What’s least surprising: David Beasley’s name popping up in Israel’s Gaza plans, or IOM getting on board with the Trump self-deportation scheme?
This is Inklings, where we explore how aid works in the wilds of humanitarian hubs, on the front lines of emergency response, or in the dark corners of aid punditry.
It’s also available as an email newsletter. Subscribe here.
Today: The link between budget cuts and Gaza aid pressures, the breaking point for women-led groups, UN80, and the relief chief’s genocide speech.
On the radar |
IOM x Trump collab: With a budget dominated by earmarked projects, the UN’s migration agency felt the impacts of the US funding cuts almost immediately. That’s why this early IOM statement raised an eyebrow or two: “With decades of experience partnering with governments... IOM remains dedicated to addressing migration challenges through effective, principled, and needs-driven solutions. IOM looks forward to deepening its collaboration with the United States in the months and years ahead,” the agency said on 1 February, just a few days after the deluge of US government stop-work orders began. If that statement was a flag, then it seems to have been spotted. The Trump administration has hired IOM to “help implement” its so-called self-deportation programme, the Washington Post reported. The move rubs flecks of UN baby blue (or at least Pantone 286C) onto Trump's plans.
- What IOM says: The agency frames the work as part of its “assisted voluntary return” programmes. “IOM does not facilitate or implement deportations,” the Geneva-based agency said in a statement. “Our involvement begins only after an individual gives informed consent to receive assistance.”
- What is voluntary: But as the WaPo article notes, “repatriation programmes typically do not involve threatening migrants to compel them to leave”. And UN agencies may have different interpretations of what counts as voluntary. IOM has previously had a rather inclusive spectrum of voluntariness, including the concept of “voluntary under compulsion”, this analysis from NewsDeeply (RIP, but still hosted by TNH) noted.
Money talks in Gaza: The IOM x Trump collab underscores an issue accelerated by the wider funding cuts: What are cash-strapped aid agencies prepared to do when money is on the line? Funding is a carrot, drawing aid groups to work where donor money leads. The threat of losing it can be a sharp stick. Just look at the Israeli-US plans to channel all Gaza aid through militarised hubs. The UN and many NGOs have refused to participate, but they face pressure to get on board. The Trump administration has already cut aid extensively, but still wields the promise of significant funding for UN agencies and NGOs. Multiple reports suggest Gaza pressure is particularly aimed at the World Food Programme – led by Cindy McCain, a previous Trump target.
Genocide: Media reporting on UN relief chief Tom Fletcher’s 13 May speech to the UN Security Council honed in on criticisms of Israel’s militarised aid plan, but there was something else at play. Fletcher worked the word genocide into his address – part of a shift in tone and messaging on Gaza from a senior UN figure.
- “Previous reviews of the UN’s conduct in cases of large-scale violations of international human rights and humanitarian law – reports on Myanmar, 2019; Sri Lanka, 2012; Srebrenica and Rwanda, both in 1999 – pointed to our collective failure to speak to the scale of violations while they were committed,” Fletcher said. “So, for those killed and those whose voices are silenced: what more evidence do you need now? Will you act – decisively – to prevent genocide and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law? Or will you say instead that ‘we did all we could?’”
Israel’s NGO crackdown: NGOs working in Gaza cautiously held their tongues for months, before speaking up about Israel’s sweeping registration rules for international NGOs last week. “Based on vague, broad, politicised, and open-ended criteria, these rules appear designed to assert control over independent humanitarian, development and peacebuilding operations, silence advocacy grounded in international humanitarian and human rights law, and further entrench Israeli control and de facto annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory,” the groups said in a statement signed by 55 organisations.
- Signoff: Not to be the guy who’s always asking why aid groups don’t sign on to joint statements, but why did some big NGOs choose not to sign on to this joint statement? (📥)
- Engagement: Is this an odd line? “The undersigned 55 organisations stress that engagement with the registration process to preserve critical humanitarian operations should not be misinterpreted as endorsement of these measures.” Palestinian NGOs spoke up about the rules earlier, urging international groups not to engage.
Breaking point: Frontline, women-led groups have been among the first and most-affected by global funding cuts. New data from UN Women adds more numbers to the detail. More than half have suspended programmes – including support for survivors of gender-based violence. Nearly half expect to shut down in the next six months.
Reformage |
People are chattering about UN80, UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s reform thing (let’s not call it a reset). Here are three takes:
2 Become 1: Over at PassBlue, former UNHCR-er Jeff Crisp mulls mergers and asks: Can the UN’s migration and refugee agencies become one? He delves into the occasionally testy relationship between UNHCR and IOM, and the history of both agencies’ expanding scope. There’s also this peppery anecdote: “When I joined UNHCR in 1987 and naïvely asked about the organisation’s dealings with IOM, I was told by a senior colleague: ‘Don’t worry about them. They are just a glorified travel agency.’”
DOGE: The International Peace Institute has Damian Lilly’s analysis proposing ideas for UN restructuring. “The UN is good at creating new agencies, offices, and envoys but is not very adept at dismantling or consolidating them,” Lilly writes. There’s also a tidbit asking whether one of the people behind DOGE-UN, an outfit trying to conjure Musk vibes, has ambitions to be UN secretary-general.
Donors: And here at TNH, Erica Harper makes the case for erasing mandate creep and duplication, and crunches some numbers on the billions of dollars that might be saved. She also notes: “Donors also have to bear some responsibility in how we arrived at this point.”
End note |
Some humanitarians were alarmed and shocked by Beasley’s new role with Fogbow, and his unconfirmed links to the Israeli militarised aid plans. How could the former head of the world’s biggest humanitarian agency condone this?
But Beasley was an appointee in an international aid system where passports and politics are more important than merit, experience, or recitations of the humanitarian principles. He is the norm, not an aberration.
The system appoints elite political players into humanitarian leadership roles. WFP, IOM, UNICEF, Care USA, International Rescue Committee, and others – all are led by people with political backgrounds, and with political baggage.
Beasley is the former South Carolina governor and Trump 1.0-era WFP nominee. His successor, Cindy McCain, is a fellow Republican.
Catherine Russell was an ambassador under Obama and adviser under Biden before she was appointed to be UNICEF director.
Amy Pope worked in the White House before bringing politicking to the IOM.
Michelle Nunn of Care USA ran for a US senate seat as a Democrat, before landing her Care job (she had a nonprofit background before).
David Miliband, of course, is the former UK foreign secretary (he also campaigned for Labour in the UK's 2024 election while still head of IRC).
You don’t have to be a former politician to have humanitarians question your motives or values. But at one point or another – through their choices on Israel’s Gaza evisceration or Trump’s aid cuts – all have faced staff blowback and questions.
Sometimes, the line between political friend and foe might as well be a loop. An example: the Trump administration is reportedly pressuring the World Food Programme to get in line with the Gaza aid plans. On the leadership team at the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is Nate Mook, a filmmaker who once headed World Central Kitchen. Mook is listed as an adviser at the McCain Institute – the non-profit honoring John McCain. The former chairman of the McCain Institute’s board: Cindy McCain (she’s still listed as chairman emeritus).
Leaders might not enter the aid machinery with humanitarian credentials, but that lifesaving sheen (or even a Nobel) is on their CV when they emerge on the other side.
A few, like Beasley, might hook up with outfits run by ex-military. Others might jump back into politics. Others might start writing that book as their academia era opens. And perhaps one or two might be tempted to jump back into the fire, throwing their hats in the ring to be the UN’s emergency relief coordinator – the head humanitarian in the entire international system.
Have any tips, recommendations, or indecipherable acronyms to share with the Inklings newsletter? Get in touch: [email protected]
