Trump pledges $300M to fight famine in Africa

Lost in the controversies that plagued President Donald J. Trump’s first trip abroad was the announcement that the United States will spend $329 million on additional famine relief in South Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia and Yemen.

Trump made the pledge during his meeting last week with Pope Francis in the Vatican, but the news was overshadowed by the atmospherics between two men with widely divergent views on many issues.

The leader of the world’s lone superpower and the head of the 1.2 billion-strong Roman Catholic Church disagree on climate change, immigration, the treatment of refugees and the growing divide between rich and poor nations.

Indeed, even the White House seemed to downplay the aid decision. According to the Associated Press, the announcement of the famine-relief funding was tucked into the last paragraph of a brief readout of the meeting in the Vatican.

However, officials familiar with planning for the new assistance said the White House was seeking “a deliverable” to announce after Trump’s discussions with the pope and settled on additional famine relief for millions in the four African countries.

During the papal audience, the president “renewed the commitment of the United States to fighting global famine,” the White House said. “As he relayed at the Vatican, the United States is proud to announce more than $300 million in anti-famine spending, focused on the crises in Yemen, [South] Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria.”

The pledge from Trump brings the total U.S. humanitarian assistance for those four countries to almost $1.2 billion since last October.

Millions face starvation

As many as 20 million people may face starvation, and the U.N. Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has estimated that $4.4 billion is needed by July to deliver food, water and medicine to afflicted areas, according to the Washington Post.

Unfortunately, only 10 percent of the amount has been raised.

While the food shortage in Somalia is in part the result of a drought affecting much of East Africa, the emergency in the other three countries is entirely man-made, the Post said.

Be that as it may, First World nations cannot ignore what’s going on in the Third World. The persistent human suffering has created fertile ground for recruitment by terrorist groups and other extremist organizations.

Young people mired in desperate lives with no hope of escape from their native lands become easy pickings for the masterminds of global terrorism and Islamic extremists.

That is why the financial commitment from President Trump is significant and deserving of praise.

As the U.S. Agency for International Development put it, “The United States is one of the largest donors of humanitarian assistance in all four crises. The assistance we provide represents the best of America’s generosity and goodwill, while improving our national security by strengthening relationships with nations and people around the world.”

Given that America’s reputation has been earned not with its military prowess but its good heart, why would President Trump even contemplate reducing the amount of money the U.S. dedicates to fighting famine around the world?

We are well aware that a major reason for his success in last year’s presidential election was his “America First” platform that advocated a reduction in foreign aid. However, as Trump has found since taking office Jan. 20, governing is a lot different than campaigning. Much of his political rhetoric was designed to burnish his reputation as a political outsider who became a billionaire real-estate developer by turning the Trump name into a global brand.

President Trump has submitted a proposed budget to Congress that envisions reducing by $1.5 billion the amount of money the U.S. dedicates to fighting famine. In 2016, the nation spent $2.6 billion on this humanitarian endeavor. In so doing, America earned the gratitude and respect of people in dire straits.

It’s fortunate that the Republican-controlled Congress isn’t going along with the Republican president’s budget blueprint and that foreign aid is not going to suffer the kind of debilitating hit that has been proposed.