This is your point of view. Atul Gawande’s point of view is that USAID has saved >92M lives and that its discontinuation has killed hundreds of thousands, almost all of them in the Global South, and the evidence for this claim is peer-reviewed public health research [0]. I’m sure you have a point, but claiming that USAID was just a propaganda outfit is incomprehensible to me.
Not just propaganda but also psychological operations. It's literally in the name. Their logo colors AID in red [1] so that people think they are an aid organization which they have never been. The money allocated them went to bribing foreign officials, altering narratives, changing policies, blackmailing people, etc... It is very likely that the narratives about cutting funding to them affecting food or other aid programs was likely created by them in attempt to save their organization.
Their name actually stands for United States Agency for International Development
Wasn't the big idea China continuing it, and then getting the benefits of propaganda and regime change operations for itself? That was why everyone said cutting USAID was stupid.
Turns out China makes countries dependent on loans, then effectively colonizes countries, usually for resources. No aid for hearts and minds ...
Of course, that and the fact that it would reverse gains on things like AIDS, thus killing a lot of people.
USAID is just U.S. propaganda and regime change operations wrapped in a veneer of "aide." Of course China wouldn't continue those operations.
This is your point of view. Atul Gawande’s point of view is that USAID has saved >92M lives and that its discontinuation has killed hundreds of thousands, almost all of them in the Global South, and the evidence for this claim is peer-reviewed public health research [0]. I’m sure you have a point, but claiming that USAID was just a propaganda outfit is incomprehensible to me.
[0] https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund...
Not just propaganda but also psychological operations. It's literally in the name. Their logo colors AID in red [1] so that people think they are an aid organization which they have never been. The money allocated them went to bribing foreign officials, altering narratives, changing policies, blackmailing people, etc... It is very likely that the narratives about cutting funding to them affecting food or other aid programs was likely created by them in attempt to save their organization.
Their name actually stands for United States Agency for International Development
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usaid
Wasn't the big idea China continuing it, and then getting the benefits of propaganda and regime change operations for itself? That was why everyone said cutting USAID was stupid.
Turns out China makes countries dependent on loans, then effectively colonizes countries, usually for resources. No aid for hearts and minds ...
Of course, that and the fact that it would reverse gains on things like AIDS, thus killing a lot of people.
Where is the EU in all of this?
If you wanted to indiscriminately reduce the human population globally... this would be the way to do it.