Tight With a Buck

In his inaugural address, President Bush vowed to spread freedom and democracy across the globe. Left unstated was how, though implicit in encouraging free and stable nations is development aid for struggling economies. Yet in last week’s 9 1/2 -hour-long hearing to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of State, aid rated barely a whisper. Senators asked her a lot of tough questions about the war in Iraq, Washington’s relationships with its allies and the U.S. strategy toward troublesome nations like Venezuela and Cuba. There was little mention of the problem that kills millions every year and helps fuel terrorism, war, instability and misery across the planet: poverty.

Rice did offer a few minutes of lip service to foreign aid, even if some of her answers were a little embarrassing. After Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) mentioned that the South Asian tsunami relief efforts were generating global goodwill, she responded, “I do agree that the tsunami was a wonderful opportunity to show ... the heart of the American people, and I think it has paid great dividends for us.” The nation’s chief diplomat undoubtedly didn’t mean to suggest that our country was profiting from a disaster that killed more than 200,000 people. But if her language was a little blunt, she at least had the right idea. Providing overseas assistance does generate goodwill -- the kind of goodwill that can go further than military might in enhancing U.S. security.

That’s why we wish someone had asked Rice why the U.S. contribution to development assistance is so pathetically small. Americans like to think of themselves as the most generous people in the world, and buoying that impression is the fact that the United States gives, in total, more money in foreign aid than any other country. But that’s only because our economy is so much bigger than that of other nations. When giving is measured as a percentage of gross national income, the U.S. is a deadbeat.

The United States was dead last in 2003 among the 22 leading industrialized nations whose aid contributions are tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This isn’t a partisan issue. Indeed, illustrating the Republican Party’s sometimes uncomfortable alliance between fiscal conservatives, who would just as soon restrict foreign aid heavily, and the religious right, which has a time-honored tradition of tithing and giving to the less fortunate, Bush has increased U.S. contributions to overseas development. But the overall level remains embarrassingly low.

Under Bush, U.S. contributions to foreign aid have risen from a tenth of a percent of gross national income when he took office to 0.15% in 2003. Norway, the top giver, contributes more than nine-tenths of a percent of its national income.

Many counter that private donations from American citizens make up for the relative stinginess of their government. It’s true that the U.S. does give more per person in private donations than most other countries, but as Times staff writer Sonni Efron showed in a report on American giving last month, the people of three other nations -- Switzerland, Ireland and Norway -- still donated more per person in 2002. And because private aid is dwarfed by government aid, individuals’ donations don’t make up for their government’s shortfall.

Just a day before Rice’s confirmation hearing, the United Nations Millennium Project, an effort to end extreme poverty within a decade, called on industrialized countries to contribute half a percent of their national incomes to development assistance. This is actually a lowering of aspirations; the developed world’s previous ostensible commitment was for seven-tenths of a percentage point. Though the plan was on the front pages of national newspapers, it didn’t make a big impression in Washington; nobody mentioned it at the hearing.

Such silence is why the United States is no longer considered a leader in efforts to improve conditions around the world. Other nations are instead taking on that mantle. Gordon Brown, Britain’s chancellor of the Exchequer, has been campaigning for a Marshall Plan-style relief effort of soft loans and direct assistance to fight poverty in Africa.

To get an idea of the response from Washington, imagine the sound of chirping crickets.

Through the years, polls have consistently shown that Americans mistakenly think an exorbitant amount of their tax dollars is being handed out in foreign aid. In truth, foreign assistance from the government amounts to 15 cents a day per person. The $450-billion annual military budget should also help put the $16 billion spent on aid in perspective. Investing in national security is necessary, but increasing foreign aid -- besides being the right thing to do -- should be seen as part of that investment.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Global giving

The U.S. ranks last in foreign aid among major industrialized nations. A sampling of donations by country:

Overseas development assistance in 2003

(Percent of gross national income)

Norway: 0.92

Netherlands: 0.80

France: 0.41

Britain: 0.34

Germany: 0.28

Australia: 0.25

Japan: 0.20

U.S.: 0.15

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development