How Foreign Aid Helps American Interests : It’s not all giveaway and charity--it assists the U.S. abroad

Congressional Republicans are in the process of decimating foreign aid, an important instrument of U.S. foreign policy since the Marshall Plan helped rebuild war-torn Europe almost 50 years ago. Fiscal realities require tough economies--every agency of the federal government must tighten up. But the Draconian cuts expected to pass the House threaten to seriously erode Washington’s global influence.

Enlightened self-interest, not morality, motivates most U.S. foreign assistance. That’s one reason just four countries receive 66% of the $14.8 billion in U.S. foreign aid. For example, more than $5 billion in annual aid to Egypt and Israel supports the peace they have made, a peace that serves as a buffer against anti-Western radicals in the Middle East.

TWO ESCAPE THE AX: Neither the House bill, shepherded by Benjamin A. Gilman (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, nor the Senate bill, crafted by Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), would affect that. Spared the proposed budget cuts, Israel would receive $3.1 billion and Egypt $2.1 billion. But sub-Saharan Africa (with the exception of South Africa) would share just $540 million, down from an already inadequate $802 million. That aid combats disease, improves literacy and assists trade. Strengthening developing nations and nascent democracies helps stabilize the region and open up new U.S. markets.

Russia and Ukraine can expect much more, $675 million, much of it for reducing nuclear arsenals and encouraging the privatization of their economies. This too is a prudent investment.

Important long-term development, both humanitarian and economic, is on the chopping block. Of the $1.3 billion spent this fiscal year on global development, excluding Africa, the House bill would cut $858 million. The Helms bill would cut $820 million. Latin America, Asia and other regions not specified must compete for undesignated funds.

One might ask why tax-paying Americans should care whether millions of poor children abroad no longer get immunizations or medical care. The answer is easy: Because disease knows no geographical boundaries. Deep cuts in international health assistance could leave the world, and that includes the United States, more vulnerable to new health menaces.

A few dollars can go a long way in a poor country, reducing the desire to emigrate, legally or otherwise. Haiti is a good example. The U.S. military intervention and the resulting improvement in the atmosphere there stemmed the flood of refugees to the United States.

U.S. JOBS IN PERIL: Jobs for Americans are also at stake. An estimated 80% of U.S. aid allocated for foreign nations winds up being spent on U.S. goods and services. This investment translates into 200,000 jobs, and in some cases allows U.S. companies to enter foreign markets. A Van Nuys electric car maker, for example, now makes taxis that ease air pollution in Bangkok.

Certainly Congress could cut the bloated bureaucracy at the United Nations and the enviable salaries at the World Bank. But the United States spends a paltry .15% of its gross national product on foreign aid. (Canada spends .45%, the United Kingdom .31% and Germany .37%.) The fat is somewhere else.

Consider the reductions already made by the Clinton Administration: a 20% cut in the foreign aid budget, elimination of 21 consulates abroad and the reduction of more than 1,000 employees at the State Department. President Clinton is now threatening to veto the proposed additional cuts, and with good reason.

Americans spend only about $44 per family per year on foreign aid. Partisan politics should not destroy the many valuable parts of the foreign aid budget.