulation.

Understanding these similarities and differences is crucial for grasping the ongoing debate within American conservatism. Both NatCon and FreCon offer distinct visions for the future of the United States, each rooted in a shared commitment to preserving and enhancing the nation’s core values and principles.

The clash between National Conservatism and Freedom Conservatism represents a pivotal moment in the history of American conservatism. It is a battle over the core principles that should guide the nation, and it highlights the complex and often contentious nature of political ideology. As America navigates this divide, the outcome will have lasting implications for the nation’s identity, governance, and place in the global order. Understanding this conflict is essential for grasping the current state of American politics and the challenges that lie ahead in reconciling these divergent visions of Americanism.

Categories
Geopolitics and History Leadership News and Politics

Summit of the Future? Or Rehash from the Past-You Decide

Summit of the Future?

Or Rehash from the Past-You Decide

As diplomats converge in New York for the UN’s Summit of the Future, touted as a transformative moment for global governance, one can’t help but wonder: Is this summit truly the groundbreaking event it claims to be, or just another exercise in bureaucratic self-preservation? With the world facing numerous conflicts—from the ongoing strife in Gaza and Sudan to the turmoil in Ukraine and Myanmar—the summit’s agenda certainly appears urgent. Yet, despite the lofty goals of the summit and its promise to rethink how we address global challenges, there’s a lingering question: Will this event genuinely pave the way for new solutions, or will it merely recycle old ideas under the guise of innovation?

The summit’s focal point, the New Agenda for Peace (NAFP), supposedly aims to revamp the UN’s approach to peace and security. But upon closer inspection, it’s hard not to see this as another instance of bureaucratic repetition. While the NAFP touts bold proposals like eliminating nuclear weapons and reforming UN peacekeeping efforts, these ambitions have echoed through UN corridors for decades without substantial progress. How can we expect different results this time around?

Critics argue that the NAFP, far from being a revolutionary document, is little more than a collection of recycled concepts lacking any real roadmap for implementation. The emphasis on state-led solutions seems particularly misguided given the diverse and complex nature of today’s conflicts. One must ask: Why continue to lean on a system that has repeatedly shown limitations, especially when dealing with conflicts rooted in local grievances and power struggles?

Marina Kumskova, a senior adviser at the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, sums up the skepticism well: “It was more an attempt from the UN to try to make themselves relevant.” Her words reflect a broader disillusionment among peacebuilders and experts who see the NAFP as an effort by the UN to maintain its waning influence, rather than a genuine attempt to address the root causes of global instability. This skepticism is shared by many who feel that the agenda, like so many before it, fails to incorporate the needs and voices of local communities and civil society.

This lack of innovation and inclusive thinking isn’t just an abstract critique. It has real-world consequences, as noted by Eugene Chen of New York University’s Center on International Cooperation. Chen points out that the NAFP lacks coherence because it was cobbled together by various UN agencies rather than being crafted with a unified vision. When even those involved in the process describe it as a “patchwork,” one has to question the efficacy of such an approach in tackling complex global conflicts.

The disillusionment extends beyond policy experts to those directly involved in conflict zones. Kaltumi Abdulazeez, a peacebuilding activist in Nigeria, dismisses the NAFP as “just another report” that fails to impact the lives of those it purports to help. Her frustration is palpable and shared by many in the Global South who view such initiatives as disconnected from their realities. How can a document formulated in air-conditioned offices in New York truly grasp the nuanced, on-the-ground realities of conflict in places like Nigeria or Myanmar?

Even those who see some merit in the NAFP, like Fred Carver of Strategy for Humanity, admit its limitations. While Carver acknowledges the agenda as a “clever framing” of the UN’s role, he concedes that its direct impact on alleviating conflicts is likely to be minimal. So, what are we left with? A document that might fine-tune existing frameworks but lacks the bold vision needed to tackle the growing crises around the world.

The insistence on national sovereignty as a cornerstone of the NAFP further complicates its potential effectiveness. In contexts where the state itself is a primary actor in conflict, such as Myanmar or Sudan, prioritizing state-led solutions can seem not only ineffective but actively harmful. As Kim Jolliffe, an expert on Myanmar, points out, emphasizing national ownership in such situations is “ridiculous” and disconnected from the realities on the ground, where state actors are often part of the problem rather than the solution.

Jolliffe’s critique cuts to the heart of the matter: How can an agenda that reinforces state control be expected to foster peace in regions where the state is engaged in oppressive or violent actions against its people? This question is not just theoretical but reflects a fundamental flaw in the NAFP’s approach, one that could render it ineffective or even counterproductive in many of the world’s most volatile regions.

For those on the front lines of conflict, the NAFP’s bureaucratic language and top-down approach feel far removed from the urgent needs of local communities. Voices from conflict zones like Syria and Nigeria express a common sentiment: these grandiose plans often translate into little tangible support or change on the ground. “Who cares about local organizations?” asks Abdulazeez, highlighting the disconnect between international policy and local realities.

Even in contexts where the UN could play a positive role, such as early intervention in conflicts, the NAFP falls short. Sarah-Derval Ephosi Lifanda of Hope of Africa suggests that if the agenda’s recommendations had been applied earlier in Cameroon, where tensions between English-speaking separatists and the francophone state escalated into conflict, much suffering could have been avoided. Yet, even Lifanda’s cautious optimism is tempered by the recognition that effective implementation remains an elusive goal.

The core issue, as echoed by many critics, is that the NAFP and similar initiatives seem more focused on maintaining the status quo than on embracing the transformative change they profess to seek. The language of the agenda, filled with vague references to “state sovereignty” and “national ownership,” often seems more about placating member states than addressing the real drivers of conflict. And as long as the UN remains tethered to such diplomatic niceties, it’s difficult to see how it can genuinely address the complex, deeply entrenched issues facing today’s world.

So, as diplomats gather to discuss these lofty ideals, one can’t help but ask: Is this summit truly a step forward, or just another exercise in political theater? Will it result in tangible changes that improve lives and reduce suffering, or will it become yet another chapter in the long history of well-intentioned but ultimately ineffective UN efforts? As the world watches and waits, the onus is on the UN to prove that this is more than just rhetoric—that the Summit of the Future will indeed be a turning point, not just a footnote.

Categories
Biography and History Culture Economics Geopolitics Geopolitics and History News and Politics Other

How The War in Ukraine is Causing a Global Shortage For Millions…

Russia and Ukraine export nearly a third of the world’s wheat and barley. And  more than 70 percent of its sunflower oil…

The war in Ukraine is preventing grain from leaving the “breadbasket of the world” and making food more expensive across the globe.

World food prices were already climbing, and the war has made things worse, preventing over 20 million tons of Ukrainian grain from getting into the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia.

According to this article in Intelligencer, West Africa is facing its worst food crisis in a decade, with the number of people in need of emergency food aid standing at 27 million in April and rising fast. Another 13 million face severe hunger in the Horn of Africa, and as many as 19 million will be food insecure in Yemen by the end of this year.

Europe embraces for another mass migration crisis sparked by food shortages in Africa and the Middle East.

Sri Lanka, once more prosperous than its neighbors, applied last month for 100,000 metric tons of food aid from a regional food bank as its debt crisis threatens to leave millions hungry.

Watch this video for a full explanation of the developing food crisis…

 

WATCH:

For more information visit tylerhayzlett.com