FICTIONAL FLOTATION DEVICE
- Mar 16
- 15 min read
Updated: Oct 20
Nicholas Kristof — The New York Times
Elon Musk says that no one has died because he slashed humanitarian aid. I went to South Sudan to check if that's true. It's not. Within an hour of starting interviews, I had the names of a 10-year-old boy and an 8-year-old girl who had died because of decisions by wealthy men in Washington.
The visit that moved me the most was to a remote area that used to have no health care, where women routinely died in childbirth. Then a US-funded maternity clinic opened through @UNFPA in December, and not one woman has died since. I showed up, and people mistakenly thought I was responsible for the clinic. One new mom wanted to name her baby for me, and the village elders thanked me and hailed America's generosity. What they didn't know was that Trump/Musk had cut all funding for UNFPA and that as a result the maternity clinic will close this month, and women will once again be bleeding to death in the dust…
So, what of this? What immediately stands out for me here is the last sentence “Trump/Musk had cut all funding for UNFPA…” To begin with, do you think the US is the sole funder for the UNFPA? Sounds like that’s what’s being offered (intentionally or otherwise.) And how many readers will be left with that impression? Doubtless, plenty. Further, do you think America provides all or even most of the funding to UNFPA operations just in Africa or East Africa or maybe the UNFPA's entire South Sudan program? Is your sense that all such health and humanitarian aid organizations are entirely reliant upon US taxpayer gifts?
On that thought, what do you think running an emergency maternity clinic in rural South Sudan, even for a decade, could possibly cost? (Having spent time in rural Uganda, the nation immediately south, I would guess very little, shockingly little… Probably less than the cost of a stairway to nowhere in Canada...) And do you believe the UNFPA and other UN groups and NGOs have no similarly allocated resources going to South Sudan or neighbouring nations and that none of that funding, medical materiel, or personnel could shift (without killing people the moment those resources move)?
What, and then you think that the doctors working for these folks (from South Africa, Belgium, New Zealand, Japan and elsewhere who volunteer their time and expertise in crisis situations and who have no financial concerns but also other sources of funding) would have no choice but to drop everything and walk away only to let people bleed out — and would do so over half the price of a latte (or even a ten thousand lattes)? And you think all this took place the moment these emergency physicians (saving lives by the hour) were notified taxpayer dollars from America would be cut off?
Well, it has to be asked: What universe do you live in?
These are all wild claims. (Yes, I see all the above as explicit claims of the author. Why? Because they’re all so firmly implied and, really, required to make the assertions the author does…) So, let’s pretend you didn’t know the answer to any of these questions. How hard would it be to find answers? At the very least, don’t all organizations of this sort have websites and don't they also publish annual reports that include their funding sources and expenses as well as their program’s (real or make-believe) outcomes? And what do you think happens when we open up any recent annual report for any UN agency? It’s going to be all or even mostly US taxpayer funding?
