| Author: | Gregory Barrow |
| Date: | 12. November 2024 |
First the shock, then the awe. Make no mistake, every UN humanitarian and development agency will be reassessing its prospects for the next five years, scanning the global landscape and wondering who will win and who will lose under a Trump presidency.
Having worked under five politically-appointed Executive Directors at the World Food Programme, (two Democrats and three Republicans, including one Trump appointee), I have seen at first hand that whoever leads the US can have real influence on the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable in the world.
First the good news: humanity is not the sole preserve of liberal, left-leaning leaders. Compassion knows no political colour and all five humanitarian leaders that I worked under believed and (to a greater or lesser degree) acted in the best interests of the hungriest people in the world.
The bad news is that underneath that blanket caveat is a whole nuanced world of how, where and in what spirit, humanitarian action is resourced, supported and dispensed.
Here are 5 thoughts about how things might play out.
1) No Palestinian, Ukrainian, Afghan or Congolese citizen can sleep easily in the Trumpian universe. Humanitarian aid is still highly directed by the biggest givers, and the incoming US President’s transactional mindset will affect every decision about how much humanitarian aid is provided and where it is deployed. Aid has always been an extension of diplomatic reach, but under President Trump, the question of return on investment will be uppermost. Just ask yourself a theoretical question about what Central American countries buckling under the strain of climate shocks, economic strife and gang warfare must now do in return for humanitarian and development aid from an administration obsessed with stemming illegal cross-border migration.
2) Expect a lively Game of Thrones among the leaders of UN agencies as Trump looks to place his picks in places where America’s influence can be effectively brought to bear. Undoubtedly, there will be big losers over the next four years with questions over the leaders of perceived enemies of close US allies (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) and UN culture agencies that are perceived to be part of a “global woke agenda” (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization). It will also be squeaky-bum time for any UN agency leader who was placed in position by the Biden administration (hello Cindy McCain at WFP, Catherine Russell at UNICEF and Amy Pope at International Organisation for Migration). All these UN leaders will need to make a stark choice between fighting for funding against antagonistic headwinds, or ceding ground to Trump appointees. Stuffing the UN with political appointees is not as important to Trump as stuffing the Supreme Court, but the UN does provide attractive platforms for loyal individuals who expect to be rewarded for their political support.
3) Don’t expect Trump to entirely abandon support for the global humanitarian and development agenda. My experience at the World Food Programme tells me that bi-partisan support for humanitarian and development agencies is strong in the US. Funding for WFP, actually rose substantially under the last Trump administration, all be it once the administration’s pick was in the hot seat. However, as with defence spending, UN leaders should expect the Trump administration to demand that the global burden is shared equitably. The US, despite its overall quantitative lead in providing support for humanitarian and development action is criminally low when measured in terms of per capita contributions. However, no UN leader is going to hold the US to account on this, and closer attention may be paid for chronic laggards like the oil rich Gulf states who have rarely pulled their weight.
4) Anticipate a sharpening divide between support for life-saving humanitarian action and longer-term development. The appetite for funding development programmes is likely to diminish while the focus on supporting agencies that save lives on the front lines of extreme emergencies is likely to be maintained. One thing Trump knows well is the power of a photo opportunity and high-profile emergencies (think earthquakes, tsunamis and famines) with their intense levels of media coverage, provide perfect opportunities to show heavily branded US aid being deployed to save lives. It’s arguable whether responding year after year to the same emergency is more cost-effective than structural development programmes that produce sustainable solutions, but this will be an administration that thinks in terms of quick wins rather than long-term solutions (which is bad news for the SDGs).
5) Climate, climate climate. Oh dear. If there is one thing around which there is universal agreement in the humanitarian and development community, it is that everything we currently do is just going to be an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic if we do not get to grips with the climate iceberg. The signs from the Trump administration on this front are bleak. Aid leaders will need to think fast about how they approach this and face a stark choice: continue to raise the alarm (to little or no effect) or start to work out smart ways of persuading the incoming administration to change course. Unfortunately, an ageing president in an administration that will be thinking short, rather than long-term is likely to be rigid in its mindset and this will require fast, smart and strategic thinking.
Gregory Barrow has been working for the UN World Food Programme for 20 years and is today a Humanitarian Communications and Media Engagement Strategist.