Hardly hubris when they quite literally engage in politics and money gathering entirely in American terms. They use dei terms, center business around use of us banks and engage in soulless politicking.
One big unknown is whether China decides to put some time and money into building up its own soft power while saying, “See, I told you democracy is a bad idea.”
"Rafia Zakaria writes: “the aid agency was the primary instrument of America’s soft power,"
Absolutely ridiculous to read after the journalist from Mexico calling it an incel problem. The primary instrument of America's soft power has for decades been its culture and banking system. It's not technology, it's not funding dei programs through Baudrillard lectures to the Taliban. I'm not criticizing usaid but any genre of music that has come from America has done more for America's soft power than USAID has or will have done with apparently more than 50 billion dollars in budget every year, for its whole lifespan. Can it change ppl's lives, sure, but that's hardly a primary instrument, much less the, of American soft power.
I didn't say it, the pepfar head said it. I enjoy helping the poor substantially. That's not transient and 500 strokes of pens putting you in prison, and worse, does not destroy that. If they don't care, take them at their word and build better systems and make sure those ppl don't lead it. They're there for a political career. Help them out. That's a vacant spot for ppl who actually care.
Just money and power and myopic views centered towards it. No gratitude, no awareness that the aid you're receiving is aid for one and dependent on the people giving aid. There's no sincerity in politics just myopic egoism. I can't wait until this era of politics is over and as a Christian I hope they grow from it and through it but for non-Christians I perfectly see how they want to get rid of these entrenched soulless powers.
Something can be fragile and still have a huge impact. PEPFAR has been credited with saving more than 25 million lives. If it’s paused for three months, an estimated 136,000 babies will be infected with HIV who otherwise would not have been. If it stops altogether, that number will be larger. And no, I do not trust that the supposed “waiver” for treating mother-to-baby transmission of HIV will actually materialise. I’ll believe it when I see it.
The article you’ve linked notes that it would have been possible to wind down this program in a way that could have allowed critical, life-saving structures to remain in place while seeking other funding:
> “It’s not about the fact that the Trump administration wants to re-evaluate projects,” says Warren. “It’s about the cruel display of inhumanity.
>
> “You don’t just replace hundreds of millions of dollars of investments in a country by turning to the minister of finance to say, ‘Oh, Pepfar withdrew yesterday. Can you fill our coffers?’”, explains Warren. “It doesn’t work that way. And that’s why these transitions need to take time and do it responsibly and strategically.”
No, that's not how this works. You're trying to save a narrative of them being fragile. They themselves either think it is the cornerstone of American soft power or they think it's very fragile and a temporary stop to it with immediate waivers has ruined the program beyond any ability to fix it. You can have it be fragile, like they said, but at that point it's not a cornerstone of American soft power and America should reinvest somewhere else. If you don't like that narrative then you need to find a new narrative for it. A completely random country getting free aid needs a completely new perspective if it wants to soak up free money. Lots of aid programs out there do many things. They just want to maintain a job and be extremely political. Their new job as recipients of American aid money is to respect the sovereignty and political going-ons of America. That is their only job. If they can envision a new narrative for their job that is realistic and doesn't involve whining and respects American sovereignty then they can envision that. Otherwise it's fragile and already ruined. I think maybe they can use their political stance and maybe ask the un for a new job. It's already ruined. It has nothing to do with American soft power. These types of politicians can go away. They're endemic to these international ngo institutions. Overly political, completely incompetent and 9 times out of 10 sending money to people who hate America. How is that for American soft power?
I do not care personally. I enjoy seeing these people have reality hit them in the face. I prefer aid for reasons for no adjacent for American "soft power". I prefer charity, competence and some narrative that comes close to reality. In my estimation that includes gratitude. I know there are situations where taking aid and not being grateful are appropriate. Somebody with passion needs to be there. There are ppl taking paychecks (and now they're not getting money). Invent new politics.
Edit: You want to know how fragile it is? You have a ton of doctors, people who can make 100k a year easy and find any job, easily, working for them. Take off the aid and see what's left. If it's that fragile then they do not care and they're probably doing a really bad job. Do you really want them to be fragile? Again, new politics. New standards.
Edit: a good ceo has a way easier time mending this. These politicians have no ability to fix this and that flows downwards. Tell me that there isn't corruption when ppl like that are at the helm. You don't have to care. Call it fragile and embrace but now the money is gone and we get to see what's left.
You enjoy the thought of babies getting HIV? Yikes.
This is not a "temporary stop with immediate waivers." The waiver has not been implemented and may never be implemented, given the way things are going.
I don't know for sure how much American soft power is wrapped up in this. It may well be that economic power is stronger than aid power, although I will note that other countries such as China are quite keen on setting up aid projects in Africa, so they presumably believe it does something. But if you're so "me, me, me" about America that you can't even see how bad it would be to suddenly, without warning, cut off a mother's access to the medication that could have stopped her child from getting an incurable disease, then I think your moral compass is broken. America has a right to wind down this program if they choose, but the way the Trump administration has chosen to end it was carelessly destructive of a good thing that could have been saved, at least in part, if people knew what was going to happen and had the opportunity to see if other funders might be found for the most critical elements.
You enjoy misreading people as promoting hiv in anyone? Yikes. You added babies as the intensifier? Even more yikes.
No, I do not care about America. I prefer aid, again, for reasons that have *nothing* to do with America nor adjacency to America. I'm solely criticizing the deal of the century thinking where America has already ruined, beyond repair, the organization but we should give more money to it anyways. That is childish, endangers these programs (they're without aid now, duh) and not realistic.
It really does not bother me because your theory of politicking does not work. I am for aid. You are for a failed concept of politicking which relies on neoliberal policies which completely went under when they used those institutions against Russia and terrorists before them. Either politics will develop past this weird get-into-my-fold-and-don't-worry-about-competency or they'll be without aid. Pick which one you want but I'll tell you this. If these aid organizations were seen as beneficial to the American image (the can-do mentality being exported) it would not have lost funding. It may have even developed beyond needing funding at least from just America.
I can only say that I've spent the last half-century as an adult watching Big Brother and the Nanny State encroach ever deeper into our lives. I became entirely fed up with them back in the 1980s. I saw then become dangerous under Biden. There is nothing that Trump can do to them that will elicit any sympathy from me.
A minor correction: the newspaper is Folha de S. Paulo, and it's only distributed in the State of São Paulo (not country-wise).
"distrustful of American foreign reporting in general as I’ve noticed lazy inaccuracies get bandied about often."
The hubris of Americans to think anyththing and everything must have some nexus to us..
Hardly hubris when they quite literally engage in politics and money gathering entirely in American terms. They use dei terms, center business around use of us banks and engage in soulless politicking.
One big unknown is whether China decides to put some time and money into building up its own soft power while saying, “See, I told you democracy is a bad idea.”
"Rafia Zakaria writes: “the aid agency was the primary instrument of America’s soft power,"
Absolutely ridiculous to read after the journalist from Mexico calling it an incel problem. The primary instrument of America's soft power has for decades been its culture and banking system. It's not technology, it's not funding dei programs through Baudrillard lectures to the Taliban. I'm not criticizing usaid but any genre of music that has come from America has done more for America's soft power than USAID has or will have done with apparently more than 50 billion dollars in budget every year, for its whole lifespan. Can it change ppl's lives, sure, but that's hardly a primary instrument, much less the, of American soft power.
"He destroyed almost 22 years of partnerships, “literally with the stroke of a pen”, Warren explains. "
See? It doesn't matter. It's fragile and apparently has low impact.
https://mg.co.za/health/2025-02-03-too-little-too-late-what-a-pepfar-waiver-cant-do-for-hiv/
I didn't say it, the pepfar head said it. I enjoy helping the poor substantially. That's not transient and 500 strokes of pens putting you in prison, and worse, does not destroy that. If they don't care, take them at their word and build better systems and make sure those ppl don't lead it. They're there for a political career. Help them out. That's a vacant spot for ppl who actually care.
Just money and power and myopic views centered towards it. No gratitude, no awareness that the aid you're receiving is aid for one and dependent on the people giving aid. There's no sincerity in politics just myopic egoism. I can't wait until this era of politics is over and as a Christian I hope they grow from it and through it but for non-Christians I perfectly see how they want to get rid of these entrenched soulless powers.
Something can be fragile and still have a huge impact. PEPFAR has been credited with saving more than 25 million lives. If it’s paused for three months, an estimated 136,000 babies will be infected with HIV who otherwise would not have been. If it stops altogether, that number will be larger. And no, I do not trust that the supposed “waiver” for treating mother-to-baby transmission of HIV will actually materialise. I’ll believe it when I see it.
The article you’ve linked notes that it would have been possible to wind down this program in a way that could have allowed critical, life-saving structures to remain in place while seeking other funding:
> “It’s not about the fact that the Trump administration wants to re-evaluate projects,” says Warren. “It’s about the cruel display of inhumanity.
>
> “You don’t just replace hundreds of millions of dollars of investments in a country by turning to the minister of finance to say, ‘Oh, Pepfar withdrew yesterday. Can you fill our coffers?’”, explains Warren. “It doesn’t work that way. And that’s why these transitions need to take time and do it responsibly and strategically.”
No, that's not how this works. You're trying to save a narrative of them being fragile. They themselves either think it is the cornerstone of American soft power or they think it's very fragile and a temporary stop to it with immediate waivers has ruined the program beyond any ability to fix it. You can have it be fragile, like they said, but at that point it's not a cornerstone of American soft power and America should reinvest somewhere else. If you don't like that narrative then you need to find a new narrative for it. A completely random country getting free aid needs a completely new perspective if it wants to soak up free money. Lots of aid programs out there do many things. They just want to maintain a job and be extremely political. Their new job as recipients of American aid money is to respect the sovereignty and political going-ons of America. That is their only job. If they can envision a new narrative for their job that is realistic and doesn't involve whining and respects American sovereignty then they can envision that. Otherwise it's fragile and already ruined. I think maybe they can use their political stance and maybe ask the un for a new job. It's already ruined. It has nothing to do with American soft power. These types of politicians can go away. They're endemic to these international ngo institutions. Overly political, completely incompetent and 9 times out of 10 sending money to people who hate America. How is that for American soft power?
I do not care personally. I enjoy seeing these people have reality hit them in the face. I prefer aid for reasons for no adjacent for American "soft power". I prefer charity, competence and some narrative that comes close to reality. In my estimation that includes gratitude. I know there are situations where taking aid and not being grateful are appropriate. Somebody with passion needs to be there. There are ppl taking paychecks (and now they're not getting money). Invent new politics.
Edit: You want to know how fragile it is? You have a ton of doctors, people who can make 100k a year easy and find any job, easily, working for them. Take off the aid and see what's left. If it's that fragile then they do not care and they're probably doing a really bad job. Do you really want them to be fragile? Again, new politics. New standards.
Edit: a good ceo has a way easier time mending this. These politicians have no ability to fix this and that flows downwards. Tell me that there isn't corruption when ppl like that are at the helm. You don't have to care. Call it fragile and embrace but now the money is gone and we get to see what's left.
You enjoy the thought of babies getting HIV? Yikes.
This is not a "temporary stop with immediate waivers." The waiver has not been implemented and may never be implemented, given the way things are going.
I don't know for sure how much American soft power is wrapped up in this. It may well be that economic power is stronger than aid power, although I will note that other countries such as China are quite keen on setting up aid projects in Africa, so they presumably believe it does something. But if you're so "me, me, me" about America that you can't even see how bad it would be to suddenly, without warning, cut off a mother's access to the medication that could have stopped her child from getting an incurable disease, then I think your moral compass is broken. America has a right to wind down this program if they choose, but the way the Trump administration has chosen to end it was carelessly destructive of a good thing that could have been saved, at least in part, if people knew what was going to happen and had the opportunity to see if other funders might be found for the most critical elements.
You enjoy misreading people as promoting hiv in anyone? Yikes. You added babies as the intensifier? Even more yikes.
No, I do not care about America. I prefer aid, again, for reasons that have *nothing* to do with America nor adjacency to America. I'm solely criticizing the deal of the century thinking where America has already ruined, beyond repair, the organization but we should give more money to it anyways. That is childish, endangers these programs (they're without aid now, duh) and not realistic.
It really does not bother me because your theory of politicking does not work. I am for aid. You are for a failed concept of politicking which relies on neoliberal policies which completely went under when they used those institutions against Russia and terrorists before them. Either politics will develop past this weird get-into-my-fold-and-don't-worry-about-competency or they'll be without aid. Pick which one you want but I'll tell you this. If these aid organizations were seen as beneficial to the American image (the can-do mentality being exported) it would not have lost funding. It may have even developed beyond needing funding at least from just America.
Well, this post clears everything up!
I can only say that I've spent the last half-century as an adult watching Big Brother and the Nanny State encroach ever deeper into our lives. I became entirely fed up with them back in the 1980s. I saw then become dangerous under Biden. There is nothing that Trump can do to them that will elicit any sympathy from me.