Haiti faces growing threat of famine
HAITI-June 17 (UPI) -- Haiti is one of five countries facing extreme famine and the risk of starvation in the coming months unless urgent humanitarian action is taken.
A joint assessment by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Food Program links Haiti's worsening food security to escalating gang violence and a prolonged economic crisis.
More than 5.7 million people -- about 51% of Haiti's population -- are projected to face acute food insecurity this year, the highest level since 2013. That includes 2.1 million in emergency conditions and more than 8,400 displaced people living in camps who could face catastrophic food shortages in the months ahead.
Armed gangs remain the biggest threat to stability in Haiti.
Since the 2021 assassination of President Jovenel Moïse, gangs have expanded their control, committing widespread looting, arson, sexual violence and indiscriminate killings.
In Port-au-Prince, they now control more than 85% of the capital and have extended their reach into farming areas, public infrastructure and major roads.
Haiti now has a record 1.3 million internally displaced people -- a 24% increase over the past six months. The U.N. report warns that continued violence is likely to drive further civilian displacement.
After six consecutive years of economic decline, Haiti's economy is expected to shrink further in 2025 due to stagnant agricultural production and falling export revenue.
Despite a relatively stable exchange rate since late 2023, the Haitian gourde remains fragile, fueling a surge in food prices. Annual inflation reached 37.5% in February 2025.
Extreme weather events remain a major threat across Latin America and the Caribbean. In Haiti, a stronger-than-average hurricane season is expected, putting already strained food production and livelihoods at greater risk after years of repeated climate shocks.
Cuts to international aid funding are straining critical humanitarian operations. While the United States has designated Haitian armed groups as "terrorist organizations," it has scaled back direct humanitarian assistance in favor of regional efforts led by the Organization of American States and neighboring countries.
The Transitional Presidential Council, which currently leads the country, has failed to regain control or weaken armed groups. Kenya is leading a Multinational Security Support Mission, but the force is operating with fewer personnel than planned, limiting its ability to contain the violence.
The U.N. report highlights worsening hunger in 13 global hotspots. The countries of greatest concern are Sudan, Palestine, South Sudan, Haiti and Mali -- all facing famine or a high risk of famine due to escalating conflict, economic collapse or natural disasters.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, the report says Bolivia and Colombia -- along with Haiti -- are facing troubling levels of food insecurity.
In Bolivia, the crisis could worsen amid sustained high inflation, shrinking foreign reserves and a fuel shortage that is disrupting agricultural activity. In Colombia, despite government efforts to maintain peace talks, the U.N. report warns that rising violence in early 2025 led to increased displacement, with food insecurity affecting about 7.8 million people -- roughly 15% of the population -- in the hardest-hit areas.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
15 minutes ago
- UPI
Strong support for third term for Bukele, despite constitutional ban
Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele enters his third term with broad support according to a new poll. File Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo June 23 (UPI) -- Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele begins his seventh year in office with strong public backing, including majority support for a third consecutive term, despite a constitutional ban on re-election, according to a new poll by the University Institute of Public Opinion at José Simeón Cañas Central American University. The study found that seven in 10 Salvadorans support Bukele seeking a third consecutive term, even though the Constitution prohibits it. Overall, 70.6% said they "agree" or "strongly agree" with a new re-election bid, while 25.4% were opposed. Paradoxically, 95% of respondents said it is important to respect the country's Constitution. The apparent contradiction underscores how many Salvadorans prioritize stability and security under President Nayib Bukele's leadership over institutional concerns. The poll found that 54.3% of respondents described him as "a president who imposes order with a firm hand," a phrase often tied to his hardline governing style. Respondents gave Bukele an average rating of 8.15 out of 10, slightly below his score from the previous year. His administration overall received a 7.85, down from 8.28 in 2024. Public security remains the cornerstone of Bukele's support. About 75.2% of those surveyed said improved safety is the country's greatest current achievement, while 66.6% cited his security policy as the administration's main accomplishment. Since 2022, the government has enforced a state of emergency aimed at dismantling street gangs -- a measure authorities say has sharply reduced homicides and extortion. The policy remains widely supported, with 66.8% of respondents backing its continuation. Bukele has built his image on that success. "I'd rather be called a dictator than see Salvadorans killed in the streets," he said in a recent speech, defending his controversial security measures against international criticism. Despite those gains, the economy remains the administration's most pressing challenge. About 39.2% of Salvadorans identified it as the country's top problem, followed by 15.3% who cited unemployment. Another 10.1% pointed to the high cost of living, and 5% mentioned poverty -- with nearly 70% overall naming economic hardship as the nation's most urgent concern. Despite large government investments in infrastructure and flagship projects, rising prices for basic goods and limited economic opportunities continue to concern the public. A lack of access to adequate housing also stands out among social issues, with 87 out of every 100 people saying it is difficult or very difficult to buy or rent a home in El Salvador. These concerns reflect rising inflation in recent years and persistently low wages for many workers. While the desire to emigrate has declined, it remains present among roughly 14% of Salvadorans -- often tied to the search for better living conditions. Bukele's government has faced criticism over human rights and democratic standards, both domestically and internationally. In just over two years, more than 78,000 people have been arrested in anti-gang operations, pushing the prison population to record levels. Authorities say about 2.5% of all Salvadoran adults are now incarcerated. While the government says most of those arrested are gang members or collaborators, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented thousands of cases of arbitrary detention, as well as reports of torture, abuse in prisons, forced disappearances and deaths of inmates in state custody during this period. Some Salvadorans have also raised concerns over the government's harsh tactics. The UCA poll found that 58% of respondents said they are afraid to express political views critical of the government, fearing reprisals. Forty-eight out of 100 believe someone who criticizes the president could be detained or imprisoned -- a reflection of growing tension around civil liberties. Independent media outlets have reported surveillance through government spyware, while domestic NGOs face stigmatization and some opposition figures have gone into exile, citing fears of prosecution. The government has rejected those allegations. Even so, independent polling firms CID Gallup and TResearch show Bukele's approval remains high, with ratings between 80% and 90% throughout 2024 and 2025 -- unusually strong support for a leader at this stage of a presidency.
Miami Herald
19 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Should Trump have bombed nuclear sites in Iran? What Americans said in a poll
More Americans disapprove of President Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran than approve of it, according to new YouGov polling. Most also believe the attack could lead to a broader war between the U.S. and Iran — which the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose. The poll comes after Trump ordered airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites on June 21, following the outbreak of war between Israel and Iran, triggered by a preemptive Israeli strike. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' The bombing — carried out by B-2 stealth bombers, which took off from Missouri — marks a dramatic escalation in the U.S. government's long-running effort to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Before the U.S. attack, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog warned that Iran had enriched uranium, a key ingredient for nuclear bombs, to high levels. However, multiple experts have stated that Iran was not on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, according to previous reporting from McClatchy News. Trump's own spy chief recently reached the same conclusion. In a March testimony before Congress, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said, 'The (intelligence community) continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump disregarded Gabbard's assessment on June 17, telling reporters on Air Force One, 'I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having a nuclear weapon,' according to Axios. Here is a breakdown of the poll's findings. Public opinion on bombing Iran In a June 21-22 YouGov poll which sampled 2,408 U.S. adults, a plurality of respondents, 46%, said they disapproved of Trump's decision to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. Meanwhile, 35% said they approved of it. More than two-thirds of Republicans, 68%, said they approved, while 70% of Democrats and 51% of independents said they disapproved. Most respondents in the poll — which has a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points — also said they believe the president's decision will likely lead to an escalation of hostilities. About two-thirds, 67%, said they think it's very or somewhat likely that the bombing will 'lead to a wider war between the U.S. and Iran.' Just 20% said this is not very likely or not likely at all. On this question, there was consensus across the aisle. Eighty-one percent of Democrats, 65% of independents and 51% of Republicans said the bombing would likely lead to a U.S.-Iran war. Further, a plurality of respondents, 44%, said the president's decision will /make the U.S. less safe over the long run. Twenty-five percent said it would make the U.S. more safe. Here there was a partisan split. Most Republicans, 52%, said it will bolster U.S. security, while most Democrats, 66%, and a plurality of independents, 46%, said it will weaken it. A separate YouGov poll — conducted on June 22 with 2,824 respondents — found that most Americans oppose war with Iran. The vast majority, 85%, said they don't want the U.S. to be at war with Iran, while just 5% said they favor war. Most Democrats (92%), Republicans (80%) and independents (83%) opposed war. That said, opinions were divided on the question of whether the U.S. is already at war. A plurality, 39%, said they consider the U.S. to already be at war with Iran, while 32% said it is not. Twenty-eight percent said they were not sure. Most Democrats, 56%, said they believe war has already broken out. Meanwhile, most Republicans, 54%, said they don't think the two nations are at war. Independents were more split, with 37% saying war has already arrived and 28% saying it has not happened yet. The second poll has a margin of error of 2.3 percentage points.
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
U.S. Supreme Court to rule over Rastafarian inmate hair religious exempts
1 of 2 | On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court took on a new religious case regarding a former Louisiana inmate of Rastafarian belief whose dreadlocks were forcibly cut off by prison officials. The court will hear oral arguments in the case and issue a ruling during its next term starting October and ending next year in June. File Photo by Jemal Countess/UPI | License Photo June 23 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday took on a new religious case regarding a former Louisiana inmate of Rastafarian belief whose dreadlocks were forcibly cut off by prison officials, but only after after a lower court "emphatically" condemned the ex-inmate's treatment as he seeks financial relief. Damon Landor served all but three weeks of a five-month jail sentence in 2020 on a drug-related criminal conviction when he was transferred to Raymond Laborde Correction Center in Avoyelles Parish roughly 30 miles south of Alexandria in east-central Louisiana. He took with him a copy of a 2017 decision by the state's 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying Louisiana's policy of cutting the hair of Rastafarians violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and Landor then showed the intake guard. The federal act forbids regulations that impose a "substantial burden" on the religious exercise of jailed persons, but a prison official rebuffed his concern. He was eventually handcuffed to a chair held down by two guards while a third shaved him bald on the warden's instructions order, according to Landor's legal appeal. Landor's lawsuit pointed to a number of claims such as the issue at play under the federal RLUIPA. The appeal noted the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling that government officials can be sued in their individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and that relevant language in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was identical. In court papers, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said the state did not disagree that Landor was mistreated and noted how the prison system had reportedly switched its policy to accommodate Rastafarian prisoners, but Murrill added that Landor's lawsuit didn't qualify for compensation as relief. However, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said that to deny Landor the option to seek damages as a remedy in a purported violation of RLUIPA would "undermine that important purpose." "And the circumstances precluding relief here are not unique," Sauer wrote in a court filing. Landor's legal team noted in a legal petition how more than one million people are incarcerated in state prisons and local jails. "Under the prevailing rule in the circuit courts, those individuals are deprived of a key remedy crucial to obtaining meaningful relief," the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Casey Denson wrote in its agreement with Sauer, adding that the broad implications warrant court review. Meanwhile, the nation's high court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case and issue a ruling during its next term starting October and ending June 2026.
