Presented by Boehringer Ingelheim
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation claims to be an irreplaceable lifeline for aid deliveries into the highest-profile conflict on Earth. GHF’s critics say it is complicit in “orchestrated killing,” and “a cynical sideshow” in the weaponization of humanitarian aid. What happens when the goal of saving lives gets filtered through alternate realities?
Also in today’s edition: A USAID rapid response fund evolves for a longer-term fight, and a breakdown of the New Development Bank’s $28 billion project portfolio.
Competing narratives
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was established at Israel’s behest three months after its government imposed a blockade in Gaza earlier this year, sending food prices soaring 1,400% and drawing increased international pressure to alleviate civilian suffering.
The first person tapped to run the operation, Jake Wood, resigned after deciding it would not be possible to uphold humanitarian principles of “humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence.” But the organization began aid distributions on May 27, with an American security company running those operations, and the Israel Defense Forces providing “perimeter security.”
GHF reported that as of Aug. 28, it has distributed 142 million meals. That stands in stark contrast to the millions of dollars worth of relief supplies that humanitarian organizations including Anera, Care, and Oxfam have been barred from delivering to Gaza by Israel’s border blockade.
For GHF’s advocates, that is proof of concept.
“Our success stands in stark contrast to groups that have received U.S. government funding for years — including the UN — yet failed to protect aid from diversion by Hamas and other bad actors. It’s no surprise that some of these organizations now view GHF as a threat. That’s unfortunate, because the only ones who suffer from efforts to discredit our work are the people of Gaza,” Chapin Fay, the organization’s spokesperson, wrote on July 8.
But then, as my colleague Elissa Miolene writes, there is the split screen.
While GHF posts daily updates about its humanitarian successes, the organization’s critics see rampant disregard for humanitarian principles. Other humanitarian and human rights groups have contrasted GHF’s aid delivery statistics with grim reports of Gazans being injured or killed while trying to access the organization’s heavily militarized distribution sites.
Médecins Sans Frontières, one of GHF’s harshest critics, reports that it has received 1,380 casualties, including 28 dead bodies, from GHF’s food distribution sites, a figure MSF says represents just a fraction of the injuries and deaths recorded since GHF’s operations began.
GHF called the allegation “false and disgraceful.”
Elissa writes: “In one version of events, GHF is succeeding against all odds — delivering aid to desperate Gazans without support from the humanitarian world. In the other, GHF is running an operation that pulls civilians directly into the line of fire, leading to even more deaths in a conflict that has cost more than 63,000 lives since Oct. 7, 2023, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry.”
Read: The split screen of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
ICYMI: MSF demands Gaza Humanitarian Foundation close for ‘orchestrated killing’
See also: After weeks of tension, UN leaders talk to controversial Gaza aid group
The next mission
Earlier this week we marked the end of — yet another — USAID chapter, when most remaining officials were severed from the agency upon the Sept. 2 completion of what one Department of Government Efficiency leader called USAID’s “final mission.”
While that official wind-down process unfolded — or unraveled, depending on your perspective — other efforts have tried to keep the spirit and substance of USAID alive. A handful of emergency funds cropped up in recent months, in hopes of providing stopgap support to some of USAID’s most critical programs.
My colleague Jenny Lei Ravelo has the details on how one of those funds — the Rapid Response Fund, put together by Founders Pledge alongside The Life You Can Save — is now evolving for a longer-term fight. Its new iteration is called the Catalytic Impact Fund, and Jenny reports that it will seek to create broader systemic changes and provide early-stage funding to attract other investors.
Among the grants in the new fund’s pipeline: Developing a network of organizations that “can inform and shape the future of U.S. foreign assistance.”
Read: Philanthropic initiative launches long-term fund to replace USAID stopgap
BRICS and mortar
As the U.S. government steps back from global development engagement, what are America’s geopolitical rivals funding?
Miguel Antonio Tamonan has a detailed breakdown of the New Development Bank’s — aka the “BRICS bank” — funding portfolio, which includes 92 projects to the tune of about $28 billion. That’s a lot of money, but it’s still also heavily concentrated, according to Miguel’s analysis, with China, India, and Brazil leading the way.
Read: How the New Development Bank built a multibillion-dollar portfolio (Pro)
+ If you value our reporting, consider joining Devex Pro. You’ll get deeper funding insights and insider reporting, members-only briefings, and exclusive access to the stories and conversations shaping the future of global development — and you’ll help keep essential journalism open for others. Try it out today with a 15-day free trial, and check out some of the content exclusive to Pro readers.
Don’t mention it
When it comes to democracy promotion, the Trump administration’s new policy seems to be: If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.
In July, Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent an internal memo to U.S. diplomats instructing them to refrain from making any public statements criticizing other countries’ elections unless there is a “clear and compelling” U.S. foreign policy interest.
That break from a decades-long practice of calling out foreign governments for failing to ensure free and fair elections has some U.S. lawmakers worried.
In a nomination hearing yesterday, Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, grilled Trump’s pick to lead the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor over how he would fulfill his bureau’s mandate if diplomats aren’t allowed to criticize anti-democratic practices.
“We’re not funding any organizations and groups that help us tell the truth anymore … You’ve got, effectively, a gag order placed on you that says that … you can only raise private concerns about the health of a democracy. You no longer raise those concerns publicly. I think this is a watershed moment for our country if we effectively cease publicly advocating for democracy and the freedom of assembly abroad,” Murphy said.
“I think it’s always important to tell the truth,” said Riley Barnes, the nominee.
ICYMI: How the US government let support for democracy unravel
In other news
Ethiopia has launched its bid to host the U.N. Climate Change Conference in 2027, competing with Nigeria for the opportunity. [Reuters]
Australia has reached an agreement with Nauru to pay $1.6 billion over 30 years in exchange for resettling migrants and asylum-seekers in the Pacific island nation. [Al Jazeera]
The U.S. is pressing other countries to reject a U.N. shipping fuel emissions deal, warning they could face tariffs and other penalties if they support it. [Reuters]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.
About the author
Michael Igoe@AlterIgoe
Michael Igoe is a Senior Reporter with Devex, based in Washington, D.C. He covers U.S. foreign aid, global health, climate change, and development finance. Prior to joining Devex, Michael researched water management and climate change adaptation in post-Soviet Central Asia, where he also wrote for EurasiaNet. Michael earned his bachelor's degree from Bowdoin College, where he majored in Russian, and his master’s degree from the University of Montana, where he studied international conservation and development.
