LONDON, Feb 28 2025 (IPS) - Who bears the brunt in trade wars? The answer is absolutely everyone. Not just the countries enacting or retaliating with tariffs and export bans, and not just the citizens of those countries. It’s everyone.

Global headlines have been warning of looming trade wars between the United States, Mexico, Canada and China. Though many of the tariffs floated by President Donald Trump have since been lifted or delayed, many are rightly concerned that trade restrictions will be an all too present part of our future.

Trade wars cause tremendous economic damage to countries affected by them; to companies, workers and suppliers; and to the consumers to whom these costs are invariably passed.

But the damage is not only economic. There are profound implications to both global and national food and nutrition security as well. Though many of these measures seek to protect homegrown industries, or in the case of U.S. tariffs – to protect borders, they all too often lead to increased food prices and supply chain disruptions that undermine access to healthy and nutritious food we all need to thrive.

The recently threatened U.S. tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada are a good example of how these kinds of restrictions can impact what ends up on our plates. In 2023, the US imported $195.9 billion of its agricultural produce from foreign suppliers, with almost half of this ($86 billion) coming from its two closest neighbors.

Two farmworkers pick food in a greenhouse.

When you look at more nutrient-rich foods, the impacts are even more pronounced: the US imports approximately 60% of its fresh fruit and 40% of its fresh vegetables from abroad.

Economists warn that such measures would not only strain consumers’ wallets but also disrupt supply chains, leading to potential longer-term shortages and reducing the availability of diverse and nutritious foods.

This is not a price that US policymakers should be willing to pay.

47.4 million Americans – 1 in 7 people, including 1 in 5 children – are already experiencing food insecurity, meaning many lack access to the basic vitamins and minerals they need to power their bodies and fuel their minds. Among the most vulnerable groups – communities of color, rural communities, veterans, seniors, and low-income households – these inequalities are even more stark.

The impacts can easily stretch beyond the borders of North America. The interconnectedness of our global food systems – the complex web of processes that take our food from farm to fork – mean that trade restrictions in one region can have ripple effects worldwide.

The World Economic Forum highlights that the combined effects of the pandemic and geopolitical tensions have exposed the fragility of global supply chains essential for food security. The outbreak of war in Ukraine, for instance, sent shockwaves through markets for key commodities like fertiliser and grains, demonstrating how restriction in the trade or production of essential goods in one part of the world can exacerbate the vulnerabilities of the whole system.

As with most things in life, trade policies have distinct implications for women and girls. In many developing countries, women play a crucial role in agriculture and food production. Trade barriers that increase input costs or limit market access can disproportionately affect women farmers, reducing their incomes and economic independence.

Additionally, higher food prices resulting from tariffs can strain household budgets, where women often bear the responsibility of managing limited resources and the health of their families. As the International Monetary Fund (IMF) notes, whilst increased trade can provide women with better job opportunities and access to resources, trade restrictions can limit these opportunities and exacerbate existing gender disparities.

Fears about trade restrictions and breakdowns in global supply chains lead some countries to shift policies toward self-sufficiency, focusing on meeting the basic needs of production locally. While it’s easy to see the advantages of an approach like this in terms of control and protecting farmers at home, it is often a struggle for countries to efficiently produce such a wide range of food products domestically due to constraints including weather patterns and arable land, which can result in less varied diets and increased malnutrition.

The FAO suggests conceptualizing food self-sufficiency along a continuum. Others have described an optimal approach as a balanced one, embracing open trade while also enhancing domestic production by diversifying supply sources, investing in resilient agricultural practices, and fostering international cooperation to ensure stable and affordable food supplies.

Ultimately, while trade restrictions are often implemented with protective intentions, they can have adverse effects on food and nutrition security. They can increase food prices, disrupt supply chains, and disproportionately impact vulnerable populations.

To ensure equitable access to nutritious food for healthy populations both home and abroad, policymakers should carefully consider the broader implications of trade measures and strive for solutions that encourage both global cooperation and domestic resilience.

Matt Freeman is Executive Director of Stronger Foundations for Nutrition.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 27 2025 (IPS) - From late 2024 to early 2025, the humanitarian situation in Ukraine has taken a turn for the worst, with poverty, violence, displacement, and damage to critical infrastructures having grown in intensity. Following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia, tensions have grown among member states of the United Nations (UN) on how to resolve the Russo-Ukrainian War.

On February 20, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) released a report detailing the current living conditions in Ukraine, where they estimated that 12.7 million Ukrainians – roughly 36 percent of the population – urgently require humanitarian assistance.

The death toll in Ukraine had reached new peaks in late 2024. There have been approximately 41,000 civilian casualties, including 12,500 deaths. Roughly 2,500 children have also been killed or injured as a result of the current war. Rates of sexual violence among women, men, and children have increased significantly since the war began. Nearly 63 percent of all households in Ukraine have reported distress that has been linked to trauma, with 1.5 million children at risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder and other severe mental health conditions.

Ukraine has also sustained immense damage to its infrastructures, many of which are crucial in providing basic services. Attacks on energy infrastructure have led to limited power, water, and fuel being allocated to households. This is especially dangerous in the winter season, when temperatures regularly drop below zero. Roughly 3,600 educational facilities, including 2,000 schools, have been damaged, with 371 having been destroyed completely. Nearly 13 percent of the total housing stock in Ukraine has been damaged, which has affected over 2.5 million households.

On February 25, the UN Resident Coordinator Office in Ukraine released a report that analyzed the scale of needs and the expenses required for recovery in Ukraine. It is estimated that the total cost of reconstruction and recovery over the next decade will be 524 billion dollars, which is nearly 2.8 times the estimated GDP of Ukraine in 2024. For 2025 alone, it is projected that Ukraine will need 9.96 billion dollars from donors and the private sector to begin reconstruction efforts.

“The war has been a heavy blow to the Ukrainian economy. Many Ukrainian enterprises that gave people jobs stopped or were destroyed. The brutal Russian air strikes have severely damaged the national energy system, as well as hundreds of educational and healthcare institutions. A humanitarian crisis is devastating and the “hidden crisis” – the mental health crisis – will resonate for generations,” said UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Ukraine Matthias Schmale.

Additionally, approximately 3.7 million people are internally displaced in Ukraine, and 6.9 million have fled to other parts of Europe. According to figures from People in Need (PIN), a Czech humanitarian organization, nearly 700,000 internally displaced people reside in Ukraine’s capital Kyiv and its surrounding areas.

Socio-economic conditions have continuously worsened since the start of the war, with displaced populations having been hit the hardest. A survey from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) states that only half of the working-age displaced Ukrainians have managed to find legal employment. Most families that have exhausted their funds rely on government assistance for survival. However, state funding has diminished greatly since March 2024, with the new laws stating that only the most vulnerable groups are entitled to assistance, such as the elderly or disabled.

According to figures from the World Bank, there are over 9 million Ukrainians who struggle with poverty, having increased by 1.8 million in the past three years alone. Economic growth has decreased by 3.2 percent in 2024 and is projected to decrease by 2 percent in 2025.

The hunger crisis has also grown significantly since the wake of the war. According to a press release from the World Food Programme (WFP), approximately 5 million people are facing acute food insecurity. The highest levels of hunger are concentrated in the areas that have been most affected by conflict. The Kherson region in the south, along with Zaporizhzhya and the Donetsk region in the east, have particularly severe levels of hunger.

February 24 marks three years since the Russian invasion. In remembrance of this historical event, the UN General Assembly adopted two resolutions that would entail a cessation of hostilities between Ukraine and Russia.

The first of these resolutions, A/ES-11-L.10, called for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territory to be respected, a cessation of hostilities, and an end to impunity for war crimes. The document included clauses in which the Russian Federation was deemed responsible for the invasion and for disrupting global stability.

93 member states voted in favor of the resolution, citing its importance in protecting global and regional stability. Russia and the United States voted against this resolution. The U.S. presented Path to Peace (A/ES-11-L.11) a separate resolution that calls for an end to the war and mourns lost lives. However, this document includes no mentions of Russia’s aggressive military tactics.

In response, France proposed three amendments to this document which indicated at Russia’s responsibility for the conflict. Russia also proposed an amendment that called for the “root causes” of the war to be addressed. Both of the amendments were approved, with the U.S. abstaining from voting and Russia voting against the resolution.

The Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzia has said that Russia was justified in its invasion of Ukraine, citing that the intention was to prevent the expansion of NATO from Russia’s borders. “The text adopted now is not perfect, but it is, in fact, the first attempt to adopt a constructive and future—oriented product of the Council, talking about the path to peace, and not inflaming the conflict,” Nebenzia remarked.

Ukraine, as well as numerous European countries, argued that a resolution that does not hold the Russian Federation responsible effectively undermines the UN’s obligation to protect human rights, especially when war crimes are involved.

“The way we answer to Russian atrocities and crimes, the way we answer to aggression as a tool of statecraft will define not only the future of Ukraine, will define not only the future of Europe; it will define our common future, the future of the entire democratic world and the future of the U.N.,” said Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Mariana Betsa in her speech to the General Assembly before the vote.
“On this tragic occasion, I reaffirm the urgent need for a just, sustainable and comprehensive peace – one that fully upholds Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders, in accordance with the UN Charter, international law and resolutions of the General Assembly,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

BOGOTA, Colombia, Feb 27 2025 (IPS) - The U.S. administration has the prerogative to review and adjust public expenditure policies, including foreign aid. However, this power must be exercised responsibly, adhering to national and international legal frameworks, including the principles of human rights law.

The recent decisions by the Trump administration to freeze federal grants and loans, including foreign aid, have raised serious concerns about the implications for local, national and international associations.

These measures, which followed executive orders aimed at “reevaluating” U.S. foreign assistance and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, risk undermining the freedoms that are vital to democratic societies.

In a letter sent to the USG, 35 UN experts indicate that the freeze on funding and stop work orders has been described as a drastic measure that could have a far-reaching impact on the ability of individuals and organizations to advocate for and protect human rights.

The decision to stop work on federal projects, including critical programs funded through foreign aid, is having an immediate effect on vulnerable communities and human rights defenders worldwide. The ripple effects are particularly severe for marginalized groups who depend on these resources for essential services like healthcare, education, access to food and housing.

These measures also disproportionately affect organizations working on gender equality, LGBTIQ issues, reproductive rights, and poverty alleviation, which are already underfunded and face significant challenges in the global South.

The implications of these measures affect different type of associations, including small and medium-sized businesses, not-for-profit entities, civil society organizations, universities, faith-based groups, and even scientific research institutions that rely on U.S. funding to carry out their work.

The speed and scale of the funding freeze have left these entities unable to fulfil their missions. Some have already been forced to lay off staff, suspend vital programs, and even close their doors, leading to the shrinking of civic space in countries where they have long been key players in advocating for democracy, human rights, and sustainable development.

The Need for Proportionality, Transparency, and Legal Compliance

While the goal of effective public expenditure is commendable, its success depends on a transparent and inclusive process that is in line with legal standards, including international human rights law. These measures, which were implemented with little consultation or clear communication, have not adhered to the principle of proportionality, which is enshrined in both domestic and international law.

The absence of transparent guidelines, accountability mechanisms, respect for due process, and avenues for appeal is troubling, especially when the measures have such wide-reaching consequences.

International human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is a signatory, guarantees the right to freedom of association. This right not only protects the ability to form associations but also to carry out the activities for which those associations were established.

The freedom to access resources is a critical component of this right, as it enables organizations to seek, receive, and use resources from a variety of sources, both domestic and international. When funding is denied, it effectively denies organizations the means to operate, undermining their ability to fulfil their missions.

The freeze on U.S. funding, without due process or clear guidelines, is in direct conflict with these principles. The lack of clarity on how decisions are made or how organizations can challenge them undermines the rights of associations.

Furthermore, the failure to involve stakeholders—including U.S. civil society organizations—in the decision-making process is a violation of the principles of democratic governance and transparency.

The Global Impact of U.S. Funding Decisions

The far-reaching consequences of the funding freeze are most acutely felt in countries where U.S. aid supports critical initiatives in areas such as healthcare, education, peacebuilding, and human rights protection.

For example, programs addressing sexual and reproductive health are at immediate risk of cessation. Similarly, efforts to combat gender-based violence, support displaced communities, and provide education to marginalized groups are being disrupted.

In addition to these humanitarian concerns, the freeze also threatens to derail long-standing initiatives aimed at promoting democracy, good governance, and the rule of law. U.S. foreign aid has long been a pillar of support for civil society organizations that monitor elections, promote anti-corruption efforts, and advocate for human rights protections, among others.

The suspension of funding to these programs undermines not only the work of these organizations but also the broader goal of promoting democratic values worldwide.

The U.S. government’s decision to cut funding to programs that address discrimination—particularly those related to DEI initiatives—has sparked additional controversy. These measures have the potential to undermine efforts to protect individuals from workplace discrimination and ensure equal access to opportunities.

By targeting DEI programs, the administration is signalling a shift away from policies designed to address structural inequalities, which could have long-term negative effects on social justice worlwide.

The Stigmatization of Civil Society Organizations

Another concerning consequence of these decisions is the stigmatization of associations managing and receiving U.S. funding. The administration’s rhetoric has painted many civil society organizations as threats to national security.

This kind of stigmatization is dangerous because its fosters hostility toward groups that are engaged in legitimate advocacy for development, human rights and democratic governance.

Also, it places these organizations—and their staff—at risk of harassment, intimidation, and even physical violence, particularly in countries where civil society organizations are already under threat. Stigmatization is the entry door for repression and violence.

This pattern of vilification has serious consequences. As I noted in my more recent report to the UN General Assembly, negative narratives about civil society organizations and other associations deepen the stigmatization of activists and organizations, leading to increased repression, physical attacks, and online harassment.

These dynamics create an environment in which activists and civil society organizations are seen not as contributors to public good but as enemies.

The Path Forward: Upholding Human Rights and Civil Society

The decision to freeze funding may have been motivated by a desire to ensure more effective public spending, but it risks doing lasting damage to civil society. The lack of transparency, failure to follow due process, and disregard for international human rights law make these measures problematic.

To ensure that the U.S. upholds its commitment to human rights and the freedom of association, it is imperative that the U.S. government must urgently comply with the recent court orders, pay invoices, reconsider the impact of its freeze on foreign aid and federal grants and to compensate for the damage done. Besides, future decisions regarding foreign aid and public funding be made with greater clarity, accountability, and respect for the rule of law.

The U.S. must also recognize that associations in general and civil society organizations in particular are critical to the realization of human rights. These organizations play an essential role in advocating for the protection of fundamental freedoms, including the rights to health, education, and social justice.

Freezing funding and issuing stop work orders without clear and transparent procedures not only undermines these organizations but also threatens to dismantle vital systems of support for marginalized communities.

It is crucial that the U.S. government ensures that future funding decisions are made with respect for international human rights standards, that organizations are able to access the resources they need to carry out their work, and that the right to freedom of association is upheld.

In conclusion, the freeze on U.S. funding represents a significant threat to the functioning of civil society organizations and to the protection of human rights globally. While the government’s decision to review public expenditure is within its rights, the approach taken thus far raises serious concerns about transparency, proportionality, and adherence to international human rights law.

To avoid further harm, the U.S. must prioritize the protection of civil society, uphold the right to freedom of association, and ensure that any policy changes are made in a manner that respects the fundamental freedoms on which democracy depends.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt: