Tag: Trump

  • Trump’s aid freeze sparks mayhem around the world

    Trump’s aid freeze sparks mayhem around the world

    In Ghana and Kenya, insecticide and mosquito nets sit in warehouses because U.S. officials haven’t approved urgent anti-malaria campaigns.

    In Haiti, a group treating HIV patients awaits U.S. permission to dispense medicines that prevent mothers from giving the disease to their children.

    In Myanmar, where famine looms and the U.S is the single largest aid donor, one humanitarian worker described the situation as “mayhem.”

    Nearly three weeks into U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping freeze on foreign aid, life-saving programs across the globe remain shut as humanitarian workers struggle to secure U.S. government waivers meant to keep them open, dozens of aid workers and U.N. staff told Reuters.

    After Trump announced the 90-day freeze on January 20, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued waivers for what he called “life-saving humanitarian assistance,” which included “core life-saving medicine, medical services, food, shelter, and subsistence assistance.”

    But aid workers and U.N. officials said the waivers had sparked widespread confusion, along with fears that their U.S. funding would never be restored.

    They said they couldn’t restart work without first confirming with their U.S. counterparts whether specific programs qualified for exemption. This was proving nearly impossible, they said, due to a communication breakdown with U.S. officials, some of whom had been fired or barred from talking.

    The breakdown appeared partly by design. On January 31, staff at the United States Agency for International Development, once the main delivery mechanism for American largesse, were told not to communicate externally about the waiver and what it may or may not include, according to a previously unreported recording of the meeting reviewed by Reuters.

    The U.S. State Department and White House did not respond to requests for comment.

    The spiraling consequences of the aid freeze in developing countries underline the real-world harms from Trump’s upending of decades-old U.S. initiatives designed to build global alliances by making America the world’s most generous superpower and largest single aid donor.

    Aid workers had a list of urgent questions going unanswered. Among them: Which programs could continue? What qualifies as life-saving aid? Food? Shelter? Medicine? And how do they keep people from dying when almost every aid service has been shut at once?

    With little guidance from U.S. officials, aid workers said their organizations erred on the side of caution and closed programs rather than incur expenses that the U.S. government might not reimburse, the aid workers said. Some described how U.S partners – often people they had worked with for years – no longer answered their phones or emails.

    One Geneva-based aid official who reached U.S. officials was stunned by their response. “We asked: Can you tell us exactly which programs we need to stop? Then we got a message saying ‘no more guidance is forthcoming’. This leaves us in a situation where you have to make a choice of which program is ‘life-saving’,” the official said. “We don’t have money to pay for it ourselves. We can’t spend money we don’t know if we have.”

    The turmoil was particularly acute at USAID, now in disarray and targeted for closure as a “criminal organization” by Trump’s government efficiency tsar, the billionaire Elon Musk.

    In his executive order, Trump said the U.S. “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy” were “in many cases antithetical to American values.” He ordered the 90-day pause pending a review on whether aid was consistent with his “America First” foreign policy.

    Most of those who spoke to Reuters requested anonymity, fearful of antagonizing the Trump administration and jeopardizing the possible restoration of aid.

    wo workers with aid organizations in Myanmar told Reuters they didn’t know whether U.S.-funded food distribution in the country was covered by a waiver and would continue. One of the workers described the situation as “mayhem.” Myanmar faces a severe food crisis due to natural disasters and a spiraling civil war. An estimated two million people in the country are on the brink of famine, according to the U.N.

    Refugees also bore the brunt of the aid freeze in Bangladesh, where the U.S funds about 55% of assistance to more than a million Rohingya from Myanmar living in squalid camps. “Some essential and life-saving services” had been interrupted by the freeze, said the Inter Sector Coordination Group, an international relief organization that oversees the camps, in a previously unreported draft statement to local aid groups. The group didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    A U.N. official in Bangladesh seeking clarity on which programs could remain open said U.S. counterparts were “not answering the phones.”

    In Africa, humanitarian workers were due to start anti-malaria spraying campaigns this month in Ghana and Kenya before mosquito populations explode during the rainy season, but insecticide and mosquito nets are stuck in warehouses, said a USAID contractor.

    A USAID memo, dated February 4 and seen by Reuters on Saturday, said “life-saving activities” to address malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases and conditions would be exempt from the freeze. But campaigns to protect millions of people appeared on hold as aid workers sought clarification on when funding would resume and specific malaria programs in Africa could restart, the contractor said.

    alaria, a preventable disease, is caused by parasites transmitted to people by the bites of infected mosquitoes. The vast majority of the world’s 597,000 malaria deaths in 2023 were African children aged under five years old, the World Health Organization said in December.

    “There is a small window to do those campaigns which is going to close rapidly,” said the USAID contractor.

    Millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars already spent on supplies to fight malaria in Africa could go to waste, aid workers said. Malaria No More, a global nonprofit based in Washington, said the freeze could prevent the distribution of 15.6 million life-saving treatments, nine million nets and 48 million doses of preventative medicine.

    The U.S. is the top donor in the global fight against malaria, mostly through the President’s Malaria Initiative, known as PMI, set up under former President George W. Bush in 2005. PMI’s website – which included information on populations at risk of malaria – has been taken down and replaced with a brief statement: “In order to be consistent with the President’s Executive Orders, this website is currently undergoing maintenance as we expeditiously and thoroughly review all of the content.”

    Read Also: Trump signs order barring trans athletes from women’s sports

    “It’s as if all the work . . . has just been erased,” said Anne Linn, a USAID staffer who worked remotely from Montana as a technical advisor and was fired on Jan. 28. “It’s so cruel and senseless,” she said. “The wastefulness of it is staggering to me.”

    In Haiti, a program that provides treatment to AIDS patients was supposed to be exempt from the aid freeze under a State Department waiver but remained shut because it hadn’t received specific written instructions to open, said a worker at the nonprofit program. She said funding for the program came from the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known as PEPFAR, the world’s leading initiative to combat HIV.

    The State Department, which manages PEPFAR, said on February 1 that the program was covered by the waiver for life-saving humanitarian assistance. But the aid worker said she hadn’t received paperwork confirming that they could continue to distribute medicine.

    “Everything is closed until further notice,” she said. Pregnant women were at risk because the program provides medication that can prevent HIV transmission to their infants, she added. She said more than half of Haiti’s 150,000 AIDS patients received treatment through PEPFAR.

    In 2024, the U.S. provided 60% of Haiti’s humanitarian funding, totaling $208 million, according to the U.N.’s Financial Tracking Service.

  • Fury in India over U.S. allegedly flying deportees

    Fury in India over U.S. allegedly flying deportees

    Proceedings in India’s parliament were disrupted yesterday as opposition lawmakers protested against the Trump administration’s alleged mistreatment of over 100 Indian migrants who were deported on an American military plane back to the country — apparently in handcuffs and ankle chain.

    A U.S. military plane carrying 104 deported Indian migrants arrived in the northern Indian city of Amritsar Wednesday, the first such flight to the country as part of a crackdown on undocumented migrants ordered by the Trump administration.

    The U.S. Department of Defense confirmed that an Air Force C-17 plane was used for the flight.

    Multiple Indian lawmakers alleged yesterday in parliament that the deportees’ arms and legs were shackled during the entire journey, and the legislature was forced to adjourn proceedings as they disrupted the chamber with their chants.

    Read Also: Nigeria becoming hub for reverse medical tourism – Shettima

    “We are protesting precisely this issue — that the manner in which the U.S. did what they did was really unacceptable,” Shashi Tharoor, a member of parliament with the Indian National Congress, told reporters. “We believe they have a legal right to deport people who are illegally in their country. And if they are proven to be Indian nationals, we have a legal obligation to admit them, to accept them in our country. But the manner in which it was done, in handcuffs, squeezed into a military aircraft, in such an abrupt manner, is not acceptable.”

    Daler Singh, one of the deported migrants, was quoted by the Reuters news agency as saying: “Our hands and legs were cuffed throughout… They did not unlock our cuffs even when we ate.”

    U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael W. Banks shared a 24-second video Wednesday on social media that appears to show a line of the deportees being led onto a military plane with their legs in chains.

  • Netanyahu praises Trump plan to move Palestinians out of Gaza

    Netanyahu praises Trump plan to move Palestinians out of Gaza

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday there was nothing wrong in Donald Trump’s idea of displacing Palestinians from Gaza after the U.S. president’s proposal drew international criticism.

    Rights groups have condemned as ethnic cleansing Trump’s suggestion the previous day that Palestinians in the enclave should be permanently displaced, while also proposing a U.S. takeover of Gaza.

    In an interview with Fox News, Netanyahu did not explicitly talk about Trump’s idea of the United States taking over the Gaza Strip but backed the idea of “allowing Gazans who want to leave to leave.”

    He added, “I mean, what’s wrong with that? They can leave, they can then come back, they can relocate and come back. But you have to rebuild Gaza.”

    Netanyahu said he did not believe Trump suggested sending U.S. troops to fight Hamas in Gaza or that Washington would finance rebuilding efforts.

    “This is the first good idea that I’ve heard,” he added. “It’s a remarkable idea, and I think it should be really pursued, examined, pursued and done, because I think it will create a different future for everyone.”

    Since Jan. 25, Trump has repeatedly suggested that Palestinians in Gaza should be taken in by regional Arab nations such as Egypt and Jordan, an idea rejected by both the Arab states and Palestinian leaders.

    Read Also: Netanyahu, Trump and Palestine

    Trump’s aides defended his proposal but backed away from elements of it after international condemnation.

    U.S. ally Israel’s military assault on Gaza, now paused by a fragile ceasefire, has killed more than 47,000 Palestinians in the last 16 months, the Gaza health ministry says, and provoked accusations of genocide and war crimes that Israel denies.

    The assault internally displaced nearly all of Gaza’s population and caused a hunger crisis.
    The latest bloodshed in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict was triggered on October 7, 2023, when Palestinian Hamas militants attacked Israel, killing 1,200 and taking some 250 hostages, Israeli tallies show.

    REUTERS

  • Trump’s sledgehammer on immigrants

    Trump’s sledgehammer on immigrants

     Sir: These days, it’s almost impossible to scroll through social media without coming across videos of United States’ law enforcement officials chasing suspected undocumented immigrants, arresting them, or escorting them to the airport for deportation. It’s like a scene straight out of a Hollywood thriller—people abandoning their cars at the sight of law enforcement officers and sprinting for their lives, while American police give chase with relentless determination. Those who get caught are swiftly detained, while the ones who escape are left for another day. 

    Seeing grown men and women who left their countries in search of greener pastures being bundled into waiting police vans and driven straight to the airport for deportation feels like watching a dream shatter in real time. It’s a harsh reminder that for many, the American dream has become a nightmare—one where years of struggle, sacrifice, and hope are erased in an instant, replaced by the cold reality of forced return to the very circumstances they sought to escape.

    This is precisely why Trump’s detractors are condemning his deportation strategies, pointing out that they could usher in an era of human rights violations as well as large-scale trauma which could affect families and communities more likely to be targeted by mass deportations. I personally struggle to imagine the kind of horrors that many potential deportees, especially those who have lived in the U.S. for years, will now be forced to contend with.

    Do people not remember that Biden carried out deportations as well, with about 271,000 immigrants being flown out to approximately 192 countries in just 2024? As a matter of fact, Biden deported a total of 1.5 million illegal immigrants during his four years as the 46th President. The Biden-led administration’s deportation numbers are surprisingly at par with the numbers Trump pulled in his initial term, but shockingly, both of them pale in comparison to the sheer scale of deportations carried out under Barack Obama’s first term—a staggering estimate of 2.9 million people.

    Read Also: NIGERIA’S VP BACKS MO ABUDU’S NAIJA CREATES, A BOLDMOVE TO SHOWCASE NIGERIA’S CREATIVE EXCELLENCE INLONDON AND BEYOND

    Nigerians have a term for the burst of aggressiveness that Trump is infusing into the first few weeks of his fresh presidency—initial gra-gra. This term usually refers to instances where someone or something performs at high capacity at the beginning, only to falter, recede or even quit in due time. The Trump administration is unlikely to successfully enforce the scale of mass deportations it impressed upon Republican voters during its election campaigns. There have been legitimate concerns that the United States might not be able to fully fund that level of determination.

    This crisis our compatriots currently face in America further reinforces my belief that Nigeria is all we have.  For the average Nigerian facing the daily struggles of living in this country, this may be hard to believe—until they find themselves caught in the web of a Donald Trump deportation order.

    World War 2 and following the Cold War, the United States of America has been tasked with maintaining world order through military might while also setting the pace for global trade and commerce. This role seemed like it would be a longstanding tradition. The United States would lead, and others would follow. But now, in the aftermath of costly adventurism and economic decline, it appears that Trump’s America is looking to upend this order by favouring a more self-centred, insular and transactional approach towards how it relates with the rest of the world.

    Could we be witnessing the start of a new era where US influence and dominance would recede, enabling the rise of a rival economy such as China?

    Would America really begin to put itself first? Or would the world be treated to an endless tussle where policies established by a conservative and Republican administration inevitably get upturned by a liberal and Democratic government? How long does this back-and-forth need to go on before the rest of the world either weans itself off American support, or steps up to renounce this epileptic world order?

    I just hope that during the course of the next few years or so, Nigeria in particular will not only reconsider its precarious position in the world order, but move progressively towards a more dignified and exalted state. We cannot allow ourselves to be comfortable with the idea of being yet another immigrant nation.

    Nigeria is one African nation that can step up to not only restore its deserved image as a leading centre of great potential, talent, resources and innovation, we can find the requisite strength to lead this blessed continent and finally place “Africa First!”

    •Zayd Ibn Isah,lawcadet1@gmail.com

  • Trump’s transformation of the democratic system

    Trump’s transformation of the democratic system

    • By Magnus Onyibe

    President Donald J. Trump is actively reshaping the global political landscape, navigating the tension between globalization and fragmentation to establish a new order in the United States and, by extension, the world.

    I must disclose that I am an unapologetic supporter of the 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. My support stems from my belief that he is undeniably a catalyst for change.

    Many, including Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, have accused Trump of seeking to dismantle democracy. However, a more accurate assessment is that he is challenging the status quo in Washington through radical policy shifts. While Democrats frame his actions as a threat to democracy, I see this as a misleading narrative.

    Despite the alarm raised by his opponents, American voters prioritized economic concerns—rising inflation, the high cost of living, soaring housing prices, and the influx of undocumented immigrants—over the warnings about democracy. It was these pressing issues that motivated voters to support Trump’s return to the White House.

    The more than 77 million Americans who voted for him did so because they believe he was elected to address what they see as a “woke” and financially struggling America. According to the Oxford Dictionary, “woke” refers to those who are socially aware but is often used pejoratively to describe individuals perceived as self-righteous or overly dogmatic in their advocacy.

    Read Also: FG threatens to take over incomplete Lagos-Ibadan expressway sections April

    True to his promises, Trump wasted no time in implementing his agenda. During his inauguration, he took a strong stance against “woke” ideology by affirming that the U.S. Constitution recognizes only two genders—male and female—a direct challenge to the LGBTQ+ community. He has since followed through on his pledges by signing a series of executive orders aimed at radically reshaping America.

    From my perspective, Trump is simply fulfilling the commitments he made during his campaign. The backlash from those negatively affected by his policies is therefore unsurprising, yet it should not overshadow the fact that he is delivering the change that millions of Americans willingly voted for, believing it will restore the country’s greatness.

    As the leader of the free world, the U.S. exerts enormous influence on global affairs, reinforcing the popular saying: when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. This is evident in Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on key trading partners—25% on Mexico, 25% on general goods plus Canadian 10% on Canadian oil, and 10% on China—primarily to curb illegal immigration and combat the flow of fentanyl, a deadly drug ravaging American communities.

    Before Trump even took office, his threats of tariff hikes caused global concern. However, World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, urged caution: “I am concerned, but my approach is to stay calm. Let’s wait to see what policies are actually enacted before overreacting.”

    Despite this advice, some countries affected by the new tariffs —especially Mexico and Canada—have already announced retaliatory tariffs, raising fears of an all-out trade war. Meanwhile, China has opted for a legal approach, filing complaints against the U.S. through the WTO.

    Anticipating the economic impact of the trade war, President Trump has urged Americans to brace for temporary hardships, acknowledging that tariffs might contribute to inflation. However, he remains confident that the outcome will ultimately benefit the country, declaring: “This will be the golden age of America. Will there be some pain? Yes. But we will make America great again, and it will be worth the price.”

    This sentiment is reminiscent of Nigerian President Bola Tinubu’s remarks when he removed the long-standing fuel subsidy and floated the naira, leading to economic hardship for Nigerians. He reassured the nation, saying: “I understand that our people are suffering, but there can be no childbirth without pain. The joy of childbirth is the baby. Relief comes after the pain. Nigeria is being reborn.”

    Trump’s policies signal a fundamental shift away from globalization—a concept introduced between 1870 and 1914 and later popularized in 1983 by economist Theodore Levitt in “The Globalization of Markets.” The current global order, shaped by decades of economic integration, now faces disruption under Trump’s America First doctrine, which prioritizes national interests over international cooperation.

    Interestingly, Trump’s long-held stance on tariffs is not new. In a resurfaced 1978 interview with Oprah Winfrey, he expressed similar views; making it clear that his current trade policies have been decades in the making.

    Rather than viewing Trump’s policies as purely negative, it may be worth considering the potential opportunities they create for Africa. Instead of getting caught up in narratives of doom and gloom, could this be a moment for the continent to reposition itself as a key player in the evolving global trade landscape.

    It is time for the world to recognize that Africa is not a problem to be solved but a vital part of the global solution. The continent holds vast reserves of critical minerals essential for the energy transition that the world desperately seeks. Rather than being viewed merely as a supplier of raw materials, Africa should be seen as a prime destination for investment and industrial partnerships.

    As a long-time advocate for Africa’s economic resurgence, I have consistently argued that the continent needs trade, not aid. It is imperative that major global economies shift their perception of Africa from a passive recipient of aid to an active economic partner. Historically, Africa has been exploited—most notably through the partitioning of the continent at the 1884–1885 Berlin Conference, where European powers divided African territories for their own benefit. As a result, Africa has remained marginalized in global trade, accounting for less than 3% of total global trade, despite having 18% of the world’s population.

    To secure a greater share of global trade, Africa must be integrated into the evolving international economic order. Without disruptions to the existing system—such as those triggered by President Trump’s policies—meaningful change is unlikely. Given the resistance Africa has faced in its bid to gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, a fundamental shift in global power structures, like the one Trump is advocating, may be necessary for Africa to be taken seriously as a key player in international trade.

    At this moment in history, the world may actually benefit from the tensions between defenders of the entrenched old order and leaders like Trump, who are determined to shake up the system.

    Throughout history, transformative change has always required bold action. If astronauts had not pushed boundaries, Neil Armstrong would never have walked on the moon in 1969, a breakthrough that reshaped human understanding of the universe. Similarly, astronomer Galileo’s discoveries challenged the belief that the earth was flat, paving the way for modern scientific thought. It is this same drive for progress that appears to be fuelling Trump’s disruptive approach to governance.

    Keyu Jin, a professor of economics and author of The New China Playbook, recently highlighted a growing shift in global trade patterns, noting that China and other nations have been diversifying their markets away from the U.S. even before the current tariff wars. Trump’s policies are merely accelerating this trend. In Europe, for instance, we are seeing a rise in nationalist-leaning leaders, particularly in France and Germany, who are also prioritizing domestic interests over globalism.

    This geopolitical realignment is further evident in the expansion of BRICS—a coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—which has recently welcomed new members like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt. As more countries join BRICS to counterbalance U.S. influence, efforts to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar in global trade may intensify. If America continues using tariffs as a tool to pressure its trading partners, it risks pushing them further toward alternative alliances, potentially diminishing its own economic influence.

    •Onyibe, a public policy analyst, sent this piece from Lagos.

  • Anti-immigration policies – Why harsh new rules put in place by Trump and other rich countries won’t last

    Anti-immigration policies – Why harsh new rules put in place by Trump and other rich countries won’t last

    • By Alan Hirsch

    Donald Trump, America’s new president, has cut back massively on US commitments to asylum seekers, blocked all asylum processes and started to remove irregular immigrants.

    Trump’s new measures are far reaching. They include the suspension of the US refugee admissions programme. Flights booked for refugees to the US have been cancelled. Arrests and deportations have begun.

    Strongly anti-immigrant policies were also pursued under the Biden administration, though Trump’s dramatic steps take them much further. Other countries in the global north have also introduced tougher policies. The 2024 EU Pact on Migration and Asylum sets out tougher border controls, quicker assessment of asylum seekers and swifter removal of those who did not qualify. In the UK, Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer has promised to bring down the net migration rate and treat people-smugglers like terrorists.

    Based on my research into migration over the past 30 years I believe that these measures are unlikely to last. There are two linked trends that make closing the borders of the global north impractical and destined for revision.

    The first is that populations in most of the global north are ageing fast (on average) and the fertility rate, or natural population growth rate, has plummeted. There are many more older people as a percentage of the population.

    Read Also: FG threatens to take over incomplete Lagos-Ibadan expressway sections April

    Secondly, with a workforce shrinking and the dependency ratio (the proportion of non-working to working people) rising rapidly, closing borders to potential labourers from other countries, without any other change, would lead to declining living standards in the global north. Economic growth and government revenues would slow or stagnate, undermining infrastructure maintenance and social service provision.

    There are several possible strategies that could be alternatives to anti-immigration measures. Some older people could migrate south, robots and AI could do more work, workers in the global south could perform remote work for the north, and arrangements could be made to allow migrants into the north either permanently or as circulating migrants.

    All these strategies are already in use, if modestly. Their application would have to expand considerably.

    Misplaced panic

    The responses of governments in the global north are exaggerated. Governments putting in place tough anti-immigrant measures have done so on the back of a narrative that there’s been a significant rise in the number of migrants worldwide.

    This isn’t true. Some countries, such as the US, Germany and Colombia, have seen a spike in refugees and other migrants. But for the rest of the world the picture remains much the same as it has done for decades.

    Foreign-born residents (the most widely used definition of migrants) rose as a proportion of residents worldwide from 2.3% in 1970 to 3.6% in 2020. But in 1960 the number was over 3%, and in the late 1800s migrants made up somewhere between 3% and 5% of the global population.

    So, 3.6% is nothing new.

    As for refugees, in 2023 there were about 38 million, of whom 69% sought refuge in neighbouring countries and 75% in middle- and low-income countries.

    In general, therefore, rich countries have not been carrying the greatest burden.

    The real reason behind these tougher measures is that living standards have stagnated in many countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The cost and availability of housing have worsened; inequality has grown since the 1980s; the quality and availability of public services have deteriorated since the global financial crisis of 2008 and COVID-19; and the quality of employment has shifted to precarious work and poorly paid service sector occupations.

    This has contributed to the rise of populism, including anti-foreigner sentiment and even xenophobia.

    Trump’s actions are the most extreme yet. They include an order to block “aliens involved in the invasion” using “appropriate measures” that give the security forces further powers. The prohibition of southern border asylum hearings in the US and the instruction to “remain in Mexico” means that prospective asylum seekers from third countries may not cross the border to make their applications at the port of entry. They must apply remotely.

    Trump has also ordered that birth right citizenship must be limited to the children of certain categories of residents, essentially citizens or those with residence rights in the form of a “green card”. This move has been temporarily blocked in some states by judges as unconstitutional.

    In addition, the acting head of the Homeland Security Department gave Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials the power to deport migrants admitted temporarily into the US under several programmes of the Biden administration, targeting refugees from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti, and possibly Afghan and Ukrainian refugees too.

    The very first bill to receive final approval from the US Congress under Trump’s second term, the Laken-Riley Act, would require the detention and deportation of migrants who enter the country without authorisation and are charged with certain crimes. This bill was passed with 263 votes and 156 votes against, meaning that 46 House Democrats supported the Republican bill.

    In contrast, in the global south, as I have discussed elsewhere, the trend has been in the opposite direction. South American regional communities liberalised migration most extensively in recent decades, but African regional communities have made progress too, as has the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

    The way forward

    Some alternative strategies are leading the way.

    In Canada, the Temporary Foreign Worker programme has expanded steadily since 1973, increasingly including long-term circulating migrating lower-skilled workers for key occupations like catering, care, construction and agriculture. Though it is currently under political scrutiny because of the panic in the north over migration, and because of housing shortages in Canada, it is likely to survive and evolve. Similar systems are emerging across the global north.

    In the EU, Talent Partnerships are now encouraged. Germany, for example, has talent partnerships with Kenya and Morocco, where they train health workers and IT technicians in those countries to work and live in Germany. Spain has various partnerships in Latin America and Africa. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has chosen to be upfront on the choices. In October last year he told the Spanish people:

    Spain needs to choose between being an open and prosperous country or a closed off poor country.

    The current fashion for population protectionism in the global north is increasingly nasty, but it is unlikely to stand the test of time. Several constructive responses to the rising dependency ratio are feasible, but being open to more migration, possibly in new forms and through new channels, is an inevitable part of the solution.

    New formal pathways for working migrants and reasonable systems for asylum seekers, along with full enforcement of rules against irregular migrants, could be the combination that works politically and economically.

    •Hirsch is Research Fellow New South Institute, Emeritus Professor at The Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance, University of Cape Town. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. “https://theconversation.com/anti-immigration-policies-why-harsh-new-rules-put-in-place-by-trump-and-other-rich-countries-wont-last-248359”

  • Ramaphosa denies ‘confiscating land’ after Trump threatens to cut off aid

    Ramaphosa denies ‘confiscating land’ after Trump threatens to cut off aid

    South African President Cyril Ramaphosa responded on Monday to US President Donald Trump’s threat to cut off aid over the alleged mistreatment of white farmers, denying Trump’s claim that authorities were “confiscating land.”

    “South Africa is a constitutional democracy that is deeply rooted in the rule of law, justice and equality. The South African government has not confiscated any land,” Ramaphosa wrote on X.

    “We look forward to engaging with the Trump administration over our land reform policy and issues of bilateral interest,” he wrote. He added that, while the US was a key strategic political and trade partner, it did not provide significant funding to South Africa besides a major HIV/AIDS relief program.

    His statement comes after Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday that he would cut off all future funding to the country until there was a full investigation into allegations that “South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY.”

    Trump’s long-held complaint, which he’d also made in 2018 during his first term, goes back to the complex land reform in South Africa.

    Racist policies of the past forcefully removed Black and non-White South Africans from the land for White use. There has been a land redistribution and restitution provision in the country’s constitution since South Africa emerged from its apartheid era and held its first democratic elections in 1994.

    However, unemployment and poverty remain acute among Black South Africans, who make up around 80% of the population, yet own a fraction of the land.

    Read Also: BREAKING: Tinubu meets Ramaphosa at 11th Nigeria-South Africa Bi-National commission

    In January, Ramaphosa signed a bill into law that sets forth new guidelines for land expropriation, including enabling the government to expropriate land without compensation in some cases.

    In his X post Monday, Ramaphosa said the law was “not a confiscation instrument,” but a legal process that “ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the constitution.”

    However, constitutional protections against expropriation without compensation still remain in place, and experts believe South Africa’s ruling party will face legal challenges if it seeks to implement the policy.

  • Trump tariffs spark retaliation from Canada, Mexico, China

    Trump tariffs spark retaliation from Canada, Mexico, China

    President Trump’s tariffs are meeting stiff retaliation from the nation’s largest trading partners, who are imposing their own tariffs on U.S. goods in a trade war that threatens to raise prices on both sides.

    Canada and Mexico, the United States’ biggest trading partners, announced plans to hit back against their 25% tariff.

    Meanwhile, China vowed to file a legal case against the U.S. at the World Trade Organisation and threatened counter-measures to the 10% tariff Mr. Trump imposed on all Chinese imports.

    The tit-for-tat raised concerns that a trade war would force American families to pay high prices for everything from gasoline to groceries, automobiles, electronics and toys. The fallout could also lead to higher inflation, further undermining the president’s campaign promise to lower prices.

    Mr. Trump said there could be some short-term pain from the tariffs, which are scheduled to go into effect Tuesday.

    He said it was a necessary step because of U.S. trade deficits with Mexico, Canada and China and to force the three nations to do more to address illegal immigration and illicit drugs, especially fentanyl, flowing into the U.S.

    Read Also: Eight Nigerian Artists to watch out for at 2025 Grammy Awards

    He continued: “Will there be some pain? Yes, maybe (and maybe not!). But we will Make America Great Again, and it will all be worth the price that must be paid.”

    Trump’s three targets for tariffs accounted for 41% of U.S. foreign trade as of November 2024, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Mexico was the top trading partner at $776 billion or 15.9%, followed by Canada at $699 billion or 14.3% and China at $532 billion or 10.9%.

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the tariffs violated the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that Mr. Trump negotiated in 2000 to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1992.

    Trudeau also announced over $100 billion in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. He said it would hurt Canadians but also “have real consequences for you, the American people … at the grocery store, gas at the pump.”

    On Sunday, he urged Canadians to “choose products made right here in Canada.”

    Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman said Canadians are “confused” about why Trump is going after them when they have invested over $1 billion in border security.

  • Trump orders airstrikes on ISIS in Somalia

    Trump orders airstrikes on ISIS in Somalia

    In what appears to be a new onslaught against the Islamic State, the United States President, Donald Trump, on Saturday, ordered military air strikes on the group’s targets in Somalia.

    President Trump said: “This morning I ordered precision military air strikes on the Senior ISIS Attack Planner and other terrorists he recruited and led in Somalia.”

    Speaking on the attack, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the strikes targeted IS-Somalia operatives in the Golis mountains in the semi-autonomous Puntland region.

    “Our initial assessment is that multiple operatives were killed in the airstrikes and no civilians were harmed,” Hegseth said in a statement.

    A military commander in the Bossaso area, Mohamed Ali, confirmed to the AFP that there were casualties, but could not ascertain the number of those killed.

    Read Also: Climate Change: The position of US under Trump’s presidency

    “We believe the missiles precisely hit the targets,” Ali, told AFP by phone.

    “We believe there are casualties of the terrorist leaders, including the foreigners who the Puntland forces were chasing in the last few days,” he said.

    Another member of the army in a nearby area, Abdirahman Adan said they heard “five loud explosions” and saw smoke over the targeted area.

    Puntland has not commented officially about the airstrike so far.

    Hegseth said the strikes further degrade “ISIS’s ability to plot and conduct terrorist attacks threatening US citizens, our partners and innocent civilians, and sends a clear signal that the United States always stands ready to find and eliminate terrorists who threaten the United States and our allies.”

    Islamic State has a relatively small presence in Somalia compared to the Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Shabaab, but experts have warned of growing activity.

    “The message to ISIS and all others who would attack Americans is that ‘We will find you, and we will kill you!’” Trump said in his post.

  • Trump angles for third term, already

    Trump angles for third term, already

    Deeply mortified Americans may soon discover that in voting Donald Trump as president last November, they bought a pig in a poke. They thought they knew him, but they failed to really and cogently inspect the commodity they have now installed in the White House as the 47th president of the United States of America. President Trump utterly lacks circumspection. He was barely two weeks in office when he began to suggest a third term for himself, adjudging that his second term would be insufficient to transform or remake America in line with his dreams. As he put it while addressing the 2025 annual conference of the House of Representatives near Miami, Florida: “I’ve raised a lot of money for the next race that I assume I can’t use for myself, but I’m not 100% sure. Because I don’t know, I think I’m not allowed to run again. Am I allowed to run again?”

    It is unlikely that the worst of African leaders could, less than two weeks in office, begin to campaign for an unconstitutional third term. The US Constitution’s 22nd Amendment makes it impossible to get a third term, except the constitution is amended. To amend the constitution, both the House of Representatives and the Senate would first have to pass an amended bill by two-thirds majority. That would mean 290 agreeing to the amendment out of 435 House members, and 67 out of the 100 senators. At the moment, there are only 218 Republican representatives, and 53 Republican senators. But it gets worse. To complete the amendment process, 38 state legislatures will have to approve the change. However, the Republicans have a majority in 28 state legislatures. President Trump, however, appears willing to defy the odds, convinced that since he defied the odds to win a nonconsecutive second term as president, he could reorder the galaxies.

    Read Also: Amaechi’s comment on Tinubu threat to democracy – Ohanaeze Ndigbo

    President Trump, it is turning out, in case anyone still doubts, to be much worse than any African president. Still feeling euphoric over his election and inauguration, he assumes that his party would clear the mid-term elections and one way or the other go on to cobble a coalition to do the job of entrenching him as president for a third, or as he joked in November, fourth term. In addition, after failing to learn a thing or two from President Joe Biden’s sudden disintegration, he assumes that he would still be cognitively sound and physiologically agile to run another campaign after four years. Talking about and flying the third term kite is overall a waste of time, perhaps to keep Americans preoccupied with fruitless debates.

    What is more remarkable is that no sooner President Trump flew the third term kite than Republican representative Andy Ogles of the State of Tennessee took up the battle cry. President Trump, he said, “has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal…To that end, I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution to revise the limitations imposed by the 22nd Amendment on presidential terms. This amendment would allow President Trump to serve three terms, ensuring that we can sustain the bold leadership our nation so desperately needs.” Flattery, it is sadly clear, is not limited to ‘shithole’ countries. It is a human failing, and it is universal. Both President Trump and Representative Ogles ensure the continuing demystification of America. The US may be militarily powerful and economically dominant, but many of their leaders are as ordinary, if not more deplorable, as any third world leader most of whom would never dare this effrontery.