Congress began debating the future of US foreign aid last week, with many legislators seeking to cut funding in light of current federal budgetary constraints. Despite the nation's weak economy and poor outlook for recovery, cutting foreign aid is simply the wrong answer—especially in light of America's waning influence in world affairs. Both the Senate and House of Representatives have proposed reductions in the $60 billion State Department budget ranging from $12 billion in the House plan to $8 billion in the Senate plan. The reduced budget would force the State Department to spend on operations and security, leaving little money left over for humanitarian assistance.
American bilateral aid is essential to maintaining American influence through a soft-power, or ""smart"" power, approach. American cultural and economic influence grew throughout the Cold War, in large part because of bilateral American aid through the Marshall Plan. This aid is essential to many governments throughout the world who are friendly towards the United States and our ideals. Maintaining and growing these relationships is all the more essential in the present context of international affairs, as terrorism continues to be a thorn in the side of the West. The hard-power approaches of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other military activity throughout the Middle East and Africa, have had a discernable impact on Islamic terrorism; hard-power approaches have also created conditions under which terrorism grows. Consider the Afghanistan-Pakistan boarder, where America has been following a hard-power approach for ten years. Despite American efforts, terrorist incidents originating from this region have grown. Thus hard-power is only successful when complimented with soft-power.
There are other, arguably more important reasons to maintain the current levels of foreign aid. Among the most important are the potential for global health crisis that tend to originate from the developing world. Current aid programs in Africa, for example, are aimed at combating the spread of AIDS and other diseases. In other crisis situations such as massive natural disasters on the scale of the 2004 and 2011 tsunamis and the 2010 Haiti earthquake, humanitarian concerns necessitate an effective American response. Without appropriate funding levels, America's ability to respond to these crisis situations is severely crippled. Sure, Congress can always throw money at problems when they occur, but successful responses are built on existing resources. These resources largely do not exist outside of the United States, and their continued existence is in jeopardy as agencies shift their financial resources in the wake of foreign aid cuts. The world looks to the United States to lead on these issues, and we should.
America already gives a pitifully small amount to the world community in terms of foreign developmental assistance. President Obama has requested $60 billion for his next budget, which is less than 0.5 percent of the proposed $3.729 trillion budget. Other member nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—the 30 most affluent nations in the world—give proportionally more. It is true that in actual dollars the United States gives the most, but as a percentage of GNP, the United States is almost dead last among OECD nations.
In light of current economic uncertainty, foreign aid cuts may seem logical and necessary, yet they are not. Faced with the same constraints, other Western nations are increasing their foreign aid budgets. The United Kingdom, led by a center-right Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, has committed to increasing aid levels to 0.7 percent of GNP. And our potential rivals recognize the importance of foreign aid as well—China has recently embarked on a massive expansion of foreign aid. Investing in the long term is clearly important to the rest of the world, yet American politicians seem to prioritize easy political points over long-term benefits.
With over $1.4 trillion in cuts to find, it may seem an easy choice for the debt reduction super-committee to target developmental assistance under the auspice of ""we need to take care of our nation before we hand out money to others.""
But this is the wrong answer —the effects of the cuts in the nations where money will be lost will be disproportionate to the gains made in debt reduction for America. And these cuts will be made while we continue to spend billions of dollars on two wars, despite very public and very real commitments to end those wars in the next two years. Developmental aid has a proportionally higher effect in creating a cogent and effective foreign policy than direct military intervention. Plus, its much less costly.
Cutting developmental aid will have direct, costly and irreparable effects. Lives will be lost, humans will suffer, and communities will shatter, all for our politicians to score some easy political points. The United Nations estimates that nearly 13 million people are in need of food in the Horn of Africa, with 750,000 close to death. For $700 million the international organization could deliver food, but the money has to come from somewhere.
Now is not the time to axe foreign aid. With emerging democracies forming in the Arab world, it is imperative that the US government lends support in any way possible. Twice in the past during times of massive democratic nation building—the Marshall Plan after World War II, and the global revolutions of 1989—America has invested in nascent democracies and reaped massive benefits economically and politically. Though times may be tough, cutting foreign aid budgets now risks losing the gains of the Arab Spring. There are real human costs to cuts in American foreign aid, not just political points to score.
Andrew Thompson is a senior majoring in History and Political Science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
