Information and stories about United States.

, ,

The Philanthropic Work of 5 Former Presidents

The Philanthropic Work of 5 Former PresidentsAs leaders of the world’s most powerful nation, U.S. presidents are expected to have a broad understanding of global issues. After leaving office, many former presidents continue to make positive changes in the world. Here are five examples of recent U.S. presidents who use their influence and recognizable names to help the international community.

  1. The Carter Center/Habitat for Humanity: The Carters founded the Carter Center, which has operated in more than 80 countries. It helps resettle refugees throughout Africa, fights the spread of malaria in Haiti and the Dominican Republic and recently launched an initiative to improve China’s presence in Africa.
  2. Ronald Reagan Foundation and Institute: Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) founded many initiatives in favor of peace and diplomacy. One of these is the Reagan Institute Strategy Group, which believes America is “indispensable to preserving the free, open and peaceful political and economic system that provides the foundation for how countries interact.” The Strategy Group promotes America’s crucial role on the world stage and its ideals of freedom. To that end, it meets with foreign policy and national security leaders like the E.U. in dealing with Ukraine. The Westminster 2.0 Working Group also lobbies for America’s continued role as a global leader. Westminster 2.0 keeps America and its allies working with the latest modern technology and media. It also assists with efforts to give oppressed people in less democratic nations a voice.
  3. George and Barbara Bush Endowment: Before entering the White House in 1989, George and Barbara Bush lost their 3-year-old daughter Robin to leukemia. Years later, the couple began an endowment to the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. This endowment continues to this day, even after both of their deaths. The MD Anderson Cancer Center is the largest cancer research center in the U.S. and takes patients from around the world. Recently, MD Anderson started working in lower-income countries, which is necessary as cancer disproportionately affects the poor. It hopes to decrease global cancer through education and prevention and is delivering necessary cancer research to nations in Africa and Latin America.
  4. Clinton Foundation: The Clinton Foundation, created at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency in 2001, has become one of the largest presidential organizations. In 2005, the Foundation started the Clinton Global Initiative, which has worked in over 180 countries. In response to the effects of four devastating hurricanes, Bill Clinton devoted particular care to Haiti. The foundation doubled its efforts after the 2010 earthquake. In total, the Clinton Global Initiative has donated around $500 million to Haiti. More recently, the CGI began networking in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean, following the 2017 hurricane season. So far, more than 700 organizations have joined in support. The Network continued its efforts after the COVID-19 pandemic hit.
  5. Obama Foundation: Despite getting out of the presidential office relatively recently, Barack Obama (2009-2017) has remained a global leader. With the Obama Foundation, work is being done for the next generation of leaders. The Scholars Initiative partners with the University of Chicago and Columbia University to fund global startups. Young minds from all over the globe have taken it to begin solutions to global problems. Michelle started the Girls Opportunity Alliance through the Obama Foundation. It looks to help the 98 million girls not in school get access to high-quality education worldwide. The Alliance provides a network for organizations that work in global female schooling.

What’s Next?

These former U.S. presidents continue to make a positive impact on the international community long after leaving office. Through various initiatives and organizations, they address global challenges and strive to create a better world. From the Carter Center’s work in refugee resettlement and malaria prevention to the Clinton Foundation’s extensive efforts in disaster relief and education, these leaders leverage their influence to bring about positive change. The dedication of these former presidents serves as an inspiration, highlighting the potential for ongoing leadership and advocacy to shape a brighter future on a global scale.

– Josh Sobchak
Photo: Flickr

, ,

Ilhan Omar’s US-Africa Policy Working Group

U.S.-Africa Policy Working Group
On January 31, 2023, representative Ilhan Omar from Minnesota announced the creation of the U.S.-Africa Policy Working Group. This group “will endeavor to be a clearinghouse for active, sincere and consistent engagement with experts and policymakers working with and in Africa,” a press release highlights, in order to further the growth and prosperity of the continent. Omar said in her press release that she plans on holding regular briefings with officials from the Biden-Harris administration, organizations and journalists and looks to understand the points of view of the very people that U.S. policy affects.

Goals of the Group

Omar stresses that the main focus of the group will be addressing the current conflicts and crises in Africa. Of particular concern is the ongoing crisis in Ethiopia, a culmination of multiple factors.

The Center for Disaster Philanthropy says, “the combination of armed conflict, climate shocks, disease outbreaks and the socioeconomic impacts of COVID-19 have led to the deterioration in humanitarian conditions in the country.” As such, in 2023, 28.6 million people, equal to more than a fifth of the country’s people, require urgent humanitarian aid.

About 9.9 million Ethiopians are in need of food aid and 2.9 million children and pregnant/lactating women need critical nutrition interventions to prevent malnutrition. This crisis is also affecting children and their education. In September 2022, UNICEF estimated that 1.14 million students were susceptible to disenrolling from school.

Furthermore, at the start of the 2022/2023 school year, about 13 million Ethiopian children had not enrolled in school. With COVID-19 cases nearing 500,000 as of February 7, 2023, and diseases such as cholera becoming more common on top of widespread violence throughout the country, it is crucial for the U.S.-Africa working group to make the crisis in Ethiopia a priority.

Applauding Africa’s Triumphs

Besides focusing on the various issues that the African continent contends with, the U.S.-Africa working group also looks to focus on the triumphs of Africa, such as “Senegal’s extraordinary leadership in global health” and the human rights advocacy across Africa.

An important part of the plan is to include Africans so that the world can also hear perspectives on global issues from Africa. “It is my sincere hope that it will become a central player in creating lasting partnerships and building up a base of expertise so that Congress can be more actively involved in U.S. policy in Africa and help move the conversation forward for many years to come,” Omar said in a statement about the U.S.-Africa working group.

The Importance

Because there are many issues currently happening in the world, it is important to consider input from multiple outlooks. The U.S.-Africa Policy Working Group will increase engagement with Africa and allow the world to gain insight directly from the continent’s experts and leaders. Learning about African interests globally will allow the U.S. to develop policies that directly address the needs of the people, especially considering that the extreme poverty rate in sub-Saharan Africa stood at 38.9% by April 2022, equating to 420 million people.

The unique perspectives that come along with this can also give the United States a broader view of different global issues, such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and ongoing crises elsewhere. Keeping a working relationship between the United States and countries in Africa is vital to understanding how policies in the United States affect different regions and countries.

– Olivia MacGregor
Photo: Flickr

, , ,

US Support for Humanitarian Use of Nuclear Technology

Humanitarian Use of Nuclear Technology
Signed in 1968 and implemented in 1970, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) has been a lasting, positive force in regulating nuclear weapons internationally and foregrounding the humanitarian use of nuclear technology. Since its conception, the U.S. has not only been committed to upholding the initial conditions of the treaty but also expanding its efforts through the support of organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Civilian Research and Development Foundation (CRDF). Further development of nuclear techniques in agriculture, environmental preservation and medicine all contribute to improving living conditions and reducing poverty in less developed countries.

History of US Support

Since the treaty went into effect in 1970, the involved parties met every five years to discuss its renewal until it was extended indefinitely in the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. It has been largely effective, with nuclear weapons stockpile falling by 88% in the U.S. and 80% globally since 1986.

However, it was not until more recently that the members of the NPT began working more vigorously in their efforts to aid in meeting the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Though humanitarian use of nuclear technology has been central to the NPT since its founding, in 2010 the IAEA introduced the Peaceful Use Initiative (PUI) as a way of generating even more funding in support of these goals. The U.S. is the leading contributor to the PUI, donating $395 million to the initiative since 2015 and pledging another $50 million over five years in November 2020.

Lastly, at the most recent NPT Conference in August 2022, the U.S. and 29 other countries gave $3.9 million to launch the “Sustained Dialogue on Peaceful Uses” and delegated its operations to the CRDF.

Success in Reducing Hunger and Improving Quality of Life

Nuclear technology can benefit humanity in a myriad of ways. Scientists have made great strides in increasing yields in agricultural production. Using various techniques, they have discovered ways of making hardier, more resistant crops, maximizing water use efficiency, reducing populations of invasive insect species that kill crops, cleaning crops through irradiation and diagnosing livestock with dangerous illnesses. It has also been very useful for understanding and protecting the environment and, of course, medicine.

Various governments and organizations across the world have been able to implement technologies like these because of U.S. funding. For example, more than $8.4 million that the U.S. provided to the PUI fund helped Vietnamese authorities combat a swine fever outbreak in their livestock using nuclear technology. Another instance is in 2017 when the IAEA used $6 million of U.S.-backed funds to develop more nutrient-rich crops as a means of reducing malnutrition in Sierra Leone. Additionally, in March 2019 $4.3 million in U.S. support went to the development of isotope hydrology, a cutting technique that “allow(s) national experts to identify and assess the availability of groundwater resources.” These are just a few of the ways that U.S. support has been instrumental in the proliferation of the humanitarian use of nuclear technology.

Looking Forward

International cooperation to further develop the peaceful use of nuclear technology is essential in the fight against poverty, and U.S. financial support is instrumental for organizations like the IAEA and CRDF to continue innovating and implementing these solutions.

– Xander Heiple
Photo: Flickr

, ,

US Nearshoring to Help Latin America and the Caribbean

Help Latin America
On April 26, 2022, Rep. Mark Green (R-TN-7) introduced the Western Hemisphere Nearshoring Act (H.R. 7579), a bipartisan bill that aims to accelerate economic development in Latin America through nearshoring. Using nearshoring to help Latin America and the Caribbean will also safeguard the interests of the U.S. Moving supply chains to Latin America, from China, will give many countries more sustainability. Decreasing dependency on China by establishing partnerships in the Western Hemisphere will bring a wide range of benefits, including poverty reduction in the region. By cosponsoring and advocating for the bill, U.S. legislators in both houses can support both the U.S. economy and the reduction of poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The Benefits of Nearshoring

  • Promotes economic stability and growth in Latin America and the Caribbean.
  • Reduces migration to other countries from Latin America and the Caribbean.
  • Reduces overdependence on China as a supply chain.
  • Greater “peace, security and democracy” in the region.

By importing goods from nearby countries instead of China, U.S. companies have a cheaper choice for international sourcing. This would help create jobs and rebuild the struggling economy in Latin America and the Caribbean, considering that the number of individuals enduring extreme poverty in the region increased to 86 million in 2021. Nearshoring would not only address the economic downturn but would also address job scarcity post-pandemic.

This nearshoring opportunity will benefit the region’s economy and everyday workers. Prospective deals could uplift multiple countries in the region and promote stability and growth. By helping its neighbors reverse poverty trends, the U.S. can also prevent dangerous journeys of migration by providing a solution in the home countries of potential migrants.

Poverty from the Source

U.S. companies would provide significant economic opportunities by using nearshoring to help Latin America and the Caribbean with benefits reaching rural and urban areas. One can understand poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean better by viewing the lack of job opportunities — the region has an unemployment rate of about 10% in 2021.

Whether it is rural people moving to urban cities where job opportunities are scarce or a lack of opportunity in rural areas themselves, private sector companies making deals in Latin America and the Caribbean would tackle the issue from its source. In the 2000 publication “Options for rural poverty reduction in Latin America and the Caribbean,” Rubén G. Echeverría from the Sustainable Development Department of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) confirmed that economic growth and GDP increases will help reduce extreme poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The IDB has outlined and supported private sector companies that have provided better wages in rural areas. Urban-based centers for economic development and nearshoring would provide the city with jobs for those from rural areas or those with a lack of higher education.

Long-term Capability

In October 2021, the U.S. Chamber’s Association of American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America and the Caribbean (AACCLA) held the 2021 Virtual Forecast on Latin America and the Caribbean Conference. Discussions included considering nearshoring to help Latin America and the Caribbean’s economic recovery from the pandemic.

During the conference, “panelists shared insights on how to create a resilient and sustainable global supply chain, the opportunities to revitalize certain nations and the role foreign policy plays in supporting the Latin American and Caribbean economies.”

The Panamanian government sees nearshoring as a strong economic development solution for Panama as “60% of the world’s commerce goes through the Panama Canal.” Furthermore, “more than 170 multinational companies” have bases in Panama, making Panama the ideal nation for nearshoring.

By providing proof that nearshoring can have positive effects on Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. lawmakers have a great platform to support the U.S. economy while helping Latin America by providing economic opportunity and a way out of poverty.

– Karen Krosky
Photo: Flickr

, , ,

Foreign Aid to Afghanistan

Foreign Aid to Afghanistan
Some definitions of foreign aid provide a distorted vision of its purpose. This in turn drives citizens, government officials and donors away from supporting it. An accurate definition of foreign aid is one country helping to improve a recipient country’s standard of living through economic, military and various other services. Donors provide this type of support after war or natural disaster. The recent withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan is slowly concluding more than 40 years of conflict. However, foreign aid to Afghanistan remains necessary.

Afghanistan’s Violent Past

More than half of the population in Afghanistan lives on $1.90 a day. In headlines, history books and news stories, many do not see Afghanistan beyond the label of an economically developing country. This label often comes from a place of unfair judgment.

The longevity of the Afghan crisis is why aid is vital in transforming the country to work toward a better quality of life and future for the younger generations. The detrimental relationship between the state and citizens has damaged every part of what is necessary for a society to flourish. For example, the top-down monopoly with profiteers and warlords on top formed to control economic markets producing bottom-up violence is a significant barrier in the country flourishing. Understanding the nature of the conflict that has created a dystopian climate throughout the country is vital in producing foreign aid to Afghanistan because planning for the long term is what will produce change.

Antony Blinken’s Push for Reform

The U.S. is the world’s largest provider of foreign aid, but reform is necessary for providing quality aid for the future. During secretary of state Antony Blinken’s visit to Afghanistan on April 15, 2021, he spoke on several areas of reform to ensure the foreign aid sector continues to progress and attend to the needs of Afghanistan.

The U.S. is studying previous aid distribution models and methods to ensure that country receives the maximum amount of help. This also promotes other governments to continue the change. The U.S. plans on holding the Afghanistan government accountable to the pledge of acknowledging the basic human rights of their citizens. For example, traveling outside of the country has been nearly impossible for Afghan citizens. The U.S. will also hold the Taliban accountable for using Afghanistan as a base for formulating attacks on other countries. Neutralizing any form of threat prevents damage to other countries that would ultimately produce the need for more foreign aid and will push away allies.

The U.S. will ensure even aid distribution throughout the country. It will have clear communication with the Taliban in the coming years. The Taliban must allow aid groups to work on uninterrupted terms. Overall, the U.S. is enforcing long-term change through rectifying the relationship between the state and citizens that has been upholding the unlivable climate.

The Future of Foreign Aid to Afghanistan

The narrative of putting a stop to the current war or any war in the future is an unreachable goal. Foreign aid will not go towards a single issue. Instead, it will focus on changing the systemic problems that continue to produce wars. The U.S. often uses a militant approach, however, with the updated forms of foreign aid, it will not be using violence to overcome it. This includes $64 million in new humanitarian assistance which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Health Organization (WHO) will distribute. This new surge of funding will provide a large range of assistance including shelter, essential health care, sanitation, food aid, hygiene services and more. These are forms of aid that will contribute to the overall building of a better livelihood for Afghan citizens.

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which U.S. Congress introduced in 2004 is an agency separate from the State Department and USAID. It continues to abide by its mission statement of reducing poverty through economic growth by providing aid to countries like Afghanistan. The U.S. has also developed a range of grants and programs to assist Afghan women who the civil upheaval greatly impacted. USAID continues to provide grants in helping Afghan women gain access to universities through the Women’s Scholarship Endowment.

The US State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM)

The U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) funds several programs for Afghan women refugees and internally displaced persons. The programs include literacy training, gender-based violence prevention and mother-child health care. PRM works with various partners to ensure change including the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

In large groups, varying interests can prevent the proper allocation of funds to aid. However, the government and donors continue to work closely together. The impact that aid has extends beyond providing food and emergency medical assistance. It has the potential to provide a hopeful future for those who have only known living in a war zone. It reconciles individual relationships within the society. As aid strategies are revised to adhere to current needs the long-term quality of life for Afghan citizens will improve.

– Maggie Forte
Photo: Flickr

, , , ,

Puerto Rico’s Medicaid Funding Crisis

Medicaid Funding CrisisHundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans risk losing their access to health care in the near future. In Puerto Rico, about 1.4 million or about half of its citizens live in poverty. Accordingly, Medicaid covers approximately 46% of Puerto Rico’s population. However, United States government leaders can and should take actions that would help Puerto Rico escape the Medicaid funding crisis.

Medicaid in Puerto Rico

Because Puerto Rico is a territory, Medicaid funding in Puerto Rico differs greatly from that in the United States. The U.S. government reimburses U.S. states for a specific portion of what they spend on health care for the poor. This reimbursement ranges from 50% to 83%. If the need grows, the federal government’s contribution to states will grow as well. On the other hand, as a territory, Puerto Rico has a cap of 55% reimbursement. Even if the need increases, that cap does not increase. The federal government would reimburse Puerto Rico 83% if it had state status.

On top of this, starting in 1968, the U.S. federal government capped total dollars to reimburse Puerto Rico for Medicaid expenses. In 2019, government funding only covered 15% of the total cost of Medicaid in Puerto Rico. Due to this, Puerto Rico is experiencing a Medicaid funding crisis.

Inadequate and Unreliable Funds

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress provided emergency funding to help Puerto Rico escape the Medicaid funding crisis. Puerto Rico’s Medicaid budget for 2021 is $2.7 billion, which is seven times more than what it would have been if Congress had not granted temporary funding. However, the issue is that this funding is only short-term.

Year after year, Puerto Rico has to ask Congress for additional funds. Then, Congress must determine whether or not it should provide it. For this reason, Puerto Rico is unable to establish long-term planning or negotiate contracts with health care providers. The bottom line is that this leaves Puerto Rico always uncertain of whether it will receive sufficient finances to deliver vital health care services.

This uncertainty combined with Puerto Rico’s low Medicaid rates has influenced doctors and other health care workers to emigrate from the island. In turn, that is limiting the treatment and care available to patients. As a result, 72 of Puerto Rico’s 78 cities and towns have insufficient medical care. In particular, Vieques and Culebra suffer from poor health care access.

Necessary Actions

Puerto Rican Health Secretary Carlos Mellado believes that Puerto Rico should have parity with states for Medicaid funding. This means removing the reimbursement caps and funding Puerto Rico at 83%, which is at the top of the range for states. He visited Congress over the summer to advocate for Puerto Rican parity.

Beyond the Medicaid funding crisis, the Center for American Progress advocates eight measures that the Biden administration could do to provide parity and support for Puerto Rico. These include parity in interstate trade and a specific focus on providing health care access to Vieques and Culebra.

In general, adequate federal funding is the most long-term answer to the Medicaid funding crisis and several other issues Puerto Rico faces. As Health Secretary Mellado said, “It would be ideal if Puerto Rico could have Medicaid funding parity. That would be the most permanent solution to this issue.”

– Anna Lovelace
Photo: Unsplash

, , , , , ,

The World Bank Approves Aid for Lebanon

Aid for Lebanon
At the beginning of the year, in January 2021, the World Bank approved and accepted the United States’ $249 million project proposal to bring aid into Lebanon. The social and economic situations in Lebanon over the past several months and years have become desperately dire, and the United States, the World Bank and its parent organization, the United Nations, are all seeking to meet the needs of the many suffering Lebanese people.

The Situation in Lebanon

Lebanon has been facing a prolonged financial crisis as well as economic upheaval, which, in 2020, resulted in severe inflation of the country’s currency, the Lebanese Pound (LBP), and led to a 19.2% drop in the GDP. As of September 2021, the U.N. reported that the multidimensional poverty rate in Lebanon has risen to 82%, with 32% of the Lebanese population living in extreme multidimensional poverty.

The Lebanese people are lacking in basic commodities and healthcare services, which has also exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on Lebanon. Unable to reach treatment facilities or even get diagnoses, the Lebanese people have suffered greatly from the pandemic. The pandemic’s stifling effect on businesses in Lebanon has also further compounded the financial struggles that Lebanon is already facing.

The Emergency Crisis and COVID-19 Response Social Safety Net Project (ESSN)

The Emergency Crisis and COVID-19 Response Social Safety Net Project (ESSN) began official operations in February 2021, providing funds and services to those struggling under the combined crises of Lebanon’s dismal financial state, complicated geopolitical relations and poor COVID-19 response infrastructure. The ESSN will attempt to work with and bolster existing active programs within Lebanon; the goal is to complement other projects without collateral damage to the already fragile internal systems.

The ESSN has been working closely with social programs that are already established, and that both the Lebanese Social Development Centers of the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Ministry of Education run. Understanding the importance of using every available resource, the ESSN has also been working closely with other third-party projects, most notably Lebanon’s National Poverty Targeting Program (NPTP), which also runs through the U.N. and the World Bank to identify problem areas within the country and help codify response programs.

How the ESSN is Providing Aid for Lebanon

To try to get Lebanon back on its feet, there are two main fronts on which the ESSN is attempting to help revitalize economic growth and stem the tide of poverty. The first is basic aid packages in the form of cash deposits for families, individuals, and those with unfortunate circumstances. These are to provide immediate relief and bring some sense of stability to the people stranded in poverty. In order to accomplish this, the ESSN had been providing financial and technical support in order to greatly increase the capabilities and operations of the NPTP. Using the infrastructure already put in place through the NPTP, both projects hope to be able to proliferate aid quickly, effectively and fairly.

The second front that the ESSN is attempting to fight poverty on is that of human capital, specifically the promise of the young people of Lebanon. Recognizing that people are the most valuable resource, the ESSN’s work with the Lebanese Ministry of Education has begun to keep children in schools. Education is the key to opportunity, and ESSN is working to subsidize both the public school systems in Lebanon and also the schooling costs for individual students. By ensuring the quality of education and by granting students the socioeconomic stability to be able to continue attending school, the ESSN is attempting to assist Lebanon with investing in its future.

Becoming fully approved and operational in 2021, the ESSN will receive funding, and it will remain running for three years as it provides aid for Lebanon. Reports as recently as July 2021 have positive responses, and already, a large amount of aid has undergone disbursement to individuals, families and students alike. The ESSN has plans to continue to show support by investing in Lebanon and its people, a hearty show of humanity.

– John J. Lee
Photo: Flickr

, , ,

Improving the Accessibility of Healthy Produce

There is a clear dichotomy between how the impoverished citizens of developed and developing countries feed their families. In wealthier nations, families living below the poverty line buy cheaper food options. In many packaged and overly-processed foods, the possibility of unhealthy food preservatives and a surplus of calories is common. As a result, negative health effects ensue. In developing countries, impoverished citizens rely on easily cultivated and cheap foods to feed themselves. These products often do not have sufficient nutritional value to ensure a healthy lifestyle. In order to increase the accessibility of healthy produce, understanding the causes of income disparity and food restriction is necessary. Through this awareness, finding a solution to supply nutritious foods to those in need is possible.

Income and Food in Developed Countries

How one budgets their income is an essential factor when learning the impact of economic resources or the lack thereof on one’s daily health. An observational study conducted by BMC Public Health in the United States focused on the relationship between income and health. “Compared to lower-income households, higher-income households had significantly higher total vegetable scores, respectively, higher dairy scores and lower proportion of grocery dollars spent on frozen desserts,” said French, Tangney et. al in the study.

Overall, families with lower incomes purchased fewer vegetables, fewer dairy products and more frozen desserts compared to families with higher incomes. Thus, according to this study, individuals with lower incomes in developed countries are more likely to choose high caloric, less nutritious foods than their higher-income counterparts as these foods are more economically accessible to them than fresher, more nutritious foods. By understanding the results of this study, it is evident that the accessibility of healthy produce is limited to the wealthy members of society who can afford it.

Can Health Be Bought?

Compared to developed countries, developing nations struggle to provide protein-rich foods for their people. In these areas of the world, one’s income also dictates one’s food options. In developed countries, high-calorie foods are often cheaper than low-calorie food, yet in many developing nations, high-calorie and high-protein foods are more expensive. This can make it very difficult for low-income individuals to access necessary high-protein foods, such as eggs.

In Niger, egg calories are 23.3 times more expensive than calories from staple foods. In contrast, egg calories in the United States are 1.6 times as expensive as staple food calories. Diversifying one’s calorie intake is seemingly difficult due to one’s economic position. Consequently, one’s likelihood of contracting type two diabetes, heart disease or cancer also rises with high consumption of low nutrient food. Thus, the higher the price, the lower the accessibility of healthy produce and the higher chance of life-threatening diseases.

Solutions

Despite these issues, there are ways to end global hunger and poverty. Organizations all over the world are finding ways to help those in need. One nonprofit organization, A Growing Culture, is currently working to support farmers globally. By giving them a voice in the agricultural industry, farmers are able to gain back power.

In addition, the organization promotes sustainable agricultural methods. Through these goals, A Growing Culture has encouraged communication between farmers around the world. These conversations inspire the use of environmentally safe techniques, discussion of common struggles and shared desire to nourish the world. Organizations like these can go a long way to helping combat world hunger and improve. With the popularity of their mission, fighting industrial farming and decreasing the prices of daily foods is possible.

– Kristen Quinonez
Photo: Flickr

, , , ,

Biden Extends Temporary Protected Status for Yemen

Temporary Protected Status for YemenOn July 6, 2021, the Biden administration announced the extension of a program to support Yemeni individuals currently living in the U.S. as Yemen grapples with civil war and the most severe humanitarian crisis in the world. Even before the conflict, Yemen was the most impoverished nation in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), with a poverty rate of more than 50%. Today, more than three-quarters of Yemen grapples with poverty. The Biden administration has extended the Temporary Protected Status for Yemen nationals in the United States due to deteriorating conditions in Yemen.

The Situation in Yemen

Since the civil rights crisis began, Yemen’s economy has unarguably collapsed. The conditions exacerbated citizens’ vulnerabilities and destroyed critical infrastructure, while famine-level food insecurity ravaged the nation. The political crisis coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic led to Yemenis living in increased poverty.

The World Bank notes that “more than 40% of Yemeni households that find it difficult to buy even the minimum amount of food may have also lost their primary source of income.” Additionally, 19.9 million citizens live without access to sufficient healthcare services. Proper healthcare is more crucial than ever considering the impact of COVID-19 and Yemen’s recent outbreaks of “cholera, diphtheria, measles and dengue fever.” Experts argue that rebuilding Yemen’s economy and mending “Yemen’s social fabric” can only happen with an “eventual political reconciliation.”

Temporary Protected Status

Congress created the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in the Immigration Act of 1990, where it provides “temporary immigration status” to nationals of countries grappling with extraordinary conditions, such as ongoing armed conflict and violence. Also, the Secretary of Homeland Security may grant TPS to a country suffering an ongoing environmental disaster or epidemic.

Once granting an individual TPS, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cannot detain them based on their immigration status. TPS also does not impact an application for asylum or any other immigration benefits. Syria, El Salvador, Haiti and South Sudan are currently designated for TPS in addition to Yemen and several other countries. In the distant past, the U.S. granted TPS to countries like Lebanon, Kuwait and Rwanda.

The decision to extend the TPS of Yemeni nationals in the U.S. allows them to stay in the country without fear of deportation. Undoubtedly, the collapse of healthcare systems, sanitation and education services in Yemen bears influence on the decision. Furthermore, an unstable political transition compounded the need for this decision.

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas announced the extended Temporary Protected Status for Yemen after consulting with interagency partners. Mayorkas stated that the U.S. has “decided to extend and re-designate Yemen for Temporary Protected Status. We will continue to protect and offer their individuals a place of residency temporarily in the United States.”

US Role in the Yemen Crisis

In February 2021, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced an end to U.S. support for offensive operations in the Yemen war, including relevant arms sales. The move contrasts the positions of Presidents Obama and Trump. President Trump backed arms deals with the Saudi coalition, citing benefits for the U.S. economy even though the weapons led to the harm of civilians. However, the outflow of arms to the Middle East initially started under the Obama administration.

Furthermore, on March 1, 2021, Secretary Blinken announced $191 million in humanitarian assistance to Yemen, making the U.S. one of the largest donors for relief to Yemen. To promote more aid, Blinken urged parties at the virtual 2021 High-Level Pledging Event for the Humanitarian Crisis in Yemen to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. by helping to “end the conflict in Yemen.” The Biden administration’s action to extend Temporary Protected Status for Yemen “will allow approximately 1,700 Yemenis to keep their status through 2023” and will also enable another 480 Yemenis to apply.

Overall, the TPS extension to Yemenis in the U.S. shows the United States’ commitment to safeguarding the well-being of vulnerable people whose lives would be at risk in their home countries.

– Alysha Mohamed

Photo: Flickr

, , , ,

5 Facts About US Foreign Aid During COVID-19

U.S. Foreign Aid During COVID-19The year 2020’s sudden outbreak of COVID-19 caught many countries off guard. The U.S. is demonstrating its status as a global superpower by releasing economic, medical and other foreign aid during COVID-19.

5 Facts About US Foreign Aid During COVID-19

  1. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has given more than $1.5 billion to different governments and organizations during the pandemic. The government split the money among various humanitarian, developmental and economic programs and organizations. The aid aims to help sustain governments at risk during the pandemic. It also intends to make the public more aware of COVID-19 and how to combat it. Additionally, the aid from the U.S. will go toward improving health education and hospitals, funding quick response teams capable of inhibiting COVID-19’s spread. The U.S. Government has also planned a $4 billion relief fund to aid high-risk countries through COVAX, a program that provides vaccines to low-income countries.
  2. The U.S. State Department works alongside other organizations. USAID and the CDC help the U.S. Government provide the necessary aid to countries at high risk. Congress created an emergency fund of $2.4 billion with the purpose of supporting both humanitarian programs and security and stabilization programs for countries in need. For example, foreign aid helps countries create safe and secure ways for citizens to receive necessary medical care during the pandemic.
  3. The U.S. gave the most foreign aid in 2020. In 2020, the U.S. gave around $35 billion in aid, with Germany close behind at just shy of $30 billion. The global amount of money that has gone toward COVID-19 relief measures is equal to about $16 trillion. U.S. foreign aid during COVID-19 is only around 1% of that. The majority of foreign aid during COVID-19 went toward short-term solutions, such as the aforementioned public health education programs and hospital care programs.
  4. U.S. foreign aid programs help combat more than just COVID-19. Recently, the House of Representatives passed an $11 billion bill to support countries in need, including through the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
  5. The U.S. has approved $1.9 trillion in COVID-19 aid. Of that $1.9 trillion, the U.S. has dedicated $11 billion to fight the global pandemic. That $11 billion includes $800 million for aid programs from the U.S. Agency for International Development as well as the CDC Global Fund. The remaining $10 billion will support global health, humanitarian aid and economic aid.

To conclude, the U.S. has provided more aid than any other nation to help countries combat the COVID-19 pandemic. This has allowed many at-risk countries to minimize or at least lessen the impact of the disease.

– Jake Herbetko
Photo: Flickr