A hastily organized family planning conference in Brussels raised nearly $200 million in donations on Wednesday to counter President Donald Trump’s international abortion ban.

The impressive testimonials by women from all over the world, convince us even more to keep fighting for women’s rights. #SheDecides pic.twitter.com/GCGgDEeWFK

— Belgium MFA (@BelgiumMFA) March 2, 2017

A total of 57 nations attended the one-day conference, called She Decides, pledging 181 million euros ($190 million) to help bridge the gap created by the Trump Administration. Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands contributed 10 million euros each.

The total was boosted by Sweden, Canada, and Finland each promising 20 million euros ($21 million). The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also provided $20 million.

According to conference host and Belgian Deputy Premier Alexander De Croo, one anonymous U.S. donor committed $50 million to the staggering total.

The result after just 5 weeks, minister #Ploumen on #SheDecides at the end of the Brussels conference pic.twitter.com/wwit5ATG5z

— Netherlands MFA (@DutchMFA) March 2, 2017

During his first week in office, Trump reinstated the expanded global gag rule (a.k.a the Mexico City Policy), effectively banning foreign NGOs who perform, promote, or even discuss abortions from receiving U.S. foreign aid.

The policy has yo-yoed between party lines with each changing administration–Reagan enacted it in 1984, Clinton rescinded it in 1993, and Bush reinstated the order in 2001 before Obama rescinded it again in 2009. In other words, it came as no surprise to Democrats when Trump copied his Republican predecessors.

According to Reuters, the policy will cause a global funding shortfall estimated at $600 million.

“I hope that he now sees that everybody is steadfast in its support for the rights of women and girls,” said Dutch Development Minister Lilianne Ploumen, who came up with the idea for the She Decides conference.

At EU headquarters, half a dozen anti-abortion activists were protesting with a banner: “Abortion: Not with my taxes.”

However, the conference stressed that abortion was only a small part of the family planning resources offered by many of these NGOs in developing countries. Campaigners discussed how girls in these nations are being forced to have children in their early teens as a result of sexual abuse, forced marriages, or a lack of access to sex education and contraception.

The U.S funding ban “threatens to suspend a large number of projects helping to defend the health of millions of girls, even helping to save their lives,” Finnish Development Minister Kai Mykkanen said. “We respond to the situation fraught with distress by investing in the improvement of women’s and girls’ rights even more than before.”

If fact, many believe that Trump’s ban will actually result in the opposite of its desired effect. Denying funding to these programs will only increase the amount of unwanted pregnancies, Ploumen argues.

“The number of abortions will not fall, they will rise,” say Ploumen.

While the conference fell short of drumming up enough money to finance the entire $600 million, organizers said they were confident they would be able to bridge the gap soon.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World Pledges Nearly $200M to Counter Trump’s Abortion Funding Ban appeared first on Law Street.

On November 30, 2016, the Colombian Congress ratified a long awaited peace deal between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). After 52 years of fighting and months of negotiations in Havana, Cuba, FARC agreed to permanently put down arms and reinvent itself as a mainstream political party. America’s involvement in the conflict is longstanding. While President Barack Obama’s promises of aid were integral to the action plan for peace, policy shifts under President Donald Trump could jeopardize peace in Colombia.

The Alliance

Colombia is widely considered America’s strongest ally in Latin America. The alliance between the two states is built on Colombia’s entrenched and complex domestic conflict. Though first motivated by an ideological war with communism, the partnership would come to be defined by the U.S.’s war on drugs. President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971. Rather than addressing domestic demand for drugs, the U.S. government chose to wage war against those producing and trafficking drugs. As a result, Colombia became a focal point for the U.S.’s anti-drug policies. For decades, the Colombian government has received American military and financial support.

Over the years, American interference has undoubtedly contributed to the escalation and complication of the conflict in Colombia. Less than a decade ago, the U.S. was engaging in covert operations against FARC leaders, often in violation of international law. However, in a rare move away from traditional security approaches, the Obama Administration began pushing for peace between the Colombian government and FARC as early as 2009.

In 2015, after a turbulent fews years, Colombian and FARC representatives hammered out the details of a deal which was ultimately defeated in a referendum. A slightly reworked deal was approved by the Colombian congress in late November. The U.S. took the backseat throughout the negotiation process, but a $450 million aid package from the Obama administration was crucial for peace.

A Shifting Stance?

Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli, Senior Associate for the Andes at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), said that the aid package was necessary for peace. The primary purpose of the package is to develop alternative livelihoods for coca growers. Under Trump, there is no guarantee that this aid package will arrive as promised, if at all. The Trump Administration has already placed all ongoing foreign aid under review. Trump has also taken direct action on specific aid packages. In his first week, Trump halted a $221 million aid package to the Palestinian Authority and reinstated the “Mexico City Policy,” which bans federal funding to international groups that work to endorse pro-choice policies or provide services related to abortion. There is no guarantee that the money promised under Obama will be delivered under Trump.

The Trump Administration clearly intends to impose conservative policies on foreign aid. Whether or not the Trump Administration will cut off aid to Colombia remains to be seen, and the White House has said little on the matter. However, when asked about the peace deal during his confirmation process, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson expressed his support for the long-standing militaristic policy known as Plan Colombia. He went on to say he “would review the details of Colombia’s recent peace agreement, and determine the extent to which the United States should continue to support it.” Tillerson’s expressed support for Plan Colombia and his ambiguous stance on the peace deal are cause for concern.

Tillerson’s reluctance to commit to peace in Colombia not only puts the deal with FARC in doubt but it could jeopardize future peace talks. While the agreement between FARC and the Colombian government is a major step on the road to peace, these two actors do not encapsulate the conflict. The conflict in Colombia involves a variety of right-wing paramilitary and leftist guerrilla groups. Though FARC has been the major and ever-present belligerent in the conflict, there are more hurdles to jump before Colombia can guarantee total peace. Preliminary peace talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN), another leftist revolutionary group, are already underway. Even if the Trump administration chooses not to obstruct the deal with FARC, the Colombian government may not be able to rely on the kind of support it received from the Obama Administration when looking ahead.

Finally, it is important to note why the first draft of the peace deal with FARC was narrowly defeated in the referendum. Though less affected by the war than those living in rural conflict zones, urban Colombians voted down a deal that they believed to be far too lenient on the guerrillas. Were Trump to oppose the current peace deal, he may well find support from a sizable portion of Colombians who feel their government should not be negotiating with FARC or any other rebel group. This move would not be unthinkable considering Trump’s rhetoric concerning terrorist groups has been unapologetically aggressive, and both FARC and the ELN remain on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

If Trump is unwilling to continue Obama’s move away from traditional security policies in Colombia, the peace process in Colombia could stall. Even if Trump upholds existing deals and promises between the U.S., Colombia, and FARC, the Colombian government may have to conduct future peace negotiations without American financial or diplomatic support.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does Trump Mean for Peace in Colombia? appeared first on Law Street.