海角社区官网

And there were the eyes of the American people 鈥� who were, Kennedy believed, not as insular and selfish as some politicians believed, but were in fact 鈥渇ully aware of their obligations to the sick, the poor and the hungry, wherever they may live.鈥�

More than 60 years after the creation of the United States Agency for International Development, it is at risk of complete abolition. President Donald Trump and his lackey Elon Musk have pilfered tens of billions of dollars from the American foreign aid budget. While we don鈥檛 yet know the full extent of the cuts, this chaos has already shuttered programs which treat HIV/AIDS, stop the spread of tuberculosis, provide support for farmers, promote democracy, and

A new paper, models the impact of these cuts: Without USAID, over the next decade-and-a-half the world could see 15 million additional AIDS deaths, two million deaths from TB, eight million additional child deaths, and more than 10 million deaths from unsafe abortions. Without American support, the eyes of the world will see 鈥渟harp increases in avoidable mortality for the poorest countries.鈥�

The Trump administration has been unmoved by the death and devastation these cuts will have. Humanitarian groups have called on other rich countries to : Thus far most major economies, seized with Trump鈥檚 other chaotic decisions, have mostly ignored them.

That includes Canada.

In this federal election, Canadians are faced with a binary choice: A Liberal leader who is hinting he might cut our foreign aid a little bit; and a Conservative leader who promises he鈥檒l cut foreign aid almost entirely.

Even before the campaign, Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre promised that he would 鈥渃ut back on foreign aid to dictators, terrorists, and global bureaucracy.鈥� When he released his costed platform on Tuesday, we finally got specifics about what that means: A $9.5 billion reduction in our foreign aid budget over four years. That鈥檚 an 85 per cent reduction in our aid spending. That will mean defunding critical health care, slashing development assistance, axing disaster relief, and ending a litany of other life-saving and security-building programs. Just like Trump.

I have repeatedly asked the Conservative party for details about those cuts and have been consistently ignored.

The Liberals, meanwhile, put plenty of lofty language in their platform 鈥� 鈥渙ur sovereignty, security, and prosperity are tied to broader global stability,鈥� the Liberals write. But in their spending plan, there is no new money for foreign aid at all 鈥斅� just a promise that Carney, if elected, would maintain 鈥渙ur international humanitarian assistance budget at no less than $800 million per year.鈥�

But Canada currently spends in humanitarian assistance per year. And while humanitarian assistance is important, it is just one piece of our overall overall foreign aid.

Carney has taken to promising that 鈥渁s America retreats from the world, Canada will lead it.鈥� So I asked Carney on Tuesday: Will Canada step up to prevent the looming humanitarian disaster that threatens to emerge as a result of Trump鈥檚 cuts?

Carney鈥檚 response was entirely generic. 鈥淐anadians are generous people 鈥� a sensible people, but we are generous people,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e take care of each other. That’s what our plan does. And we look out to do what we can for others.鈥澛�

Carney instead took the opportunity to take a swipe at Poilievre鈥檚 proposed cuts. It鈥檚 a plan, he said, 鈥渆choing what Elon Musk and Donald Trump are doing in the United States.鈥� While he did not commit to actually increasing Canada鈥檚 commitment, nor did he rule out cuts, the Liberal leader recognized the human toll of America鈥檚 retreat and insisted 鈥渨e will look to do what we can.鈥�

Indeed, Canada currently provides foreign aid to help populations recover from natural disasters in East Asia, funds policing and security services in South America, tracks potential pandemics in worldwide, investigates war crimes in Ukraine, provides maternal health in sub-Saharan Africa, and helps countries provide for themselves 鈥� by promoting agriculture, fighting corruption, and providing stability. But we need to be talking about expanding that work, not cutting it or keeping it at the status quo.

It is hard, I know, to support sending Canadian dollars abroad when it feels like everything is broken here. But we have to believe that it is both necessary and possible to make things better here whilst also preventing catastrophe and misery over there.

That鈥檚 not to say that Canada needs to empty our coffers. Instead, it just needs to meet the standard of its peers.

At present, Ottawa spends about 0.3 per cent of its GDP on foreign aid 鈥� far below the 0.7 per cent target rich countries agreed to decades ago, and behind Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Norway, and a list of others.

That disparity can鈥檛 stand. Given we are about to assume the chair of the G7, it is prime time to rectify our status as foreign aid laggard. In doing so, we may be able to encourage and crowd in more funding from our other allies, perhaps spreading out the burden to replace the lost American support.

Let’s also consider this selfishly. When Kennedy first created USAID, it was not pure altruism or utopian dreaming which informed his actions: It was also a hard-nosed recognition that American largesse could be used to win friends and influence people. Foreign aid was a bulwark against Soviet influence and a bet that these nations would grow into reliable trading partners. It was a smart bet which helped cement America as the leader of the free world.

Spending now to alleviate poverty, famine, and conflict now also means saving money on security later. The waves of refugees and asylum-seekers who have arrived on the doorsteps of Canada, the United States, and Europe over the past decade did not materialize out of thin air: They are fleeing tragedies that our action could have helped prevent. In some cases they are even the byproduct of decisions we made ourselves 鈥� our bombing of Libya in 2011, for example, destabilized the whole region and helped spur an insurgency in the Sahel that continues to rage. (And which Russia and China are now for their own benefits.)

But that prior era of America as global leader is, as Carney reminds us often, over. Given that, I asked the Liberal leader, what does he actually want to accomplish? Does he want to take on a larger role in ending the wars in Ukraine and Gaza? Does he hope to push for new climate action? Would he seek to reform the United Nations? Help bring prosperity to the continent of Africa or security to the island of Haiti?

In response, Carney pointed to the same things he鈥檚 been talking about for weeks: Partnering with Europe on defence production, building more advanced technology in Canada, and finding new 鈥� but unspecified 鈥� trade partners.

It鈥檚 hard not to like Carney鈥檚 message: 鈥渁 confident Canada, a Canada with a plan to grow, a Canada that wants to reach out to the world.鈥� And I confess I want to believe Carney when he says 鈥渨e can shape that new system鈥� of global order.聽

But we鈥檝e heard this song and dance before from his predecessor. Justin Trudeau had considerably more latitude 鈥� and budget 鈥� to improve Canada鈥檚 standing in the world. But, despite his insistence that 鈥淐anada is back,鈥� we actually slid further into irrelevance. We continued to be miserly on foreign aid, we resisted calls to send peacekeepers into conflicts where they could have done good, and we utterly failed to reform the global institutions which are about to take on a new-found relevance.

It is abundantly clear that Poilievre shares Trump鈥檚 disdain and indifference for the rest of the world. And that Carney is serious about standing up. But the world is set to become a considerably poorer, more dangerous, and unstable place.聽

If we act now we can help prevent the worst. We shouldn鈥檛, as we so often do, wait for someone else to fix things.