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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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..
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.”
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.
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.”
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.