Press Center

From the article: Stranded in the remote deserts of Syria near the Jordanian border lies Rukban Camp — an unofficial tent city of over 40,000 displaced people who fled from war in Syria. What began as an informal settlement in 2014 evolved over time into a complex camp with no running water, regular food supplies or access to medical care.  “I can't explain to you how bad the situation is,” Rukban resident Muhammad A’kil, 27, told The World over a smuggled satellite phone that connects to the internet for about one hour every few days. A’kil, originally from Homs, Syria, has been in limbo at the camp for four years.   “Don’t call it Rukban Camp; it's a death camp,” A’kil said.  -- Rukban stands out as another bitter example of how delivering humanitarian aid can often get hampered by politics.  “When aid becomes a proxy for a political struggle, it's just much, much harder to get it to the communities who need it, because one side or the other will see it as a threat,” said Jeremy Konyndyk, former director of foreign disaster assistance programs for USAID in Syria during the Obama administration.  

From the article: SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador—When police finally found Joselyn Milena Abarca, her body had been cut up into seven pieces and dumped across San Salvador. The 26-year-old had been a psychology major in college and a rising star in her job. She recently bought a house and a car. But her boyfriend, Rónald Urbina, treated her like a possession. She had to ask for permission to cut her hair; he had previously tried to suffocate her to death. Rónald was subsequently arrested and charged with murdering Joselyn. (He denies all charges.) His increasingly violent and controlling behavior, however, was allowed to fester for the 10 years they were together without any legal repercussions. That’s sadly common in a country that often dismisses crimes against women. Homicides of women in El Salvador have more than doubled since 2013 to 468 in 2017, according to the Institute of Forensic Medicine. The violence is destabilizing the country and is considered a major push factor in driving up migration to the United States. Women currently make up 27 percent of all migrants apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics. But while Salvadoran women’s rights advocates are trying to curb the violence and tackle the misogyny, the United States is undercutting those very efforts. The Trump administration is pulling funding from programs that support women in El Salvador and focusing funding and energy on a border wall to keep them and others out. Women seeking asylum based on domestic violence claims are now being rejected. In 2018, the United States committed only $600,000 to anti-violence programs, which was 1 percent of its aid budget to El Salvador. -- Activists say one thing is clear: Slashing foreign assistance is detrimental to the work being done. “The U.S. should increase aid to the region for community-based programs that have a track record of successfully reducing crime and violence,” said Cindy Huang, the co-director of the Center for Global Development’s program on migration, displacement, and humanitarian policy. “Unlike billions for a wall, aid is a smart and cost-effective investment that will improve the security of Central Americans and the broader region.” Some nonprofits use U.S. funding to do work specifically intended to keep people from migrating. Glasswing International’s Club for Returnees, funded through private donations and USAID, works with young women who have returned from Mexico or the United States. The organization provides trauma support, financial assistance, and referral care support. “We’ve seen real transformations take place,” de Sola said. “These women and girls are already resilient. They’re surviving every day—we just develop their skills. The more you provide them with opportunity to thrive in this context, the better they do.” Glasswing also runs clubs to equip young girls with the skills they need to navigate the daily risks they face. After one year of involvement in these clubs, nine in 10 girls could recognize signs of gender-based violence, including behaviors previously normalized, like pushing and yelling, and knew how to report it. While there is no quick answer to El Salvador’s problem with violence against women, the United States can make a big difference by supporting anti-violence programs, Huang said, both through development assistance and diplomatic outreach. “So many threats today are transnational, from gangs to human trafficking,” she said. “They require collaboration and joint investment with other government, civil society, and private sector partners. Unfortunately, the Trump administration and other governments are dismissing lessons from the past.” Efforts to improve violence in El Salvador won’t just help victims, but survivors, too. Joselyn’s mother, Yesenia Juárez, is still grieving her daughter’s death, but she is also spending her time creating a foundation. Set up in memory of Joselyn, the aim is to help prevent further female homicides. From schools to public institutions, she wants to ensure help is available and accessible to any Salvadoran women who need it. “I need to talk about this pain,” she said. “I have to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”  

From the article: China has one of the biggest global development footprints in the world. The only country with bigger official international finance flows is the United States. Still, Washington spent over four times more than Beijing on Official Development Assistance. The lion’s share of China’s official money flows falls under Other Official Finance and is mostly spent on loans for projects in infrastructure, energy, and communications. These projects are part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China’s main vehicle for spurring development both at home and abroad. Through infrastructure investments, Beijing aims to better connect China to other parts in the world and to increase trade along the road. Five years after President Xi Jinping announced his plans for the BRI, China has spent about $25 billion on related infrastructure projects. But to what extent do recipient countries profit from these Chinese investments? At least eight countries are at particular risk of debt distress because of project lending associated with China’s BRI, the Center for Global Development (CGD) reported in March 2018. Critics fear that China is using the loans to create dependency and gain political influence. -- The China Model of Lending Chinese money fills a gap in international infrastructure funding. So why is it causing debt and debate? For one thing, most BRI funding is based on state-to-state structures. This can create challenges for sovereign debt, with possible implications for bilateral ties. Usually, loans are guided by standards determined by multilateral institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, or multilateral mechanisms like the Paris Club. But China is not a member of the Paris Club, so it doesn’t need to inform members on its credit activities and it doesn’t have to follow any standards. “Without a guiding multilateral or other framework to define China’s approach to debt sustainability problems, we only have anecdotal evidence of ad hoc actions taken by China as the basis for characterizing the country’s policy approach,” the CDG report concludes. Instead of universal standards, “China generally follows local laws when it lends for development projects,” Scott Morris explains. Morris is one of the authors of the CDG report on debt among BRI countries. “This can mean high standards when local laws are strong and very low standards when laws are weak.” The difference with loans from institutions like the World Bank, is that these institutions assess local laws and will impose their own protections if local laws are too weak. China leaves this responsibility with partner-governments and “follows whatever local laws say,” Morris says. “China is also not as sensitive to debt sustainability issues, such as that lending terms are not strictly aligned with the country’s debt risks,” he adds. To what extend recipient countries benefit from Beijing’s loans therefore strongly depends on their own standards. Price for Beijing The debt problems among the BRI countries also come at a price for China. Between 2000 and 2014, Beijing spent $13 billion on actions relating to debt. With debt rescheduling it mitigates risks by extending the terms on loans. China also carries significant risk itself when lenders default on their loans, according to Morris. Although “debt is essential for infrastructure investment,” Morris says, “large amounts of debt carry significant risks and need to be carefully managed by lenders and borrowers.” Most importantly, the international critique is also creating a “huge problem in China,” Rudyak says. “The Chinese general public is highly critical of Chinese aid and Chinese loans.” China is not getting its money back and the country is being criticized by the international community. So why, an increasing number of Chinese ask, doesn’t Beijing spend this money on the poor at home? -- Intentions and Politics The Bretton Woods institutions “are a mirror of post-1945 and the world has changed,” Rudyak says. “But now of course the problem with the reform is that many of the countries that want to have a bigger say are not liberal democracies.” Morris and his co-authors argue that Beijing should multilateralize the BRI in order to streamline China’s increasing efforts in international development funding and minimize debt problems. “China has valued its engagement with the multilateral institutions and as a result it’s an influential relationship. I think these institutions stand the greatest chance of convincing and helping China to improve its project and lending standards,” according to Morris. China’s recent step to open a joint Capacity Development Center with the IMF, to train experts on policy and economics so countries can better decide whether to take up loans, is therefore an encouraging move. --