Dear Editor,
Reference is made to the SN Editorial `A call to action’ (Feb 20) narrating what it describes as ‘stupendous’ acts of Presi-dent Trump on withdrawing from international agreements and World Organiza-tions (like WHO, Paris Climate) and terminating American funding (including USAID) for critical health services in countries that can’t afford them. The editorial advises a call to action, suggesting that other nations (like China) step forward to fill the void. The wealthy Euro-pean bloc can also be appealed upon to assist. Instead of sending US$300 billions to fight an unwinnable war in Ukraine, where over a million people were killed or injured, and hundreds of billions in property destroyed, the EU should consider re-directing the funds towards global health services (to combat AIDS, Polio, other diseases, etc.) and climate change. All the European countries stated they would increase defence spending because Trump stated they would no longer be given a free ride on their own security. Why war funding when people don’t have basic medicines and food?
The editorial also wisely suggests that the WHO Director and others appeal to Mr. Trump to reconsider the withdrawal. The American President may well be willing to revisit USAID and other grant programmes to poor countries if advocates make a strong, convincing case. Foreign leaders will have to speak with one voice to convince Trump on WHO and on aid programmes. While the President is closing USAID; several of its programmes will shift to the Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs) with nations obtaining direct assistance rather than from some international organizations.
There is a bevy of foreign leaders to meet Mr. Trump on a variety of global as well as bilateral issues. Mr. Trump does not have to go and meet them, except that he will travel to Saudi Arabia to engage Putin. They come to kowtow to the powerful American President; it is not known if they appeal to the President to reconsider his withdrawal of agreements and cancellation of funding to critical programmes.
Trump has been consistent in his Executive Orders and public pronouncements on domestic affairs and international relations – America First. That is the new mantra, the realpolitik of the new international order as enunciated by the American Chief Executive, and the globe (including Guyana) will have to get with it. It would not be wise to defy Trump. The US remains the most powerful nation that is promoting its own self interests. There are enough illustrative examples of the last month of what happened to those (and or their states) who sought to speak ill will of or to defy the President. Countries will have to find alternative sources of funding to replace those withdrawn from Washington.
Guyana will have to find ways to fill gaps in our (and NGOs) budget that comes from American foreign assistance that have been withdrawn. As the editorial advises, Guyana should consider reducing the infrastructure budget and other wasteful expenditures and focus more on social programmes that will be affected by American non-funding of what historically has been normative essential services. Another strategy is for Guyanese Ameri-cans to lobby their members of Congress and the Administration for direct assistance to Guyana; half of Guyanese voted for Trump, making him President. Another strategy is for Georgetown to consider entering into specific agreements with Washington that could bring direct foreign assistance (Secretary of State) from USA.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
