The Trump administration is under fire for contributing nothing to a Syria donors conference, helping lead to a $5bn shortfall in a UN fund for Syrian civilians in need inside the country and in refugee camps around the region.



The unprecedented US failure to contribute anything to the Syria humanitarian fund came soon after Donald Trump called for a rapid withdrawal of US troops from the country, and for wealthy countries in the region to bear more of the financial burden of the Syrian crisis.

The US state department said that the US remained the biggest funder of humanitarian efforts over the seven years of the Syrian conflict, with nearly $8bn in total contributions, and will contribute to provide funds.

“The United States is committed to being a global leader in providing humanitarian assistance to people forcibly displaced by conflict and persecution around the world,” a state department spokesperson said. “We urge other donors to also step forward to contribute to commit additional resources to this response. The United States has always provided humanitarian assistance in tranches as it is prepared, matched up with programs and partners.”

However, aid experts and critics said that contributing nothing at the Syria donors conference in Brussels this week was not the right way to encourage other nations to step up their own contributions.

Jeremy Konyndyk, who was head of US foreign disaster assistance in the Obama administration, said that typically the US made aid announcements rather than pledges at donor conferences – so the US declares money already donated or about to be donated, rather than predicting what will be given.

“Fundamentally, that means the US is choosing not to announce what it has already given,” Konyndyk, now a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development. “What this says to me is that they wanted to send a message of US retrenchment and for others to step up. But if you want to send that message it’s much more effective to actually say it.

“It’s really counterproductive and misunderstands the nature of international leadership,” Konyndyk said. “The approach the Trump administration is taking is do as I say, not as I do, and that’s not how it works. International leadership is about showing what you are willing to do.”

He added that another possibility was that with large number of unfilled positions at the US Agency for International Development and turmoil at the state department, “they just couldn’t manage a process as simple as pulling together a funding announcement”.