Author: David Dunworth

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

Post author By David Dunworth
Post date March 16, 2025

“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:

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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.

Geopolitics Geopolitics and History News and Politics

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

Post author By David Dunworth
Post date March 14, 2025

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.

Advice Best Practices Personal Development

Pick Your Nos, and Scratch Your Buts

Post author By David Dunworth
Post date February 15, 2025

Pick Your Nos, and Scratch Your Buts

I have been drowning in yeses for as long as I can remember.

Not swimming. Not floating. Drowning.

The weight of agreement, of obligation, of being the person who always finds a way—it’s like chains around my ankles, dragging me under. I say yes before I even hear the request. Before I let the silence settle long enough to consider the cost.

The answer’s yes—what’s the question?

It tumbles out like a trained response, a conditioned reflex. A sickness, really. A sickness disguised as generosity, wrapped in the cheap gold foil of being useful. It spills from my lips before my brain even loads the weight of what I’ve agreed to before I measure the distance, the sacrifice, the exhaustion waiting at the end of yet another promise I should never have made.

Yes, I’ll handle it.
Yes, I can fit that in.
Yes, I’ll shift, adjust, bend, twist, contort, and erase myself to accommodate your needs.

Yes—until my lungs burn from holding my breath until my priorities shrivel in the shadow of everyone else’s demands. Until I’m stretched so thin, I could snap with a whisper, yet still, they’ll ask for more.

And they will take.

Not because they’re cruel. Not because they intend to harm. Simply because I have taught them that I will always say yes.

I’ve spent a lifetime training the world to expect my availability, my willingness, my sacrifice. A currency I hand out without checking the balance in my own account. I’ve blurred the line between kindness and obligation so thoroughly that even I can’t always see where one ends and the other begins.

But I am learning.

I am learning that no is not a failure of character.

I am learning that pausing—breathing—before I answer is not selfish; it is self-respect.

I am learning that choosing my yeses carefully does not make me less generous but more intentional.

Because the truth is, I have spent too much time believing that my only choices were between drowning in obligation or vanishing behind refusal. That if I wasn’t everything to everyone, I would be nothing at all.

But somewhere between martyrdom and withdrawal, between depletion and detachment, there is balance.

And I am determined to find it.

I will not flinch at a request and blurt out the affirmative simply because it’s what I’ve always done.

I will take the time to measure my own capacity, to check my own reserves, to ask myself a question I should have been asking all along:

“Can I say yes without betraying myself?”

If the answer is yes, I will give it freely.

And if it is no, I will let it stand, without guilt, without apology.

Because I am not here to be everything.

I am here to be whole.

And then there are the buts.

Tiny, slippery things. Harmless at a glance, but corrosive at their core.

They aren’t loud. They aren’t forceful. They don’t arrive like wrecking balls, smashing through meaning with brute force. No, buts are far more insidious. They slip in unnoticed, carving escape hatches into our sentences, letting us retreat without admitting we’re running.

They let us appear present while inching away.
They let us sound engaged while disengaging.
They let us feel righteous while withholding.

“She’s a brilliant writer, but her style is too aggressive.”
(Which means I only respect her talent when it makes me comfortable.)

“I’d love to support your idea, but I just don’t have the time.”
(Which means I have the time—just not for you.)

“That’s a great plan, but what if it fails?”
(Which means I won’t risk my comfort on your conviction.)

Buts are termites in the foundation of truth. They gnaw at sincerity, hollowing out the meaning we pretend to stand on. They are the linguistic equivalent of smiling while shutting the door in someone’s face.

For a long time, I thought only yes and no mattered. That they were the only forces shaping the trajectory of a life.

I was wrong.

Yes, no, and but—they are all weapons.

And like any weapon, if wielded carelessly, they wound.

Sometimes the world.

Sometimes ourselves.

So, I’ve started picking my Nos with intention. Not as shields, not as swords, but as doors I close with purpose.

And I scratch my Buts before they warp what I truly mean.

Because but is a subtle assassin. A single syllable that sneaks in to limit, diminish, and dismiss. It pretends to be an innocent conjunction, but it’s a scalpel, slicing away the integrity of what came before it.

I don’t say, “I’d love to help, but I don’t have time.”
I say, “I won’t be able to help this time.”

I don’t say, “He’s a good man, but he’s not successful enough.”
I say, “He’s a good man.” Full stop.

Because anything that comes after but is a silent erasure.

I refuse to lace my words with quiet contradictions. I refuse to let hesitation masquerade as wisdom. I refuse to pollute my honesty with a tiny word that lets me hedge, escape, or qualify my truth.

I scratch my buts because words shape reality. And the reality I am shaping is one of clarity, precision, and intent.

Life is not a script of rehearsed pleasantries or softened half-statements. It is a series of choices—every word, every agreement, every refusal.

And for the first time, I am choosing without disclaimers.

Without hesitation.

Without but.

Health and Wellness Other Skills

Your Avocation is Your Calling

Post author By David Dunworth
Post date February 15, 2025

Your Avocation is Your Calling

Recognizing God’s Purpose in Your Work

Many spend their days believing their occupation is simply a means of provision—an avenue to pay the bills, feed the family, and prepare for the future. Work, to many, is separate from faith, a secular endeavor detached from divine instruction. Yet, this belief stands in stark contrast to the truth of God’s design. The work we do, when aligned with our values and convictions, is not merely a job or a profession; it is our calling, a divine appointment set forth by God’s will, whether we recognize it or not.

Throughout scripture, God has shown that work is not an arbitrary construct but an act of service to His kingdom. From the farmer in the field to the teacher in the classroom, from the executive in the boardroom to the laborer on the assembly line—each role, when anchored in integrity and guided by faith, becomes a vessel of God’s purpose. Even in a secular world, where faith may seem secondary or even unwelcome, the values we carry into our work bear witness to God’s greater plan.

The Divine Blueprint for Work

When God created man, He placed Adam in the garden to work it and keep it (Genesis 2:15). This was before the fall, before toil and hardship were introduced as consequences of sin. Work, in its original design, was part of God’s perfect plan, an extension of man’s purpose and identity. In the same way, our avocations—those passions and skills that lead us into certain professions—are not accidents or mere personal choices. They are markers of divine intent.

Consider the carpenter who builds homes for families, providing shelter and safety. Is he merely a craftsman, or is he fulfilling God’s desire to provide for His children? What of the nurse who tends to the sick, the lawyer who fights for justice, the entrepreneur who creates jobs? Are these individuals only earning a living, or are they unknowingly participating in God’s work, extending His mercy, provision, and righteousness through their hands?

Jesus Himself was a carpenter before His public ministry. His trade was not a hindrance to His mission; rather, it prepared Him for it. Every hammer stroke, every table crafted, was done with the same precision and excellence that later defined His ministry. Even before He preached the Sermon on the Mount, He was already fulfilling His calling through His work.

The Secular Becomes Sacred

Many believe that to serve God, one must become a pastor, a missionary, or hold a formal role in ministry. While these callings are honorable, they do not hold exclusivity over divine work. Every believer, in whatever field they labor, has the opportunity—and the responsibility—to turn their work into worship.

Paul wrote to the Colossians, saying, “And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men” (Colossians 3:23). This means that no work done with integrity, excellence, and a heart of service is ever merely secular. When we align our work with God’s principles—when we conduct business with honesty, treat employees and colleagues with respect, and serve others selflessly—we are engaged in God’s work.

Joseph, while in Egypt, was not a priest, but a public official. Yet his faithfulness in administration and governance was what God used to save nations from famine. Daniel, though a government advisor in Babylon, remained steadfast in his faith, and his influence shaped the course of history. These men did not preach from pulpits, but their work itself was their ministry.

In today’s world, this same truth applies. A Christian business owner who prioritizes fairness over profit demonstrates Christ to employees and customers. A public servant who upholds righteousness instead of corruption echoes the justice of God. A writer who speaks truth in a world of deception carries the voice of the Lord into the marketplace.

The Work We Do is the Work of God

Often, we look for signs and wonders to confirm our calling, waiting for a moment of clarity or divine intervention. Yet, many times, God has already placed us where we are needed most. The work we do, when done with purpose and faithfulness, is the mission field God has assigned to us.

Jesus called His disciples from their occupations—fishermen, tax collectors, and tradesmen—because their daily work was the foundation of their calling. The same is true today. God calls the teacher to shape young minds with truth. He calls the engineer to design solutions that benefit humanity. He calls the artist to create beauty that points to His glory.

The question is not whether we are doing God’s work, but whether we recognize it. Every interaction, every decision, every moment spent in our profession is an opportunity to fulfill divine purpose. When we align our work with God’s principles, when we see our labor as a form of service to Him, we transform even the most mundane tasks into sacred acts of worship.

A Call to Recognize and Respond

Your avocation—what you are naturally drawn to, the skills and passions that make you who you are—is not separate from your faith. It is your calling. It is the means through which God works in you and through you. You may not wear a clergy robe, but you are no less a minister. You may not stand at a pulpit, but your work itself is a sermon.

The call today is to recognize this truth and respond accordingly. No longer should we compartmentalize faith and work, believing them to be separate. Instead, we must walk in the full understanding that when we do our work with diligence, integrity, and a heart aligned with God’s will, we are already engaged in divine purpose.

Wherever God has placed you, in whatever profession you serve, know this: your work is more than a livelihood. It is a ministry. It is an assignment. It is a calling.

May we labor with the conviction that our work, when done in faith, is never in vain, for it is God who ordains and blesses the work of our hands. Amen.

Case Studies Geopolitics News and Politics

The Democratic Republic of Congo: A Humanitarian Crisis Unfolding

Post author By David Dunworth
Post date February 15, 2025

The Democratic Republic of Congo: A Humanitarian Crisis Unfolding

Introduction

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is once again at the center of a worsening humanitarian crisis, caught in the throes of escalating armed conflict, political instability, and a sharp decline in international support. The resurgence of the M23 rebel group, backed by foreign interests, has led to the rapid fall of strategic cities like Goma, a critical humanitarian hub (1). The conflict has displaced millions, overwhelmed aid organizations, and left communities struggling for survival in the absence of basic resources (2). At the same time, the abrupt cessation of U.S. foreign aid—historically a lifeline for humanitarian efforts—has compounded an already dire situation (3).

This article examines the intersection of intensified conflict, the collapse of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the cessation of USAID funding. It dissects how these crises feed into each other and what they signal for the future of international aid in the region. By exploring the immediate and long-term humanitarian implications, this analysis sheds light on the evolving challenges in the DRC, the limitations of global response mechanisms, and the prospects for meaningful intervention amid systemic breakdowns.

Escalation of Conflict in Eastern DRC

Resurgence of M23 Rebels

The resurgence of the M23 rebel group has once again plunged eastern DRC into violent turmoil, exacerbating an already fragile security situation. Originally formed by former Congolese soldiers who mutinied in 2012, the M23 rebels have re-emerged as a dominant armed faction, rapidly advancing through strategic regions and capturing key cities, including Goma (4). Despite years of ceasefire negotiations, the group’s latest offensive has showcased a well-coordinated military strategy, leveraging sophisticated weaponry, strategic positioning, and alleged external support from neighboring Rwanda—a claim that Kigali continues to deny despite mounting evidence (5).

The seizure of Goma, a vital economic and humanitarian hub, underscores the extent of the group’s resurgence. The rebel forces quickly overwhelmed the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC) and outmaneuvered UN peacekeepers stationed in the region, leading to accusations of inaction against MONUSCO, the United Nations’ peacekeeping mission in the DRC (6). The loss of Goma has had profound geopolitical implications, forcing Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi to intensify diplomatic efforts to rally regional and international support (7).

Humanitarian Impact

The rapid escalation of violence has triggered a humanitarian catastrophe, displacing over a million civilians and leaving tens of thousands without access to food, clean water, or medical assistance (8). Makeshift camps in and around Goma have been overwhelmed, with aid organizations struggling to provide basic necessities. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has reported that at least 350,000 displaced individuals remain without shelter following the destruction of temporary camps, forcing many to take refuge in churches, schools, and abandoned buildings (9).

The scale of human suffering is staggering. Mass displacements have led to an increase in gender-based violence, child exploitation, and outbreaks of disease, as overcrowded conditions and inadequate sanitation create breeding grounds for cholera and respiratory infections (10).

III. Collapse of NGOs and Humanitarian Operations

Operational Challenges

The escalating violence in eastern DRC has crippled the ability of humanitarian organizations to operate effectively. Armed conflict, targeted attacks on aid workers, and widespread insecurity have forced many NGOs to either scale down or completely halt their operations (11).

Aid groups have reported growing threats to their personnel, with several humanitarian workers killed, kidnapped, or forcibly displaced (12). In June 2024, two staff members from Tearfund were ambushed and killed in Butembo while transporting supplies, underscoring the dangers faced by those attempting to provide relief (13).

Corruption and Mismanagement

Beyond security challenges, internal corruption and mismanagement have also contributed to the collapse of NGO operations. Investigative reports have revealed widespread fraud within international and local aid agencies, undermining the effectiveness of relief efforts (14).

A 2020 investigation by The New Humanitarian uncovered extensive corruption in aid operations, detailing instances of fraud, bribery, and misallocation of funds (15). In 2024, an investigation into GiveDirectly revealed fraudulent activities that left many recipients in debt and financial distress (16).

Cessation of USAID Funding

The decision by the Trump administration to suspend U.S. foreign aid has dismantled key programs and crippled relief efforts. In early 2025, President Donald Trump ordered a 90-day freeze on USAID funding, halting food assistance programs, medical supply chains, and emergency relief efforts across Africa (17).

Among the most devastating impacts is the collapse of food assistance initiatives, which has left thousands of displaced families without access to sustenance. With aid convoys unable to deliver rations, refugee camps in eastern DRC have faced severe shortages (18).

Citations

wsj.com – Rwanda-Backed Rebels Enter Congo Safe-Haven City, Aid Hub (Jan. 27, 2025)
reuters.com – UN refugee agency says Congo fighting leaves 350,000 with no shelter (Feb. 14, 2025)
reuters.com – Congo humanitarian operations hit hard by Trump aid pause, says UN official (Feb. 11, 2025)
apnews.com – Rwanda-backed rebels take more towns as they expand (Jan. 28, 2025)
reuters.com – Rubio tells Rwandan president that US wants a ceasefire in Congo (Jan. 28, 2025)
au.int – AU Peace and Security Council emergency summit on DRC crisis (Jan. 28, 2025)
cfr.org – America’s Disastrous Foreign Aid Withdrawal (Feb. 5, 2025)
cgdev.org – Which countries are stepping up after US aid cuts? (Feb. 2025)
thenewhumanitarian.org – New Congo aid corruption report (June 11, 2020)
un.org – Women-led Peace Huts Resolve conflicts in Eastern DRC (2025)
who.int – WHO Emergency Update on Disease X in DRC (2024)
cidrap.umn.edu – US Funding Pause Impedes Mpox Response in DR Congo (Jan. 29, 2025)
thinkglobalhealth.org – Preparing for Disease X: Lessons from the DRC (2025)
nypost.com – Mystery Deadly ‘Disease X’ Spreads in Congo as WHO Struggles to Trace Origin (Dec. 9, 2024)
news.mongabay.com – Across the world, conservation projects reel after abrupt US funding cuts (Feb. 2025)
life-peace.org – Life & Peace Institute’s conflict transformation work in the DRC (2025)
tearfund.org – Two aid workers killed in Butembo attack (June 2024)
apnews.com – Congolese religious leaders meet with M23 rebels to discuss peace solutions (Feb. 2025)

Best Practices Negotiating Personal Development

Stop Pitching, Start Listening

Post author By David Dunworth
Post date February 12, 2025

Stop Pitching, Start Listening

I still remember the moment I realized I wasn’t actually listening.

It was a meeting with a potential donor—someone whose name carried weight in philanthropic circles. I had prepared meticulously, armed with impact reports, success stories, and a well-crafted pitch. I sat across from him, eager to secure his support, and as he spoke, I nodded along, waiting for the perfect moment to insert my points.

At one point, he paused, looking directly at me.

“You’re not really hearing me, are you?” he asked, a slight smirk on his face.

I was stunned. Of course, I was hearing him! I could repeat back everything he had just said. But that wasn’t what he meant.

“I know what you want from me,” he continued, “but do you even know what I want?”

In that instant, I realized my mistake. It was as though I was a child fixated on the candy on the table just out of reach. I had been so focused on presenting my case, so busy thinking about how to guide the conversation toward a commitment, that I had completely missed the opportunity to truly understand his perspective. I had mistaken hearing for listening.

That conversation changed everything for me. It forced me to rethink my approach—not just with donors, but with corporate sponsors, customers, and every relationship I sought to build. I had to stop making conversations about me and start making them about them.

Who Is the Customer, Really?

One of the biggest shifts I had to make was recognizing who my “customer” really was.

For years, I had thought of donors and sponsors as the primary audience—the ones funding the work, the ones writing the checks. But they weren’t the true customers. The people who benefited from the work we did—the families receiving assistance, the students gaining scholarships, the communities being uplifted—they were the true customers.

Donors weren’t paying for a service for themselves; they were paying to create an impact in someone else’s life.

I started asking myself: Am I talking to donors in a way that connects them to the people they want to help? Or am I just treating them as sources of funding?

That realization led me to a crucial question that changed the way I interacted with every donor, sponsor, and customer:

“What does this person actually want?”

Not just what they say they want—but what’s driving them on a deeper level.

Getting Past the Surface: Learning to Listen for What Really Matters

The first thing I had to do was train myself to stop assuming I knew what people wanted. Too often, we hear phrases like:

“I want to support a cause that aligns with my company’s values.”
“I’m looking for a way to give back.”
“We’re interested in corporate sponsorships that fit our brand.”

These sound straightforward. But what do they really mean? I had been taking these statements at face value instead of digging deeper.

So I started asking different kinds of questions:

“What led you to take an interest in this cause?”
“Can you share a time when giving to an organization felt truly meaningful for you?”
“What does a successful partnership look like to you?”

And then—most importantly—I learned to shut up.

I forced myself to listen, not just to the words, but to the tone, the emotion, the pauses. I started paying attention to what people weren’t saying. And in doing so, I discovered the unspoken motivations that drive real action.

For instance, one donor told me she wanted to give because she “believed in education.” But when I listened more carefully, I realized she wasn’t just talking about education in general—she was passionate about first-generation college students because she had been one herself.

By hearing what was beneath her words, I was able to connect her with a specific initiative that resonated with her personal story. That single moment of deep listening led to one of the largest commitments our organization had ever received.

Breaking the Habit of Transactional Listening

Most of us think we’re good listeners. But in reality, we’re just good at waiting for our turn to talk.

Busy, high-achieving people—whether donors, corporate sponsors, or customers—are especially prone to this. Their minds are always moving, always anticipating the next step, always looking for efficiency. And because I, too, had fallen into that habit, I was unintentionally mirroring it in my conversations.

I had to retrain myself to stop thinking about my response while the other person was still talking. Instead, I started focusing entirely on their words, allowing a pause before I responded, and repeating back key points to confirm I had understood them.

I also learned that the best way to show someone I was truly listening was to ask better follow-up questions:

“That’s really interesting—can you tell me more about what that experience was like for you?”
“You mentioned wanting to make a bigger impact. What does that look like in your mind?”
“I hear that visibility is important for you—what kind of audience are you hoping to reach?”

This approach created something I hadn’t expected: trust.

The more I listened, the more donors, sponsors, and customers opened up. They told me things they hadn’t shared with other organizations because, for once, someone was actually hearing them.

The Follow-Up: Where Real Relationships Are Built

Another hard lesson I learned? Listening doesn’t end when the conversation does.

Early on, I was guilty of having a great first meeting, then following up with a generic email:

“Thanks for your time. Looking forward to working together.”

I might as well have said, “I don’t actually remember anything you said.”

Real listening means closing the loop in a way that proves you heard them.

Now, my follow-ups sound more like this:

“John, I really appreciated our conversation about how corporate partnerships can also serve as employee engagement tools. I took a look at your past CSR initiatives, and I think we could build something that connects with what you’ve already been doing. I’d love to explore that with you—when would be a good time to discuss next steps?”

A follow-up like that shows:

I paid attention.
I understand their priorities.
I’m thinking about how to create something valuable for them.

That kind of listening leads to relationships—not just transactions.

Listening Is the Ultimate Competitive Advantage

Most people in fundraising, sales, or business development spend too much time convincing and not enough time understanding.

What I learned the hard way is that people don’t invest in organizations. They invest in relationships.

And relationships are built on feeling heard, seen, and valued.

If you want to build lasting connections with donors, sponsors, or customers, stop crafting the perfect pitch. Stop trying to be the smartest person in the room. Stop focusing on what you need.

Instead, sit down, ask the right questions, and truly listen.

Because when people feel heard, they don’t just give money or sign deals.

They commit.

Human Resources Leadership Personal Development

Calm in the Chaos – How Smart Leaders Navigate Uncertainty

Post author By David Dunworth
Post date February 11, 2025

Calm in the Chaos

How Smart Leaders Navigate Uncertainty

Decision-making under uncertainty is one of the defining tests of effective leadership, where ambiguity reigns, information is incomplete, and circumstances change rapidly. Leaders who excel in this arena demonstrate a rare ability to engage with fluidity, adjusting their plans while remaining anchored by inner confidence. It is in these moments—where every step involves some degree of supposition—that true leadership emerges, marked by the capacity to make decisions without the luxury of certainty.

At the heart of this approach is the recognition that ambiguity is not a barrier but an invitation to lead differently. Leadership often requires engaging with situations where the outcome is unclear and waiting for more information isn’t always an option. Those who thrive under such conditions approach ambiguity as an opportunity for exploration rather than a problem to be solved. Instead of fearing mistakes, they lean into the unknown, trusting their capacity to adapt as new variables come into focus.

This willingness to engage with uncertainty involves developing a mindset that embraces both patience and decisiveness—two qualities that might seem contradictory on the surface. Leaders learn to pause strategically, absorbing what is unfolding without rushing to conclusions. This patient attentiveness, however, is coupled with an ability to pivot quickly once a clearer picture begins to emerge. Here lies the delicate balance: knowing when to wait and when to act, making thoughtful decisions even as circumstances evolve.

Uncertainty also fosters innovation. When no clear path is apparent, leaders have the freedom to explore creative solutions. They are not confined by rigid frameworks or over-reliance on perfect information. Instead, they cultivate an openness to new ideas, welcoming insights from others and reimagining possibilities that might not have been considered in more predictable environments. This capacity for innovation under ambiguity is one of the reasons why leaders with a high tolerance for uncertainty often become pioneers—they venture into unknown territories where others hesitate, charting new courses that inspire progress.

Emotionally intelligent leadership plays a pivotal role in this process. Leaders adept at navigating uncertainty possess a heightened ability to manage their emotions and maintain calm under pressure. They remain composed in the face of confusion, which not only stabilizes their thought process but also instills confidence in their teams. When leaders convey this inner calm, their teams learn to mirror it, fostering a collective resilience that becomes essential during unpredictable situations. As challenges arise, emotionally intelligent leaders respond with curiosity rather than frustration, modeling behavior that encourages exploration rather than retreat.

The ability to make sound decisions without complete information also aligns with personal growth. Every decision made in uncertain conditions becomes a learning opportunity, reinforcing the leader’s capacity to navigate ambiguity with greater ease. This experiential learning, over time, builds confidence and fortitude, allowing leaders to confront increasingly complex challenges with less hesitation. Much like a muscle that strengthens with use, tolerance for ambiguity grows with experience, enabling leaders to approach uncertainty not with fear but with anticipation.

History is rich with examples of leaders who excelled under uncertain circumstances. Think of explorers who set out with only vague maps, entrepreneurs who launched ventures without a guaranteed market, or military leaders who made critical decisions in the fog of war. In each of these cases, success was not achieved by waiting for perfect clarity but by taking decisive action based on the best available information, while remaining open to course correction as new insights emerged. This blend of decisiveness and adaptability is the hallmark of effective decision-making in uncertain times.

The journey toward becoming more comfortable with ambiguity requires deliberate practice. It begins with a mindset shift—embracing uncertainty as an inevitable part of leadership rather than a disruptive force. Leaders must actively seek opportunities to make decisions in dynamic environments, knowing that each experience adds to their repertoire of problem-solving skills. The more they engage with ambiguity, the more resilient and effective they become, eventually developing the capacity to remain unshaken even when the ground beneath them shifts unexpectedly.

In the end, leading in uncertainty is not about eliminating ambiguity but learning to live with it skillfully. It is about recognizing that the pursuit of perfect clarity is often futile and that leadership demands the ability to act in its absence. Great leaders understand that decisions made under uncertainty are not about achieving flawless outcomes but about charting the best possible course at each moment. With this approach, they inspire confidence not only in themselves but also in those they lead, demonstrating that even in the face of ambiguity, progress is always possible.

Geopolitics and History Leadership News and Politics

Leadership Failures of Global Humanitarian Aid

Post author By David Dunworth
Post date February 11, 2025

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.

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.

Growth Leadership Strategy

“Empires Don’t Crumble—They Fossilize First”

Post author By David Dunworth
Post date January 30, 2025

Part II -From The Myth of Permanence

“Empires Don’t Crumble—They Fossilize First”

It never happens all at once.

No company, no institution, no empire collapses in a single catastrophic event. There is no sudden, dramatic implosion. Instead, there is a quiet decay, a slow hardening of what was once adaptable, fluid, alive. Empires don’t fall like glass shattering on the floor. They fossilize—turning to stone, immovable and brittle—until one day, they break under their own weight.

This is the final act of resistance to change during success. It is not violent. It is not dramatic. It is simply the erosion of motion, the slow, patient burial of an organization’s once-thriving instincts beneath layers of comfort and habit.

The Quiet Death of Adaptation

At first, nothing looks wrong. The numbers still shine green. The leadership team still holds strategy meetings, still claims innovation is a priority. There’s a roadmap—one filled with cautious, incremental improvements, refinements of what already exists.

But no one is pushing boundaries anymore. No one is taking risks that feel uncomfortable. Every decision is made with an eye on preservation, not expansion.

This is how fossilization begins: A slow rejection of movement disguised as discipline.

Soon, the company stops attracting its best talent. The ambitious ones—the ones who would have fought for change—see the writing on the wall. They leave, unwilling to be trapped inside a machine that no longer values reinvention. Those who remain are either comfortable with inertia or too tired to fight it.

Then comes the real danger: The customers, the audience, the market that once seemed so loyal, slowly stop paying attention. Not because they hate the brand. Not because they’ve turned against it. But because something newer, sharper, more relevant has captured their curiosity.

And that is how an empire begins its decline—not through scandal or betrayal or sudden catastrophe, but through the soft indifference of the world moving on.

The Warning Signs of Fossilization

There are always warning signs. Always. But whether a leader sees them depends on whether they are willing to look.

You stop scaring yourself.
Every great move you ever made in the past came with a moment of fear—a sharp inhale before the plunge. When was the last time your company made a move that terrified you? If you can’t remember, you’ve already started to settle.
Your competitors are trying new things, and you’re critiquing them instead of countering them.
Dismissing new trends doesn’t make them disappear. It just ensures you won’t be part of them.
The conversations in leadership meetings are about sustaining, not disrupting.
The moment the company’s energy shifts from What’s next? to Let’s protect what we have, the countdown begins.
Your customer base looks exactly the same as it did five years ago.
A brand that isn’t attracting new eyes is a brand quietly bleeding out.
Your most talented people aren’t excited anymore.
If your top minds are simply maintaining the status quo, you’re already a museum piece—polished, respected, and fading into history.

The Last Choice: Evolve or Be Excavated

There is no permanence in business. There is no resting place at the top. You are either moving forward or you are waiting to be replaced.

And the hardest truth?

The companies that make it—the ones that stay relevant across generations—aren’t the ones that defend their past. They are the ones that are willing to destroy what they’ve built in order to build something stronger.

Apple killed the iPod to make way for the iPhone. Netflix obliterated its DVD rental business to embrace streaming. Amazon never stopped treating itself like a startup. These are the companies that survive—not because they were safe, but because they refused to fossilize.

So here is the final question, the one that no one wants to ask when the numbers look good, when the applause is still loud, when the empire still stands:

Are you already becoming a relic? Or do you have the courage to break the stone encasing you before it’s too late?

Biography and History Leadership Strategy

The Myth of Permanence: Success as a Slow-Acting Poison

Post author By David Dunworth
Post date January 30, 2025

The Myth of Permanence

Success as a Slow-Acting Poison

Nothing lasts. Not kingdoms, not companies, not golden eras of innovation. But success has a way of making people believe otherwise. It whispers a dangerous lie: We made it. We figured it out. We cracked the code. Just keep doing what we’re doing, and we’ll stay on top.

It’s a lie that has killed more businesses, movements, and leaders than failure ever could. Failure, at least, forces reinvention. Success sedates. It lulls teams into inertia. The product that once electrified the market becomes an expectation. The edge that made you untouchable dulls. You become predictable. Predictability breeds irrelevance.

And then, irrelevance arrives like winter—slow at first, then all at once.

Look at the ghosts of industries past. Blockbuster, a titan with 9,000 stores, laughed off Netflix’s offer to collaborate. Kodak, a pioneer in photography, literally invented the digital camera and then buried it to protect film sales. Nokia, once the king of mobile phones, mocked the iPhone’s lack of buttons. Their common sin? Believing the summit was a place to build, not a place to climb higher from.

But the greater tragedy is not that they failed. It’s that they refused to change while they were winning.

The Fear of Disruption: Cowardice in the Clothes of Stability

There’s another lie that grips organizations in their prime: Change is risky. It isn’t. Not changing is.

But leadership teams don’t frame it that way. Instead, they disguise fear as logic. “We don’t want to alienate our core customers.” “The numbers are strong—why rock the boat?” “Let’s wait and see what the market does before making a move.” What they’re really saying is: We’re afraid to gamble with comfort.

The irony? The most successful companies, the ones that truly last, are led by people who gamble with comfort constantly. Jeff Bezos banned the words, that’s not how we do things here at Amazon. Apple cannibalized its own iPod business with the iPhone because it knew that if it didn’t, someone else would. Tesla didn’t wait for a crisis in the auto industry to disrupt it.

It’s the ones that move when they don’t have to dictate the future. The ones who wait? They spend their final years scrambling to catch up, desperately trying to buy relevance with budgets that no longer impress.

And so we return to you. To your team. To your company. The numbers are good, maybe even great. But the real question is: Are you already dying, just slowly enough not to feel it yet? Is your current strategy akin to “Silently Running a Going Out of Business Sale?”

Stay tuned for Part II of this article appropriately entitled, “Empires Don’t Crumble—They Fossilize First”

Quick links

Follow Us