Loading summary
Transcript100 lines
- [00:08]
Imogen Foulkes
This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, Imogen folks, and this is a production from swissinfo, the international public media company of Switzerland. In today's program, late today, the U.S.
- [00:23]
Dawn Clancy
State Department suspended all foreign assistance around the world for at least three months.
- [00:28]
Tamar Gabelnik
In Colombia, they've just had to lay off 200 staff that were doing the demining in the south of the country. So all of a sudden these families have no work. And the alternative in the area, you know what it is, coca plants. So how is that in the US interest?
- [00:43]
Danny Warner
The suspension freezing is not democratic. Congress has voted for some of these programs and it's Mr. Trump, Mr. Musk, et cetera, who are cutting them out without the approval of Congress. So legally, I don't how they can do this.
- [01:00]
Dawn Clancy
President Trump and Musk will say that these cuts to usaid, it's about shrinking a bloated bureaucracy, it's about getting rid of waste and fraud. But I'd say that this whole thing has more to do with ideology and politics.
- [01:18]
Imogen Foulkes
It's not just American isolationism, it's not just America first, there seems to be a quite deliberate undermining of fundamental freedoms.
- [01:30]
Phil Lynch
We don't have four years. The international legal framework and universal human rights are at a critical juncture and are being eroded and threatened and instrumentalised in some unprecedented ways. Now is the time to step up.
- [01:48]
Imogen Foulkes
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen Foulkes. Today, I know we touched on this in our last episode, but given the mood here in Geneva, we're going to have to talk about this more. The consequences of the United States cuts in foreign aid, the actual closure, it seems, of US aid and what that is going to mean for humanitarian work worldwide. I've got two guests. Our listeners will be familiar with them. You've heard of them before. Danny Warner here in Geneva, longtime analyst of all things Geneva international affairs, and Dawn Clancy, our friend of the podcast based at the UN in New York. They are going to bring us their take on what's been happening. But first, as I said, we have talked about this, but the consequences we are hearing more and more of. I'm just going to play you a little bit when which I recorded in the last few days here at UN briefings in Geneva, first from the UN Population Fund and then from UNAIDS about what the consequences of this cut in US funding means.
- [03:09]
Phil Lynch
On 24 January, the US administration paused nearly all US foreign aid programs pending a 90 day review. In response, UNFPA has suspended services funded by US grants that provide a lifeline for women and girls in crises, including in South Asia. What happens when our work is not funded? Women give birth alone in unsanitary conditions. The risk of obstetric fistula is heightened. Newborns die from preventable causes. Survivors of gender based violence have nowhere to turn for medical or psychological support. We hope that the United States government will retain its position as a global leader in development and continue to work with UNF to alleviate the suffering of women and their families as a result of catastrophes they did not cause.
- [04:00]
Tamar Gabelnik
There is still a lot of confusion, especially in communities, how the waiver will be implemented. And we're seeing a lot of disruption of delivery of treatment services, especially at the community level. For example, in Ethiopia we have 5,000 public health worker contracts that are funded by US assisted. And all of these in all regions of Ethiopia have been terminated. And 10,000 data clerks. Very important in Ethiopia so that we continue monitoring and ensuring that people are on treatment as UNAs. We estimate that if PEPFA wasn't reauthorized between 2025 and 2029 and other resources were not found for the HIV response, there would be a 400% increase in HC. That's 6.3 million people, 6.3 million AIDS related death that will occur in future.
- [04:54]
Imogen Foulkes
So welcome, Danny. Welcome Dawn. Pretty stark warnings. I'm going to come to you first, Danny, because you know, as I do, the humanitarian community here in Geneva. Very well. What's the mood? What reactions have you been hearing?
- [05:11]
Danny Warner
Well, it's pretty gloomy, Imogen. People are really stunned, surprised and searching for what to do. I want to point out there are three levels of the problem. First is obviously, as mentioned, the recipients of the aid assistance in the field. The second, of course, is the people working for these organizations in the field. One organization, Terre des Hommes, has had to lay off over 400 people working for them throughout the world.
- [05:43]
Imogen Foulkes
And let's just remind our listeners, Terre des Hommes, Swiss based charity that works primarily with children in conflict zones or in transitioning from conflict.
- [05:55]
Danny Warner
Right.
- [05:56]
Imogen Foulkes
I have seen their work, for example, years ago in Albania. Excellent work.
- [05:59]
Danny Warner
And the third, of course is the people in Geneva. The estimate is about 350 people working in non governmental organizations are out of a job or will be out of a job. And it's such an emergency that the Geneva, Geneva government has proposed 10 million francs for 90 days to try to help some of these organizations. That's how bad it is.
- [06:24]
Imogen Foulkes
Yeah, I mean I would share that. The shock in Geneva we all expected as we'll hear in some of our forthcoming interviews. We expected changes with the Trump administration, but not as savage as this. Dawn, how's this going down in the United States? I mean, we heard from the UN Population Fund, maternal health clinics in Afghanistan or UN aids, you know, HIV prevention among children. Are people at all aware of this?
- [06:55]
Dawn Clancy
Right before meeting with you, there was a House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting where they were talking about usaid. And I would say if you listen to that briefing, there's very little acknowledgement of what's happening on the receiving end of this USAID funding freeze and layoffs and all the, all the craziness that it's, that it's causing. So I would say that here in the States, especially with Republicans who back this kind of audit, they're not acknowledging what's happening on the Geneva and, you know, as Danny explained it, they're just talking about USAID is corrupt and it's abusing money and it's fraudulent and it's exporting woke leftist woke ideology all around the world. They're not acknowledging the other side of it, which is, which is really interesting to hear.
- [07:49]
Imogen Foulkes
And we should say there that at time of discussion, nobody has come up with any evidence to say that USAID is corrupt or fraudulent. What I will say is that its funding, and the UN Humanitarian community has made this clear. The US Funding is absolutely crucial to humanitarian work worldwide. At the same time, what US Taxpayers maybe don't quite know is that what the US Spends on foreign aid is not very much. It's around 0.2% of its gross national income, which is, as a colleague of mine in the UK said, a rounding error. Not spending this money will make no difference to US Taxpayers, and yet not spending it is life or death to some of the poorest people on the planet. And that debate just does not seem to be being had in the United States.
- [08:51]
Dawn Clancy
You know, Imogen, I would just add, when you talk about evidence, I think that's a really important point of this because we've had the White House press secretary, Carolyn Levitt, rattling off these programs that USAID supposedly supports about, you know, transgender plays in Colombia and transgender comic books in Peru, and they've shown no evidence. That's the White House press secretary, President Trump himself. He gave an impromptu press briefing in the Oval Office yesterday. He did the same thing. No evidence. So that discussion isn't happening either, which is, which is quite interesting.
- [09:25]
Imogen Foulkes
Danny, you want to come in?
- [09:26]
Danny Warner
Yeah. One of the things that I find interesting is the suspension freezing is not Democratic with a Small D. I mean Congress has voted for some of these programs and it's Mr. Trump, Mr. Musk, et cetera who are cutting them out without the approval of Congress. So legally I don't see how they can do this. And I do know there are certain court findings coming up which said that this can't be done. Now whether the President obeys the court rulings is another problem as well. But democratically this doesn't fly.
- [10:02]
Imogen Foulkes
Yep, that's right, it doesn't. I mean it is a constitutional issue and that's another program is whether the US is now in some constitutional crisis. Is this actually a coup? Which I've heard some people say it's a bit chilling. Danny, I know I said the word coup, your ears pricked up on you go and then we need to move.
- [10:21]
Dawn Clancy
On and you started sm.
- [10:24]
Danny Warner
No, no, it's not about the coup. But I do want to make a comment early on about the organizations. The United states pays about 40% of all humanitarian assistance around the world and I do think that there should have been some anticipation and diversification of the donor funding because now they're in a desperate situation. To find that amount of money is going to be extremely difficult and I don't see how they're going to do it. But they shouldn't been so dependent on the United States.
- [10:57]
Imogen Foulkes
Yeah, I don't disagree with you Danny there. But let's not forget that although the US is the biggest contributor, as we said in terms of its gni, it's not contributing that much. A country like Norway or Sweden or even the UK the UK is up at 0.5%. Some of these Scandinavian countries are up at 1% of their gross national income. So you know, and they're all facing the same economic headwinds they all had to cope with COVID they are all stepping up for Ukraine. Another whole entire program and listeners we will be devoting ourselves entirely to that in a special episode next week. What I wanted to come back to though dawn was saying this debate is not being had in the United States. Instead there's a lot of accusations and slurs basically against US aid and bare faced lies like condoms for Gaza, which it turned out to be a complete lie and nobody's actually said sorry for one of the purposes of this program is to actually go a bit deeper into what USAID has been funding in the hope of providing some enlightenment across the pond. And one of the things which has also been cut pretty badly since this announcement of the freeze is demining worldwide. Now I've been talking to Tamar Gabelnik. She's head of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. And they coordinate with demining groups all over the world. And I asked her how things had been and her reaction to these cuts.
- [12:43]
Tamar Gabelnik
I think everybody was absolutely shocked by this. First of all, no one expected a global freeze in foreign aid across the board. And certainly no one expected that it would affect the mine action sector, which has always had a lot of bipartisan support. So, yes, total surprise and no time to prepare or even do any kind of contingency planning.
- [13:06]
Imogen Foulkes
Could you give some specific examples of that? Things that have had to stop work, maybe?
- [13:10]
Tamar Gabelnik
Well, most importantly, it's the demining, which means taking out basically deadly threats, explosive threats that lie in the ground waiting for anybody to come along. And every mine that's taken out, every cluster, munition, submunition that's removed means a life or many lives saved. So the United states gives around $310 million a year to mine action, which is about 40% of the global budget for international assistance to mine action. So having a budget cut by 40% overnight is going to have severe consequences in countries like Ukraine. That's 30% of their budget cut overnight.
- [13:52]
Imogen Foulkes
And they're stopping work now, are they?
- [13:54]
Tamar Gabelnik
Yes, everyone was issued a stop work order. We were too. The coalition, we are advocacy, but we also do a research project. The US Government funds part of that research project on exactly this, the impact of clearance and on victim assistance and funding for mine action. So that was a big chunk of our budget gone overnight as well. But it's the life saving work of the deminers that's really in question.
- [14:18]
Imogen Foulkes
Why is this happening, do you think? I mean, we expected some things from a new Trump administration, but this shock.
- [14:26]
Tamar Gabelnik
And awe, let's cut, see what the reaction is and then maybe put it back. We're still hoping that there'll be a reprieve and then it won't last the full 90 days. I did hear a rumor this morning that at least one operation in one country was told that they could start working again. So maybe there's hope. I mean, President Trump is talking about going into Gaza and that's a whole other subject that we won't get into now. But you're not going to be able to rebuild no matter who's doing it, unless you clear all the unexploded ordinance first. And all that money is now halted.
- [14:59]
Imogen Foulkes
You were talking about. Some people are hoping maybe after the 90 days we'll be restored. Is that why some aid Agencies are very quiet that they think if they were kind of meek and patient, things might get better.
- [15:14]
Tamar Gabelnik
Definitely there is fear about retribution by President Trump and his administration. Obviously place favorites. You do the most minor thing that he perceives as an affront and up, you're no longer in favor. Whether the people making the decisions lower down on specific demining projects will keep that in mind or not, I don't know. But yes, everyone is being extraordinarily careful not to ruffle feathers right now.
- [15:43]
Imogen Foulkes
Is there any way of appealing in language that the people who are making the cup understand? I mean, I've often heard the case for demining is also a very economic one, that land can become productive again, economies can become productive again.
- [16:01]
Tamar Gabelnik
Well, this gets into a much larger conversation about what's in the United States interest and the perception of that among the administration, lawmakers and the American public. Our opinion as civil society working for the protection, protection of civilians is that it is in the US Interest to exercise their influence soft power, bigger power by being a good actor and showing leadership, removing a daily threat to the well being and to the life and the livelihoods of communities around the world. But yes, as you say economically as well, you're not going to be able to refarm a field that's been covered in landmines unless you're sure there's no more mines there. Because otherwise your tractor rides over something, be it anti tank or even anti personnel, and you're in trouble.
- [16:52]
Imogen Foulkes
What feedback or messages are you getting from local NGOs on the ground? Because it's not just agencies situated here in Geneva with a lot of quite comfortable international staff. There's local staff all over the world doing the hard graft of this kind of work.
- [17:11]
Tamar Gabelnik
Absolutely. The Cambodian government has said it will have to lay off 1,000 people. It's 93 teams. Just to give you an example. They said over the past year and a half or so they've taken out almost 30,000 landmines from the ground. 30,000 threats to people, civilians. The war is long gone there. We're not talking about soldiers, civilians that can walk on them. Yes, yes. There is a responsibility of the US Government in Laos as well with the cluster munitions and the cluster munitions or the submunitions that remain in Cambodia as well, 17,000 of those. And each of those has such an amount of explosive in it that often if they go off, they'll kill not just the person that picked it up by accident, but people around. But another example in Colombia, we have a campaign member there and they've just had to lay off 200 staff that were doing the demining in the south of the country. So all of a sudden, these families have no work. And the alternative in the area, you know what it is, coca plants. So how is that in the U.S. interest that these people that were doing something good for the community are now probably, in order to survive, having to go back to coca farms?
- [18:21]
Imogen Foulkes
Danny, we did hear from dawn all of the kind of stuff that's being talked about in the United States about fraud and corruption and spending money on nonsense. They say, again, no evidence. Here we have Tamar with a clear eye on what the money is spent on. And she also makes the point that something like demining in Colombia, it's not just nice for Colombia, it's actually in the U.S. interest.
- [18:53]
Danny Warner
Well, I agree. I mean, it certainly is a question of status and prestige. And one of the things that Mr. Trump doesn't follow is the Harvard professor Joe Nye's concept of soft power. Soft power is defined as getting someone to want to do what you want them to do. An easier definition Joe gave in Geneva was it's how a parent deals with an adolescent child. And the United States is now in competition with China. And China is spending billions around the world on its Silk and Belt Road initiative. And the United States aid is part of an image of the United States around the world. And if certain countries and places are not going to get American aid, they're probably going to ask China or someone else, which reduces American prestige and leadership. And I think that's something that the Americans should understand if they understand the competition with China.
- [19:58]
Imogen Foulkes
Dawn, what do you think about that? Because I sense that the current administration for Trump is not interested in soft power. They're interested in strong manpower. But at the same time, Trump has made a huge play about fentanyl and other drugs coming over the border. And there is Colombia, as Tamar so clearly says. You know, the other option, if we don't help and we don't get farmers, drugs, land demined to grow their stuff, they'll go back to the drug barons and coca. Surely a transactional Trump, that argument might appeal to him.
- [20:35]
Dawn Clancy
Yes, I think for a transactional Trump, that would make sense, but I don't think that that's the version of Trump that we're dealing with at the moment. You know, President Trump and Musk will say that these cuts to usaid, it's about shrinking a bloated bureaucracy. It's about getting rid of waste and fraud. But I'd say that this whole thing has more to do with ideology and politics. I would say that for Trump and his Republican allies, this is about going after an agency that they see as part of the lunatic left. That's how Trump refers to the left, often as a lunatic left. Going after this agency and tearing it down because he sees American taxpayer dollars going towards these agencies that promote and export woke ideology. You know, like I mentioned before. Well, Imogen, you mentioned, you know, condoms for Gaza. That turned out to be not true. But now they're talking about condoms for the Taliban. So that's what I think this is about. If we were dealing with the transactional Trump, that would make sense, but that's not who we're dealing with. This is more ideological. Going after the left, who Trump believes stole the election from him in 2020, going after the left, who, you know, got Trump into the courtroom. So that's why I think perhaps in Geneva, maybe not that people aren't thinking about this in Geneva, but that's what I think is dominating this right now.
- [22:05]
Imogen Foulkes
That's quite petty, Danny, though, isn't it? Vengeance and making hundreds of thousands of the world's poorest suffer because you want to get rid of a political clique that you. You see personally as a threat.
- [22:20]
Danny Warner
He is who he is. He's from the Queens. I'm from Bronx. Maybe we understand that aspect of each other. But I wanted to add to what dawn said. It's not just any bureaucracy. There's a difference between his attacking domestic bureaucracies and his gut feeling against anything international and especially multilateralism. So this is a combination of a bureaucracy and a foreign bureaucracy. And I think that's part of his vengeance against some of the programs, but also his larger ideology against multilateralism, against the UN and anything that deals with that world.
- [23:03]
Dawn Clancy
Yeah, absolutely. If I can just add to that, yesterday, Trump had a press conference in the Oval Office, and he had just had a conversation with Putin, and he was very serious about ending the war in Ukraine. People are dying. We have to end it. And then he went and he rambled for a little bit, and then he got on this topic of usaid, and his whole demeanor changed. He became more aggressive. He became angrier. You know, I think the next. The next project that he and Elon Musk has is they're going after the Department of Education, and they're going to just completely cut it down, because I think. I think Trump described it as a con job. The Department of Education. I don't know where he gets that from. But if you go back and look at that press briefly, what we're talking about here will be clearly illustrated, this vengeance and this anger.
- [23:55]
Imogen Foulkes
So I personally find this quite concerning and dismaying because although I've never been somebody who subscribes to, you know, America is the determiner of our freedom in the world, I've never really believed that. And I do think Europe has made its own standards, which unfortunately the Americans, because most of them don't travel, don't know anything about, they might come over here and find that we live quite well without them. Thank you very much. But where we're going with this now, it's not just American isolationism, it's not just America first, there seems to be a quite, what I fear, a quite deliberate undermining of fundamental freedoms. And that is another aspect and that I said to you at the start, we're going to look in depth at what these cuts mean because they are also affecting human rights work worldwide. I talked to Phil lynch from the International Service for Human Rights. Now they support human rights defenders in some of the most difficult, challenging parts of the world, including Russia, including China. Now here's what he had to say.
- [25:16]
Phil Lynch
We're supporting human rights defenders and democracy activists who are working on the front line in highly restrictive and repressive context places like China, like Venezuela, where the role of human rights defenders is absolutely critical in promoting justice, in promoting equality, and in promoting good and transparent and accountable government that respects international law and is a responsible international citizen.
- [25:44]
Imogen Foulkes
You've put out a statement in the last couple of days saying that your organization has been hit hard by the US Funding freeze. What exactly have you had to do? How are you coping?
- [25:57]
Phil Lynch
The suspension of government funding has meant that we've had to terminate or to defer or to reduce a number of activities, particularly activities in support of human rights defenders working in some of the most highly restrictive and repressive contexts. We've also had to take a number of anticipatory cost saving measures which has reduced our overall capacity to support human rights defenders globally at a time of great need.
- [26:24]
Imogen Foulkes
Did you expect this from the United States? I mean, we all expected some changes with President Trump 2.0, but did you expect the cuts? As savage as these seem to be?
- [26:34]
Phil Lynch
No, I didn't. Because the US like all states, tends to act in its self interest and it's not in the interests of the United States to completely and utterly suspend foreign aid and development. Foreign aid and development provides incredible humanitarian care and support to people. It literally saves lives. It also contributes very much to a more safe, secure and prosperous international order, which is to the benefit of the United States and all global citizens, frankly.
- [27:10]
Imogen Foulkes
Who do you think is listening, though, in the United States now? I mean, these terms, international world order, et cetera, et cetera, they just, they don't seem to resonate across the pond anymore.
- [27:20]
Phil Lynch
Right. Well, I mean, I think it's absolutely imperative that they do. The United States is not an island. It can't exist in complete isolation. And the United States, like all states, rely on an international order which is rules based, which has some level of fairness, consistency, predictability, without which we descend to a complete might is right type situation, which, which frankly undermines global peace and security.
- [27:50]
Imogen Foulkes
You talked about everybody having an interest in the rule of law. That includes international law. The problem is every day seems to bring a new blow to it. We've seen the United States withdraw from the International Criminal Court and actually introduce a whole raft of things which will pun punish anybody who engages with it. That could include, you might even include me as a journalist. What can we do? How can we stand up for this rules based order?
- [28:20]
Phil Lynch
Well, I think coordination, unity and solidarity is absolutely imperative. We can't allow the Trump administration to effectively and successfully adopt a divide and conquer approach, but rather need to come together collectively and say we have a shared interest in international law, in the observance of universal human rights and in the rule of law, and we're going to collectively speak out in defence of those principles and stand up and take concrete action where those principles are violated. And just by way of example, the sanctions announced by the Trump administration against the International Criminal Court constitute an interference in the international administration of justice. They constitute a violation of fundamental principles of international human rights law and international criminal law. And it's incumbent on states that support the international criminal justice system to collectively come together and say, we're going to hold you to account as a perpetrator and we will adopt countermeasures and levy our own sanctions against individuals and institutions who threaten and interfere with the international administration of justice in this way.
- [29:31]
Imogen Foulkes
So you would counsel against saying, ugh, we're just going to have to wait four years and we can sort it out after that.
- [29:38]
Phil Lynch
We don't have four years. The international legal framework and universal human rights are at a critical juncture and are being eroded and threatened and instrumentalized in some unprecedented ways. Now is the time to step up and invest politically and financially in the international human rights system, because the stakes could not be higher and the counterfactual one in which the international human rights system is completely and utterly eroded is a counterfactual in which we all lose enormously.
- [30:14]
Imogen Foulkes
Phil lynch is looking at a wider threat to our fundamental rights and freedoms coming from what used to be called the land of the free and the home of the brave. To both of you, maybe start with you, Dawn. You're in the States. Do you share Phil's fears? Do Americans worry that these basic freedoms, which they have told us they support and they're sharing with the rest of the world, that they're being undermined?
- [30:45]
Dawn Clancy
Yeah, I think if you're paying attention, you're scared or you're frightened. Absolutely. Just going back on something that Danny said about soft power. Trump isn't a soft power guy. I mean, anytime he describes anyone that he brings into his fold, it's because they're strong and they're tough and they adhere to his. His motto of peace through strength. And I think that's what we're seeing is a turn away from international law. I hate to say international norms, but I guess there is a certain amount of diplomacy that countries use to interact with one another that keeps things civil. But I see Trump going towards the mightier side, thinking, well, this is what we're gonna do, you know, Europe, and if you don't like it, then I'm gonna send troops into your country. I mean, that. That's probably, probably a stretch. I shouldn't have said that. No, no. But, you know, he's a strong man. He, he, he doesn't care about the law. He doesn't, it doesn't bother him to, like, steamroll over some court decision. He sees himself as being this strong guy that can sit down with Putin and make a deal.
- [31:59]
Imogen Foulkes
Well, I mean, on the Swiss media today, my colleague, who is the Moscow correspondent for Swiss media, described it as, I'll say it in German, der Volgenreicher knife. That is, he's prostrated himself in front of Putin, and it will have consequences. As I said, listeners, we're going back to that next week because it's a whole other program. Trump and Putin and Ukraine. But, Danny, you have your hand up. We heard from Phil lynch that we seem to be moving, and Don hinted at it to a might makes right world.
- [32:37]
Danny Warner
What we call hegemonic masculinity and the rule of law, both in the United States and internationally, is in great trouble. And there are certain fundamental values that we associate with the United States, we associate with the United Nations. My take on this, try to get some happiness and Some kind of optimism is that Trump, since January 20, is at the summit of his power. He thinks he can do whatever he wants to do, but the pendulum does swing, and the courts are starting to come back against him. I think the population in the United States is going to also start moving against him internationally. There's going to be blowback as well. So, to me, the question is how long he can have this kind of absolute power with Elon Musk, and when it will start to descend, how it will descend and what that will mean. I do think it's going to take a long, long time to come back internationally to before January 20th. These cuts are very strong and very deep, and you can't just say tomorrow it's all going to go back to the way it was before. But I don't think this can continue indefinitely.
- [33:52]
Imogen Foulkes
So a note of semi optimism almost to end this program. I've got just to end a personal question for you both, because you're both American. I mean, we've heard a bit from Danny. He thinks it won't last forever, but how do you feel about it? I mean, I'm not American, but I was a student there. I'd spent first years of my life there. And I do see, I do feel like we're witnessing a huge, huge change, which probably won't be changed back very easily.
- [34:25]
Dawn Clancy
Yeah, I, I agree. I am frightened, for sure. You know, during Trump's first presidency, I kind of had the attitude like, this is who was voted into office. We just have to deal with it. Let's see what happens. But this time, I feel. I feel much more frightened that we're headed in the wrong direction, not just with the US and our relationship with the rest of the world, but within the United States domestically. What does this mean? I don't think that we're headed for civil war or anything like that, but I think our civil liberties, the things like free speech, I think all of that is going to be coming into question. And Trump has already signed an executive order that makes certain language prohibited. So things like that, that will creep up on you. You know, it won't be somebody outside your door with a gun, because, you know, here in the States, we love our guns. I don't have a gun, but I'm just saying that's, that's what I worry about, because it'll be slow and it won't necessarily be something that, that hits you in the face right away. But over time, you'll say, I remember a time when I could say that in public. And now I have to worry because, you know, this police officer over here. And maybe that's being a bit dramatic, but I'm thinking of everything.
- [35:44]
Imogen Foulkes
Danny, what about you? And maybe also from the Geneva and American in Geneva perspective.
- [35:50]
Danny Warner
I don't want to get too personal, Imogen, but I've lived here for 52 years. There must be reasons why I left the United States. I'm depressed, I'm angry. I should have more distance from this, but I don't. And I've tried to speak about this and write about it, but it's terribly worrying, not just in terms of the United States, but in terms of the world. This is a tectonic shift in global politics and most of it is negative on the other side. I get up every day with my American friends when we speak, and we're so privileged to live in Switzerland. Many of my friends have given up their American citizenship. I haven't, but it is shocking, stunning. But in a sense, it's not all that surprising. I mean, he did get 75 million votes the first time. And so there must be something going on in the United States. How long, as I said, how long that will last, I'm not sure. But if the price of eggs goes up in the United States, the price of gasoline goes up, then maybe people will start to say he's not coming through with what he said he would do. He has not reduced inflation. But I don't know how that's going to happen and when. But I do think the pendulum will start going down.
- [37:13]
Imogen Foulkes
And in the meantime, the humanitarian agencies that we have been focusing on this program have to wait. There's the 90 days. My feeling, if I want to sum up again, it's a bit pessimistic, is that I don't think that money's coming back after 90 days. And I don't think that it will come back while this administration is in. And we all know that even when a different administration comes in, if somebody saved money, that money gets saved.
- [37:43]
Danny Warner
There is an election coming up in two years and there will be determinant of how well he's doing with the general public. He could lose control of both the House and the Senate.
- [37:55]
Imogen Foulkes
Okay, well, on that note, sorry if it's been a bit pessimistic, but we did think it was important to bring to listeners more in depth what the basically execution of US aid and the US Freezing of funds to foreign aid means to not just people who work in Geneva. That's a pretty privileged lifestyle. But the kind of programs they run all over the world, from demining to maternal health clinics in Afghanistan, to support for human rights defenders in Venezuela or China. You've heard from all of them today. I hope it did enlighten some of our listeners or reinforce a feeling that maybe foreign aid is worthwhile not just for the people who benefit directly, but for you taxpayers, too, to make our world a more stable, peaceful and harmonious place. On that note, that's the end of this edition of Inside Geneva. My thanks to dawn and Danny for their analysis. And don't forget to join us next week for our special on Ukraine. Is this a peace or is it a surrender? A reminder, you've been listening to Inside Geneva from Swiss Info, the international public media company of Switzerland. And just before we go, here's some news about a new podcast series out now from Swiss Info.
- [39:27]
Angela Saini
Hi, I'm Angela Saini, a science journalist and author. I've written four books exploring humanity's fascination with science as a solution to social problems. And I'm the host of Lost Cells, a thrilling new investigative podcast that will make you question the promises behind private stem cell banking. This gripping podcast follows the stories of families from Spain, Serbia, Italy, and many other countries as they embark on a global quest to find the one thing they need the most, life itself. Will they succeed in their search for the stem cells that they pinned their hopes on? Tune in to Lost Cells, an original Swiss Info podcast. To find out, listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [40:21]
Imogen Foulkes
That does sound pretty interesting. Do join Angela Saini with Lost Cells. And of course, do join us next time on Inside Geneva. We'll be back with that special episode on Ukraine on Monday, February 24. Before that, if you want objective clarity about conflict, climate change, human rights, international law, or any other of today's global challenges, then take a look at our previous episodes and subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Imogen. Folks, thanks for listening.
- [41:06]
Angela Saini
What would you do to protect your family?
- [41:09]
Tamar Gabelnik
Becoming a parent definitely is a very emotional thing.
- [41:13]
Angela Saini
How far would you go to protect them from future disease?
- [41:16]
Tamar Gabelnik
You suddenly care about something more than you care about yourself. And we live in a world that is filled with things that can go wrong.
- [41:25]
Angela Saini
And what if there was a solution? From the second your child is born.
- [41:30]
Tamar Gabelnik
When you decide to preserve your baby's cord blood, you are making an incredible investment in the future of your entire family's health. They would all tell you you're doing this for your child. It will maybe help them later on.
- [41:44]
Angela Saini
That's the problem? Promise of stem cell research. A future in which your baby's stem cells can be used to cure serious diseases.
- [41:54]
Tamar Gabelnik
Today, newborn stem cells found in cord blood are being used to treat over 80 conditions.
- [41:59]
Dawn Clancy
We'll keep those amazing cells safe for you.
- [42:02]
Imogen Foulkes
Frozen in time.
- [42:05]
Dawn Clancy
We saw a light at the end of the tunnel. That was our daughter.
- [42:08]
Angela Saini
Every breakthrough brings hope and new promises.
- [42:13]
Phil Lynch
With our childhood stem cells, we can cure my illness. It made sense to decide for the bank that had its headquarters in Switzerland. It gives some additional credibility.
- [42:24]
Angela Saini
But promises can be broken.
- [42:26]
Imogen Foulkes
That's why the marketing is so clever.
- [42:28]
Tamar Gabelnik
Because the idea is that you will forget about it, because hopefully your kids will be fine. We felt like we had failed our daughter in a very important way.
- [42:37]
Imogen Foulkes
The idea that a part of their.
- [42:38]
Tamar Gabelnik
Kid is out there is frightening. They feel that in a way, they.
- [42:42]
Imogen Foulkes
Failed their kids by doing something in.
- [42:45]
Tamar Gabelnik
Which they were trying to protect them.
- [42:47]
Angela Saini
This is a story of how hope can turn sour and spark a global quest to recover the cells and the most precious thing they contain life.
- [43:01]
Dawn Clancy
I don't know if it was the.
- [43:02]
Phil Lynch
Biggest mistake of my life, but I do.
- [43:05]
Dawn Clancy
You know that if today I knew all the things that have happened to.
- [43:08]
Phil Lynch
Me, if I knew then I wouldn't have signed with them. If you store money, you can go.
- [43:15]
Tamar Gabelnik
The next day and take it out.
- [43:16]
Phil Lynch
With stem cells, it's much more complicated.
- [43:19]
Tamar Gabelnik
And then they said, well, we don't have a legal department. And I just started laughing and they said, don't worry, you will have one very soon.
- [43:27]
Angela Saini
Lost Cells, an original Swiss info podcast in collaboration with Piers Gloria Productions, Future Prosch and Studio Orcenter. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.