US foreign aid benefits recipients – and the donor

Posted by Samuel Worthington

Monday 14 February 2011 09.58 GMT
guardian.co.uk

Americans think they give far more aid than they actually do, and are clamouring to cut it. But
aid isn't just about compassion, it serves our security and economic interests too.

People queue at a USAid distribution point in Port-au-Prince. Photograph: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

When Americans guess how much their government spends on foreign aid, they usually estimate
25% of the total budget. In reality, it is less than 1%.
This sobering statistic underscores a huge disconnect between what the US public thinks is spent
on foreign aid – which includes development and other forms of aid – and the actual amount. It
also helps to explain why the public supports cutting foreign assistance, even though they tell
pollsters about 10% of US government spending would be the right amount. A recent Gallup poll
found that 59% of Americans wanted to reduce foreign aid.
There will probably need to be big cuts and some tax increases to eventually get the US budget
back into balance – and when President Barack Obama releases his 2012 budget today, it will
include belt-tightening measures. The national debt stands at about $14tn, and the US
Congressional Budget Office predicts the budget deficit will be $1.5 tn this year.
There has been a conscious decision among US allies, such as Britain and Australia, not to slash
foreign aid as part of an attempt to resolve budget crises. We hope Republicans who now control
the House of Representatives will follow their example and ease pressure to cut foreign aid.
The US is one of the big spenders on official development assistance in gross dollar terms, but
when measured according to donors' national income (GNI), it comes across as stingy.
According to OECD figures from 2009, Britain's development assistance was about 0.5% of GNI
while in the US it was at 0.21%.
Cutting the aid budget, as many of the more conservative Republicans in the house would like to
do, is wrong for many reasons. There is the obvious moral issue, but such cuts also threaten
Washington's reputation abroad, undermine foreign policy objectives and defeat the very fiscal
objectives Republicans seek to achieve.
The Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates put it in simple terms last week: "The 1%
we spend on aid for the poorest not only saves millions of lives, it has an enormous impact on
developing economies – which means it has an impact on our economy."
President George W Bush saw the value of foreign assistance and launched the biggest
programme to combat Aids and malaria. The defence secretary, Robert Gates, has also been a
champion of foreign assistance, urging Congress to sustain civilian-led aid programmes,
particularly in conflict zones like Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Gates's message, and that of many of the military brass, is that cutting aid jeopardises US
national security. It also creates a greater vacuum in so-called fragile states, which can easily be
filled by those who do not have US interests at heart. There is no doubt that foreign assistance
helps ward off future military conflicts.
There are tensions over the use of national security logic to justify development assistance,
especially within the US NGO community. The Obama administration has aligned the
millennium development goals (MDGs) as "America's goal", and this focus on poverty and
vulnerable populations is reflected in a new official development policy – the first government-
wide development strategy since the Kennedy administration. To ward off cuts, groups
defending foreign assistance use three frames: national security, the economy and compassion.
This new pressure point on the foreign aid budget comes as the administration is trying to reform
the US development agency. To implement those reforms will need investment, not turning off
the spigot. If a group of more conservative Republicans get their way, they will eliminate federal
funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAid).
These proposed cuts – if they get through Congress – could be vetoed by Obama when they
reach his desk. The fear of US NGOs is that there will be some fallout anyway, and the victim
will obviously be programmes in the field that will have to be cut.
What is ironic about the public's apparent support to trim foreign assistance is that Americans are
proud of their reputation for being generous. For example, more Americans donated to Haiti after
the earthquake last year than apparently tuned in to watch the Superbowl – the premier American
football sporting event.
Privately, Americans give tens of billions annually, and they expect their government to be
altruistic – even if they underestimate how much is actually spent.