Connect with us

Europe

How not to end a war: 3 lessons from the last time Ukraine and Russia agreed a ceasefire deal

Published

on



CNN
 — 

The ceasefire proposal put forward by the United States on Tuesday and accepted by Ukraine is part of a plan, said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, “to end this conflict in a way that’s enduring and sustainable.”

It’s a promise fraught with risk for Ukraine. The last time it signed a peace accord with Russia, 10 years ago this February, it brought only sporadic violence, mounting distrust, and eventually full-scale war.

“I told President Trump about this,” Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview last month with CNN affiliate CNN Turk. “If you can get Putin to end the war, that’s great. But know that he can cheat. He deceived me like that. After the Minsk ceasefire.”

The Minsk accords – the first signed in September 2014 and, when that broke down, a second known as Minsk II just five months later – were designed to end a bloody conflict between Kyiv’s forces and Russian-backed separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk, in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region. Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s then-leader Petro Poroshenko were signatories, along with the OSCE.

The accords were never fully implemented and violence flared up periodically in the seven years that followed.

Now, as Ukraine and its allies attempt to forge another path to peace, experts warn the failures of Minsk serve as a cautionary tale for today’s peacemakers, and that the risks of history repeating are clear. Here’s what we’ve learned:

In 2015, Western military aid to Ukraine was minimal, and mostly limited to non-lethal supplies, though the Obama administration did supply defensive military equipment. “The crisis cannot be resolved by military means,” said then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a speech at the 2015 Munich Security Conference, which coincided with the talks on Minsk II. Her assessment of those diplomatic efforts was blunt: “It’s unclear whether they’ll succeed.”

It didn’t help that both Minsk accords were signed right after, or during, major military defeats for Ukraine.

The first agreement followed what’s believed to be the deadliest episode of the conflict in the Donbas, at Ilovaisk. In late August 2014, hundreds of Ukrainian troops were killed as they tried to flee the town to avoid encirclement.

Six months later, Minsk II was signed while fierce fighting raged for another Donetsk town, Debaltseve. That battle continued for several days beyond the initial ceasefire deadline.

Marie Dumoulin, a diplomat at the French Embassy in Berlin at the time, says those defeats put both Ukraine and its allies firmly on the back foot in the talks.

“Basically the main goal, both for France and Germany, but also for the Ukrainians, was to end the fighting,” she told CNN. But, she added, “Russia through its proxies, but also directly, was in a much stronger position on the battlefield, and so could increase the intensity of fighting to put additional pressure on the negotiations.”

From a military perspective, Ukraine’s Western-backed, almost million-strong army of today is almost unrecognizable from the underfunded and under-equipped force that took on the Russian-backed separatists in 2014.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump had a very public falling-out in the Oval Office at the White House on February 28, in Washington.

And yet, as Ukraine “accepts” a temporary ceasefire proposal, it faces a double challenge.

Firstly, Russia, has been inching forward in recent months on the eastern front (albeit at a huge cost to personnel and equipment), and inflicting almost daily aerial attacks on Ukraine’s cities. And secondly, the US, Ukraine’s biggest backer, has now withheld crucial military aid, in response to a public falling-out between Zelensky and US President Donald Trump. The aid is now restored, but the episode has left Ukraine on shaky ground.

“That makes Ukraine’s situation now very precarious,” said Sabine Fischer, senior fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. “Ukraine from… the Trump administration’s perspective has become an obstacle to this normalization that they want for their relationship with Russia.”

Experts agree the Minsk accords were put together hastily as violence escalated. Johannes Regenbrecht, a former German civil servant who was involved in the negotiations, pointed out in a recent paper that Ukraine’s allies had reached the point in February 2015 where they worried that allowing Russia to continue unchecked “would have resulted in the de facto secession of eastern Ukraine under Moscow’s control.”

With hindsight, experts say, the resulting document left too much ambiguity when it came to implementing the deal. The thorniest issue was how to link the military provisions (a ceasefire and withdrawal of weapons), with the political ones (local elections, and a “special regime” in the separatist-controlled areas).

“Ukraine was saying, we need security first and then we can implement the political provisions. Russia was saying, once political provisions are implemented, separatists will be satisfied and will stop fighting,” said Dumoulin, now director of the Wider Europe program at the European Council on Foreign Relations. That initial disagreement was an early sign of what Dumoulin and other experts see as Moscow’s ultimate intention to use the political provisions of Minsk to gain greater control over Ukraine.

Fischer argues that Trump’s desire to end the war quickly suggests the US may not only be at risk of reaching a flawed deal in haste, but may actually be willing to settle for something that doesn’t offer long-term solutions. “Comprehensive ceasefire agreements are not negotiated quickly… they’re very complicated, many intricacies… And I don’t think that this is what the Trump administration is aiming for,” she told CNN.

(L-R) French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meet in Berlin, in April 2015, to examine the implementation of the Minsk accords.

In the end, the biggest issue with the Minsk accords, especially Minsk II, wasn’t what was in the text, but what wasn’t. There’s not one mention of “Russia” in the entire text, despite clear evidence that Russia was both arming the separatists, and sending reinforcements from the Russian army.

“Everyone knew that Russia was involved, but for the sake of the negotiations, this was not recognized,” said Dumoulin. “The agreements were based on the fiction that the war was between separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk and Kyiv, and that it was ultimately a domestic conflict.”

There is no direct parallel today but there is, experts say, a risk Moscow is now using the false narrative that Zelensky is illegitimate because he failed to hold elections – Ukrainian law clearly states elections cannot be held during martial law – to rebrand the war as something that should be solved internally in Ukraine, and ultimately bring about regime change.

And even more concerning for Ukraine is that the US has taken a similar line, with Trump last month labeling Zelensky “a dictator without elections,” although he subsequently appeared to distance himself from that statement.

The failure of the Minsk accords leaves no doubt as to the risks of perpetuating such falsehoods.

Back then, the fiction that Russia wasn’t an aggressor or party to the conflict, along with insufficient pressure on Moscow in the form of sanctions or the provision of lethal military supplies to Ukraine, ultimately meant Minsk never addressed the root cause of the conflict.

“The fundamental contradiction of Minsk,” wrote Regenbrecht, “was that Putin sought to end Ukraine as an independent nation… Consequently, he had no interest in a constructive political process.”

There’s no evidence that that position has changed. In his speech on February 21, 2022, three days before the full-scale invasion, Putin described Ukraine as “an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space,” before claiming, “Ukraine actually never had stable traditions of real statehood.”

In January this year, one of his closest aides, Nikolai Patrushev, said he couldn’t rule out “that Ukraine will cease to exist at all in the coming year.”

And so, even amid US promises of keeping Ukraine out of NATO, and forcing them to accept territorial losses, the negotiating teams in Saudi Arabia have so far, it seems – just like their predecessors in Minsk – come nowhere close to tackling that core issue.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Europe

Live updates: Israel attacks Iran nuclear sites, Tehran retaliation, US position

Published

on


Israel’s attack on Iran is unlikely to push Iran toward a weakened position at the negotiating table on nuclear talks, Iran experts said, adding that it is more likely to trigger a war the Trump administration has sought to avoid.

“It is difficult to believe that Israel would and could have attacked at this scale without US knowledge and green light,” US foreign policy expert and former US State Department adviser Vali Nasr said on X.

US President Donald Trump “may have calculated this will soften Iran’s position, but just as he was wrong that maximum pressure will bring Iran to the table he will (be) proven wrong that Israeli attack could give him a diplomatic win,” he said.

Nasr added: “He may end up getting the war that he and the MAGA base have said they don’t want.”

Washington has long sought to limit Tehran’s nuclear capacity, with the most recent negotiations in Rome last month ending with no agreement. A sixth round of US-Iran talks had been scheduled for Sunday in Oman — and it’s not clear if it will go ahead.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute in Washington, DC, said today’s strikes were “not a pre-emptive attack on Iran alone,” but rather Israel “seeking to kill Trump and America’s chance to secure a deal with Iran that prevents” Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Ali Vaez, the International Crisis Group’s Iran project director, said that Israel’s attack likely “blew up Trump’s diplomacy with Iran.”

“What Trump does next could determine whether his presidency will be consumed by another war in the Middle East or not,” he said.

Vaez added that Israel’s strikes have opened the door to further suffering on both sides.



Source link

Continue Reading

Europe

British pubs have their own set of rules. Here’s what you need to know

Published

on


Editor’s note: Sign up for Unlocking the World, CNN Travel’s weekly newsletter. Get news about destinations, plus the latest in aviation, food and drink, and where to stay.


CNN
 — 

In 1943, as American troops were dispersed around British air bases to join the Allied war effort, a short informative film, “How to Behave in Britain”, was produced. One section was dedicated to the “dos” and “don’ts” of a British pub, and used a roistering soldier — who tosses cash at the barmaid, hoots at a Scotsman in a kilt and brags how he and his large family enjoy steak for breakfast — to demonstrate exactly what not to do. Our young braggart ends up being disappeared in a puff of smoke, and rightly so.

Over 80 years on, the British pub has changed a lot, but it still retains a number of unusual quirks for newcomers. It pays to come to the UK armed with pub sense, and so in that spirit, here is a 21st-century guide to enjoying the great British boozer.

There are as many genres of pub as there are beer, and if you tried to drink your way through them all in one day, you’d have to be poured into a cab at the end of it. Here are the main categories:

Wet pub: Simply put, a pub which only serves drinks, not food. Not to be confused with the White Swan in Twickenham, London, whose riverside beer garden regularly floods, leaving drinkers stranded.

Many pubs have been around for centuries.

Historic tavern or inn: Roaring wood fires. Flagstone floors. Low-beamed ceilings. Horse brasses on the walls. A resident ghost. These pubs, some dating back many hundreds of years, are steeped in the stories of those who’ve drank here before, though many these days also have Wi-Fi — the best of both worlds.

Gin palace: Described in an 1835 essay by Charles Dickens as “the gay building with the fantastically ornamented parapet, the illuminated clock, the plate-glass windows surrounded by stucco rosettes, and its profusion of gas-lights in richly-gilt burners…,” many of these showy 19th century drinking emporiums are still in business today — and they serve much more than just gin.

Craft beer pub: Emerging over the past couple of decades, the focus in these less orthodox establishments is on quality beer, often more varied, alcoholic and expensive than in other pubs.

Brew pub/brewery tap: A concept familiar with Americans, this is a chance to sip straight from the source, often in sight of the shimmering steel equipment that has magicked up the liquid now making you feel fuzzy.

Gastro pub: The Eagle in Farringdon, London was Britain’s first gastropub, opening in 1991 for those “who wanted a restaurant but couldn’t afford it.” These food-forward pubs subsequently boomed in the 1990s and 2000s, and remain popular today.

Sports pub: Similar in some ways to an American sports bar, British sports pubs rarely screen the NFL, but always show Premier League football. Most screens are not behind the bar, but in some awkward corner of the pub next to the toilets.

Flat-roofed pub: Dodgy beer, an edgy clientele and accompanying weapon dogs are all synonymous with flat-roofed pubs — “forbidding cubes of wood and brick that squat in the shadow of tower blocks,” as the UK’s Guardian newspaper once put it. It can also be difficult to see what’s going on from the outside, which some regard as tantamount to climbing into the back of a strange, unmarked van. That said, not all flat-roofed pubs are made equally, and a handful, like The Laurieston Bar in Glasgow, have become legendary.

Few pubs have table service. Most drinks are served to customers over the bar.

Brewery/chain pub: Not to be confused with a brewpub, these pubs operate under the ownership of a brewery or chain (including major players like Greene King, Young’s, and Craft Union). Though some of these establishments are pleasant enough, they can lack beer choice. I have seen four identical beer pumps lined up next to one another, all pouring the same pedestrian ale.

Freehouse: The landlords/ladies here aren’t tied to a brewery contract, and can therefore serve whatever they like. There’s usually a good beer selection because of it.

Micropub: The micropub trend — that is, pint-sized independent pubs with excellent beer and spartan interiors — started with The Butcher’s Arms in Herne, Kent in 2005, and has since swept the country, particularly southeast England. They may tell you off for taking a phone call, but they will also give you free cheese on a Sunday.

Wetherspoon: A genre of pub unto itself.

The pub sign — found swinging from the front of most establishments — dates to a time when few drinkers were literate, and would instead be drawn towards a colorful illustration, promising liquid treasures inside. Most today bear an image, along with the name.

Clockwise from top left: The Adam & Eve in London, The Kings Arms in Wiltshire, The Old Monkey in Manchester and The Bucket of Blood in Cornwall.

Common branding includes The Red Lion, The Royal Oak and The King’s Arms, but more peculiar names have real cachet — think The Bucket of Blood, The Pyrotechnists Arms, Dirty Dick’s, The Frog and Rhubarb, and I Am The Only Running Footman. Also look out for scores of Moon Under Waters (see Wetherpoon, above).

If you’re ordering drinks, and drinks alone, go up to the bar. Though handheld menus do exist, they’re not used all that much; a board behind the bar will advise you which beers are pouring, and you can also squint at the labels on the hand pumps (more of which later). If it’s a beer you’re unfamiliar with, a good bar person will offer you a free taster.

Though Britain was built on queuing, the pub is one setting where standing in line is not how it’s done. Getting served — especially at a busy bar — involves gradually easing yourself towards the front. Once you’re within touching distance of the bar, you must win the attention of whoever’s on the other side of it, being neither too meek (a gentle smile and nod works well) or too bold (wave a credit card in the air, and you’ll be waiting all night).

Drinks are often bought in

It’s the perfect balancing act, and one of the Brits’ best-loved pastimes. In friendlier pubs, customers will kindly point out who’s been waiting the longest. However, since Covid (when table service in pubs was mandatory), certain younger drinkers have started forming orderly queues. “This attempt at politeness is actually causing chaos at bars across the country,” fretted The Independent in 2024.

If you’re in a group of friends, the traditional way to buy drinks is in a “round” — namely taking it in turns to buy everyone else’s drinks. Get the first round in, and you can relax and enjoy the rest of the session. That is, unless the round circles back to you, just when everyone is hitting the expensive whiskey. That’s a chance you’ll have to take.

Cards are accepted in pretty much all pubs. Most pubs still take cash, too. I know of one small pub in the Surrey countryside which accepts Bitcoin.

“If you like beer, you’d better like it warm,” informs “How to Behave in Britain”. But the “warm beer” slur is a misnomer. The average pub now serves chilled lagers, pale ales and stouts (often Guinness, which has an entire pouring ritual of its own).

Contrary to popular myth, British beer isn't typically served warm. If it is, there's probably something wrong with it.

As for “real ales” — that is, traditional cask British ale taking the form of various bitters, pales, IPAs, stouts and milds — this should be served at cellar temperature. If your ale is genuinely warm, either there’s something wrong with it, or you’re sitting too close to the fire.

Just like the pubs themselves, these beers revel in ridiculous names: Bishop’s Finger, Release the Quacken, Old Peculiar, Pigswill.

Beer in Britain — whether an icy Danish lager or a robust porter from Durham — is traditionally served in a pint glass. Unlike in America, all pints in the UK are the same measurement of liquid: an imperial pint (20 fluid ounces). This measurement is taken very seriously, with CAMRA (Campaign For Real Ale) even lobbying the British Government to enshrine in law beer drinkers’ right to receive a full pint, foam excluded.

Most pint glasses are straight-sided but traditional beer drinkers sometimes request their beer to be served a “jug” (a confusing term as it’s not a jug, but a handled glass mug with miniature windows). You’ll only encounter the infamous “yard of ale” in exceptional circumstances, but it is not entirely mythical.

Beer is usually served in pints — a pour of 20 fluid ounces. Half-pints are also available.

Conversely if you’re taking it slow, it’s not uncommon to order beer in a half pint. The great Rick Steves once wrote in a guide book that “it’s almost feminine for a man to order just a half,” but that was a while ago now. (Steves also said he orders quiche with his beer, and I have literally never seen a slice of quiche served in a pub.) Craft beer establishments will often also serve in two-third and one-third pint measures, a relatively new concept that has some die-hard pint swiggers muttering into their bitter.

If you’re a real local, you may have your own special mug hanging behind the bar, possibly crafted from pewter. If so, you’re probably also in line to have a bronze plaque installed on your favorite chair/table after you go to that Great Pub in the Sky. You may also be the pub bore, more of which imminently.

Gin and tonic: A summery classic, born of colonial settlers lauding it up in India, who drank the tonic for the quinine in order to stave off malaria.

Rum and Coke: The sugary elixir once favoured by The Beatles.

House wine: For the thriftiest wine option, order the “house red,” “house white” or “house rosé,” and pray that it’s tolerable.

Cider/perry: Always alcoholic, this fermented apple/pear juice has been quaffed in industrial quantities by farmers and laborers for centuries, and is a popular summer drink among Brits. If your host starts pouring it from a cardboard box, don’t panic: It will taste far better than the sparkling cider coming from the taps.

Lime and soda/blackcurrant and soda: A traditional non-alcoholic option. Some pubs will only charge you around 50p for a glass; other, less scrupulous, ones will make you pay nigh-on the price of a beer. If in doubt, enquire first.

Tipping: With table service reserved for food, and bar tabs a rarity, tipping isn’t common in British pubs. If you’ve especially enjoyed the hospitality, you can always say “Have one for yourself” to the bar person, to which they’ll add on the price of another drink to the round.

Wetherspoons pubs are a breed unto themselves.

Sharing a table: While some drinkers like to keep themselves to themselves, it’s normal to share larger tables with whoever else is sitting there. At friendlier pubs — especially micropubs — you may well get talking to your new neighbor. The topic of conversation will involve the weather, sports and — after a couple of drinks — politics. However, if you’re foreign to these parts, you’ve already got your icebreaker.

The pub bore: Like every American bar, each British pub has its own barfly, or “pub bore,” who will lecture you ad nauseum about everything they know to be true, while taking little interest in your own attempts at contributing to the conversation. Avoid being sucked in where possible, and never get into a round.

Splitting the bag: If enjoying snacks, it’s customary to split open the bag, and share the contents with your table. Speaking of which…

Food and snacks

The Sunday roast is a regular weekly fixture on many pub menus.

Salty crisps and nuts have kept many a drinking session going far longer than it should have. Crisps, i.e. chips, are a staple, with Britain producing a new flavor every few minutes. Still, the all-time crisp classics are considered to be: ready salted, salt & vinegar and cheese & onion. You can read more about the history of crisps here.

Pork scratchings — crunchy, salt-cured chunks of pork fat — are found in most pubs. You will either fall in love with them, or spend the rest of your life apologizing to pigs whenever you see them. Either way, be advised that they can shatter your teeth (pork scratchings that is, not pigs).

One level up is the pork pie (a lump of cold pork meat wrapped in gelatin and pastry, and served with eye-watering English mustard), and the Scotch egg, which reached its culinary zenith in 2016 when Anthony Bourdain shared one of these mincemeat-encased delicacies with Nigella Lawson.

All sorts of “pub grub” is available these days, classics including steak & ale pie, scampi, lasagne, and hunter’s chicken. (Fish and chips is NEVER as good in a pub as it is from a fish and chip shop.) The holy grail of pub food is the Sunday roast, or roast dinner, served specifically on that one day of that week, and consisting of roasted meats, roast potatoes, Yorkshire puddings, stuffing and a medley of veg. While many pub Sunday roasts are sub-par, when you find a decent one, everything is well with the world.

Some pubs provide board games for customers.

“Pub” is shorthand for “public house,” and the best establishments feel like an extension of your own front room. The number one pastime in a pub is catching up with friends; which usually involves moaning about work/the weather/the friends who didn’t come to the pub. Watching sports (football, rugby, cricket, snooker, darts) is a major draw too. Other pub entertainment includes:

Reading the paper: Many pubs used to lay on a stack of papers for customers to get stuck into, although many pub goers now read the “paper” on their phone.

Pub quiz: A stalwart of the midweek pub experience, the pub quiz is an opportunity for you and accomplices to show off your (lack of) general knowledge, with the chance to win a £50 bar tab. As with pub/beer names, the most ludicrous pub quiz team name is also considered to be the best — even if you come last in the quiz, you’ll be the heroes of the evening.

Darts: The modern game of throwing small arrows into a circular board was formalised in a pub in west London in 1926. It’s currently enjoying a renaissance, thanks to darts superstars like Luke Littler and Fallon Sherrock.

Pool: Just as in the States, shooting pool is a popular bar in Britain. It’s unusual to see a snooker table in a pub, and if you see a billiards table, you may have walked into a stately home by mistake. The antiquated game of bar billiards, on the other hand, can still be found in a select few pubs, although — *whisper it* — the game has Russian origins.

Board games: Chess, Cluedo and Monopoly are among the favorites to be mulled over during a rainy Sunday afternoon.

Jukebox: Channeling the spirit of 1950s American diners, some older British pubs pride themselves on their jukebox — an opportunity to foist your musical choice on everyone within listening distance. Many jukeboxes now are digital, though occasionally you’ll find the real McCoy.

Pubs are everywhere — including on the remote Knoydart peninsula in Scotland, reached only via a 30-minute boat ride or an 18-mile, two-day hike over rugged terrain.

Though British bars and restaurants rarely excel at continental style al fresco drinking and dining, a number of pubs are blessed with a pub garden. These are often hidden around the back; sometimes pubs will proclaim in bold lettering from the front: “SECRET GARDEN.”

British weather, naturally, does everything in its power to diminish the magic of the pub garden, although this doesn’t stop the average Brit sitting outside and shivering into their pint, because even though it’s blowing a moderate gale, it’s July, and they know their rights.

Up until 1988, pubs were required to close between 3.30 p.m. and 5 p.m., meaning there were one and a half hours in the afternoon where locals might be seen drifting around the village in a zombie-like state, occasionally pawing at the pub windows.

Most pubs stop serving alcohol at 11 p.m.

This is rarely the case now. Though individual pub opening times vary, they tend to be from around midday to 11 p.m. A small bell is clanged (sometimes with almost too much fervour, by an exhausted publican), to warn you when to get your last drink in. There is then a mad rush to get in a valedictory pint, and drink it before the bell tolls a second time.

This signals it’s time to leave, or as the famous soap opera landlady Peggy Mitchell would say, “get outta my pub”.

On “non school nights” (that is, Fridays and Saturdays), it’s not unusual to give into primal instincts, and go in search of meat. If it’s earlier in the night, a curry is often voted for. If last orders have been rung at the pub and the curry houses are shut, it’s commonplace to order a takeout doner kebab: lengths of greasy lamb meat anointed with garlic and spicy chili sauce, which will make you regret everything the next morning all that much more.

Will Noble is the editor of Londonist, which has its own London pub database.



Source link

Continue Reading

Europe

The UK, Germany and Canada have slashed foreign aid this year, deepening damage done by US cuts, analysis shows

Published

on


London
CNN
 — 

Western countries have slashed foreign aid budgets this year and reductions will steepen in 2026, with the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Canada cutting the most, according to a new analysis from the Center for Global Development (CGD).

The aid cuts will mean “significant losses” for many developing nations, according to the analysis from the DC-based think tank, shared exclusively with CNN. Ethiopia is projected to lose the most aid in nominal terms, with Jordan, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo also hit particularly hard.

Smaller nations will also be hammered by the reduction in foreign aid, with Lesotho, Micronesia and Eswatini each losing around 50% of their aid.

“It’s setting fire to the bold ambitions to solve poverty and transform developing countries,” Lee Crawfurd, one of the authors of the report, told CNN. “It’s some of the poorest, most fragile places in the world that are going to be hardest hit.”

The analysis looked at projections of bilateral aid – money provided directly to another country rather than routed through multilateral organizations such as United Nations agencies or the World Bank – for 2025 and 2026.

The US is projected to cut the most, with a projected 56% reduction compared to levels two years ago.

The Trump administration’s gutting of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) earlier this year has already left a hole in many international aid budgets, and several other Western nations are following suit rather than filling the void.

“A big, big chunk of overall cuts in the next couple of years are going to be from the US pulling out, rather than other countries. But these other countries are making things worse,” said Crawfurd, a senior research fellow at the CGD.

The UK aid cuts are estimated to represent a roughly 39% reduction compared to 2023 levels of spending. Meanwhile, Germany is cutting about 27%, Canada 25% and France 19% of their international aid budgets.

The true level of aid cuts remains unclear, as the Trump administration’s proposed budget and other government proposals are still making their way through legislatures. But some funding cuts are almost guaranteed.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced in February that his government would increase the UK’s defense spending by cutting its aid budget to 0.3% of gross national income in 2027, its lowest level since 1999.

Many organizations and aid workers have raised alarm about European governments pitting aid budgets against defense spending.

“Cutting the already lean aid budget is a false economy and will only increase division and amounts to a betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable people,” said Halima Begum, head of Oxfam GB. “It is a false dichotomy to pit international cooperation to tackle poverty against national security interests in order to avoid tax increases.”

A sign for GIZ is seen in February 2017.

Crawfurd said that bilateral aid is a “really small part of government budgets” and the money for defense or security could be found elsewhere. “It’s a choice… it’s a political choice,” he added.

The think tank wrote in its analysis that “one striking takeaway is that some countries are projected to lose large amounts of ODA (official development assistance) simply because of who their main donors are – while others are projected to lose very little” – a game of chance, with losses not matching up to the recipient country’s needs.

Yemen, for example, is projected to experience a 19% fall in its bilateral funding compared to 2023, while its “comparable” neighbor country Somalia is projected to lose about 39%.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has also warned that multilateral aid cuts are threatening efforts to tackle 44 of the highest-priority, protracted humanitarian crises. As of April, only 11.9% of the funding for UN response plans had been covered.

“Every year, the UN has been helping more than 100 million people in the world as they go through the worst time of their lives in wars and disasters. But let’s be clear: we won’t reach the level of funding in 2025 that we’ve seen in previous years,” Anja Nitzsche, OCHA’s chief of partnerships and resource mobilization told CNN in a statement. “Vulnerable families are being left without food, clean water, healthcare, shelter or protection in places such as Sudan, Yemen, Ukraine, Myanmar and Afghanistan.”

The CGD is urging Western donors to reallocate aid to the poorest countries to try to “ensure that resources are directed to populations in greatest need.”

Western countries also need to improve coordination to mitigate further damage, especially as they are withdrawing from countries receiving aid, the think tank said.

In some countries, the cuts will change who the largest donor is, which “can lead to major shifts in what gets funded and how,” according to the CGD. For example, Portugal will likely overtake the US in aid to Angola, and Japan is projected to overtake France in Egypt. “A new lead donor may not continue the same programs” or may take time to get up and running, according to the analysis.

Giving a larger share of aid to multilateral organizations can also help improve international cooperation and cut down on duplication of aid efforts.

“Coordination is an ongoing challenge,” Crawfurd told CNN. “The easiest way to do that is just to fund big multilateral funds like the World Bank.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending