Trump’s greatest crime is practically invisible – Salon.com

Report on the Impact of International Aid Reductions on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Setback for the 2030 Agenda

Recent cuts in international development assistance, led by the United States and other wealthy nations, are precipitating a severe humanitarian crisis. The termination of funding for key agencies, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), directly undermines the global commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reversing decades of progress in health, poverty reduction, and food security.

Direct Impacts on SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

The reduction in aid has immediate and fatal consequences for the most vulnerable populations, representing a significant failure to meet SDG 2 and SDG 3 targets. The documentary “Rovina’s Choice” illustrates this reality in Kenya’s Kakuma Refugee Camp, where the erosion of aid has led to preventable deaths from malnutrition.

Health and Mortality Statistics

Quantitative analysis reveals a catastrophic impact on global health indicators:

1. An online impact tracker links the shuttering of USAID to over 600,000 deaths from preventable causes, including malnutrition, malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV.
2. Children are disproportionately affected, accounting for two-thirds of these fatalities.
3. A study by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health projects that continued aid cuts could lead to 22 million excess deaths by 2030.
4. Research published in The Lancet forecasts over 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under the age of five, directly contradicting the objectives of SDG 3.

Reversal of Progress Against SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

International cooperation throughout the 20th century had made significant strides toward eradicating famine, a key component of achieving SDG 1 and SDG 2. However, current policy decisions are manufacturing a resurgence of mass starvation.

• Historical progress had shifted the primary cause of famine from crop failure to conflict and political instability.
• The recent recognition of famines in Sudan and Gaza by the United Nations signifies a grave reversal of this progress.
• By dismantling successful aid programs, wealthy nations are abandoning policies that have proven effective in preventing mass death and promoting stability, thereby exacerbating extreme poverty and hunger.

Failure of Global Partnerships (SDG 17) and Deepening Inequalities (SDG 10)

The withdrawal of development assistance by the United States, followed by other nations including France, Germany, and the U.K., constitutes a breakdown of international cooperation, which is the foundation of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Key Factors Exacerbating Global Inequality:

• Abandonment of Responsibility: As the world’s wealthiest nation, the U.S. sets a global precedent. Its withdrawal from humanitarian leadership encourages other nations to reduce their contributions.
• Economic Disparity: These actions widen the gap between developed nations and the Global South, undermining SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). This is compounded by historical economic dynamics and the disproportionate impact of climate change, for which wealthy nations bear the most responsibility.
• Weakening Institutions: The evisceration of USAID weakens the global institutional framework designed to support health, development, and stability in low- and middle-income countries.

Conclusion: A Deliberate Reversal of Sustainable Development

The ongoing cuts to international aid are not an unforeseen tragedy but the result of deliberate policy choices. This reversal of funding has created a manufactured crisis with predictable and devastating outcomes. The resulting increases in preventable deaths, malnutrition, and disease represent a direct assault on the core principles of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly the goals of eliminating poverty and hunger, ensuring good health, reducing inequality, and fostering global partnerships.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article directly addresses hunger and malnutrition through the story of Rovina Naboi, whose daughter, Jane Sunday, died from an illness caused by malnutrition. It also mentions the United Nations recognizing famines in Sudan and Gaza, highlighting the growing crisis of mass starvation.
2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • This is a central theme of the article. It details how cuts in international aid are leading to preventable deaths from various diseases like malaria, tuberculosis (TB), and HIV. The article quantifies the impact of these cuts on mortality rates, especially among children, and references the collapse of public health services, such as understaffed clinics.
3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article’s core issue is the erosion of international aid and the failure of global partnerships. It focuses on the termination of funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and similar cuts by other wealthy nations (France, Germany, U.K.). This directly relates to the goal of strengthening global partnerships for sustainable development, particularly through financial commitments like Official Development Assistance (ODA).

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 2 (Zero Hunger):
   • Target 2.2: By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons. The article highlights the fatal consequences of malnutrition, exemplified by the death of Jane Sunday, whose body was “wracked” by it. The narrator states, “Malnutrition deaths, we’ve shown that they don’t need to happen,” indicating that progress towards this target is being reversed.
2. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.2: By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age. The article provides stark figures related to this target, stating that due to aid cuts, “Two-thirds of these deaths are children” and forecasting “more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030,” which include “4.5 million among children younger than 5 years.”
   • Target 3.3: By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases. The article explicitly mentions that the shuttering of USAID is causing deaths from “malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, malnutrition, diarrhea and more.” It also notes that past aid was responsible for massive declines in death rates: “70% for HIV/AIDS, 56% for malaria.”
3. Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals):
   • Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of ODA/GNI to developing countries. The article is centered on the failure to meet this target. It details the “terminating billions in funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development” and notes that the “abrupt contraction of ODA [official development assistance] funding could have severe repercussions.” This directly addresses the withdrawal of financial commitments from wealthy nations.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 2 Targets:
   • Prevalence of malnutrition: While not a specific statistic, the tragic story of Jane Sunday dying from a malnutrition-related illness serves as a qualitative indicator of the prevalence and severe consequences of malnutrition in the affected population. The recognition of “famines” in Sudan and Gaza also implies a catastrophic failure to prevent widespread hunger.
2. Indicators for SDG 3 Targets:
   • Under-5 mortality rate (Indicator 3.2.1): The article provides explicit data that can be used to measure this. It states that aid cuts could lead to “4.5 million [deaths] among children younger than 5 years, or more than 700,000 deaths annually.” This is a direct measure of the reversal of progress on child mortality.
   • HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria incidence/mortality rates (Indicators 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3): The article quantifies the impact of aid cuts on these diseases, noting that over 600,000 deaths are linked to the shuttering of USAID, including deaths from “malaria, tuberculosis, HIV.” It also references past success, where aid led to a “70% [decline in death] for HIV/AIDS, 56% for malaria,” providing a baseline against which the current backsliding can be measured.
3. Indicators for SDG 17 Targets:
   • Net official development assistance (ODA) as a proportion of Gross National Income (GNI) (Indicator 17.2.1): The article’s central theme is the reduction of this indicator. It explicitly refers to the “terminating billions in funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development” and the “abrupt contraction of ODA [official development assistance] funding” from the U.S., France, Germany, and the U.K. This directly reflects a decrease in the financial aid provided by developed countries.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: salon.com