Red and Blue
Foreign Aid in the 21st Century: Are Present Systems Adequate?
Michael Krull and Arnie Arnesen
RED
U.S. Foreign Assistance in the 21st Century
By Michael Krull
The recent earthquake in Haiti has focused the American public’s attention on U.S. foreign disaster assistance, and, as a result, according to the New York Times, nearly half of American households have donated to relief efforts – this is truly an example of the best of the American spirit of generosity.
Americans have historically been generous in helping those abroad, providing their money mostly through private voluntary organizations (such as CARE and Save the Children), religious charities and the Red Cross. When disasters strike anywhere in the world, the American military’s unmatched lift capability to deliver food and medicine, coupled with the generosity of American citizens, provide billions of dollars in relief assistance to the victims.
Yet we need to draw a distinction between the sort of quick, short-term emergency relief that we have seen in response to Haiti or the tsunami of a few years ago, and on-going assistance that provides funding and technical assistance for long-term development.
Prior to the end of the Second World War, American foreign assistance was largely provided by religious and charitable organizations, while our government response was added to these in the case of natural disasters. Following WW II, American foreign assistance became more formalized with the establishment of the War Relief Board and the Marshall Plan. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 further cemented our permanent aid agencies and, though it has been amended several times, is still the governing legislation.
Throughout the Cold War, I would argue that our formal foreign assistance program, as delivered primarily through the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Peace Corps (and several smaller programs) were largely used as rewards for those countries that remained in the Western camp, or unaligned, against the Soviet Union. As such, our motivation for providing aid was not necessarily development, but war through other means.
These legacy programs were and remain characterized largely by direct government-to-government transfers of food and money. As such, they are overly bureaucratic, inefficient and rife with corruption. The unfortunate fact is that despite billions upon billions of dollars spent toward those laudable programs and their goals, most countries are worse off now than they were before they received development assistance. In some instances, funds have been diverted to enrich their leaders.
This raises the question of why large government-to-government programs fail. Numerous recent articles and studies suggest that three systemic factors inhibit real development: lack of transparent rules and regulations for business formation; lack of the rule of law; and lack of property rights.
Meanwhile, private organizations, funded by private citizens and in part with assistance from the U.S. government through direct contracts, grants or in-kind contributions of surplus grain, have also been working in the same countries that receive government-to-government development assistance. Though the private charitable projects are generally smaller in scope, they are focused, efficient and largely free of corruption because they involve local or tribal leaders working in cooperation with the aid organization. This increases their impact.
Over the years, I have witnessed international institutional (i.e., United Nations), government-to-government and private organization efforts on the ground in a number of countries in a number of regions in the world. I have seen the horrors of civil war, refugee camps and successful development projects emerging from these. My personal experience has been that international organizations and governments are better able and more efficient at delivering emergency relief and that private organizations are better able to deliver long-term development assistance.
Given this, some argue that we should curtail or eliminate our development assistance programs. I argue that comprising less than one-half of one percent of our federal budget, our long-term development assistance programs are not only worthwhile, but they are a moral obligation. Furthermore, the long-term benefits of development and growth help to mitigate the man-made disaster of civil war, the response to which is much more expensive than our development programs. Yet, there is a lot of room to improve and modify our development programs.
For example, in order to help address these development challenges, in 2004 the Bush Administration, with strong bipartisan support, established the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a new and innovative foreign assistance agency which provides countries development assistance funds on a competitive basis. The projects that the recipient countries apply for must be focused on good governance, economic freedom and investments in their citizens. In order to continue receiving funds, countries must reach certain benchmarks. This is effective government-to-government development assistance. You can read more at www.mcc.gov.
Our government and private aid organizations already do a good job of coordinating development projects and initiatives, but I advocate a lesser role for traditional government-to-government projects in favor of those envisioned through the Millennium Challenge Corporation and through private organizations with private and public support – and full independent audits of all projects once completed, with further assistance contingent on passing a successful project audit.
It is not enough, however, for the United States to demand these sorts of structural changes – we must work in concert with other donor governments (Europe, Japan, and international organizations such as the United Nations) to insist that development assistance funds must indeed go toward development projects and not into Swiss bank accounts for corrupt leaders. Governments seeking aid must know that the international community expects aid funds to go to their intended purposes. Simply put, if recipient governments cannot ensure this, the international donor community should refuse aid.
The increasing role of private philanthropy must also be taken into account. For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced in late January the commitment of $10 billion over the next decade to develop and deliver new vaccines in an effort to fight disease in developing countries. Investments of this size rival many government-to-government projects.
The Cold War rationale for our foreign development assistance programs are now gone, and we need to ensure that taxpayer funds are spent wisely to help people abroad. In the long run, we need to encourage countries to develop so that they can be integrated into the world economy and their citizens can have a better life.
Regardless, however, the United States should always provide disaster assistance to those anywhere who need help. It is part of our history and character to help anyone anywhere.
_________
Michael Krull is a graduate of Luther College and Iowa State University. He has worked on disaster relief for the State Department, a major Washington, DC public relations and political consulting firm, and is currently working for American Solutions for Winning the Future. He is a member of the Council on Emerging National Security Affairs.
BLUE
Foreign Aid in the 21st Century
By Arnie Arnesen
For all those conservatives, fundamentalists, Tea Baggers and the 62% of Americans who believe the U.S. is a Christian nation (Newsweek Poll 2009) than no argument need be found to support non-military aid to those in need around the world. After all the good Samaritan did not need to know the victim or do the cost benefit analysis (what is in it for me? can I afford it? what does he owe me for my help?) the Good Samaritan just saw a need and knew he must provide.
“A Jewish man was traveling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’ Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.” New Testament, Bible, Book of Luke.
But since the Good Samaritan and Jesus’ teaching from Matthew 5 to “Love your enemy” are the most ignored of Jesus’ teaching, let's put to rest the Christian Nation fiction and just look at the numbers in comparison to the rest of the world.
Helping whom????
“Bush’s foreign-aid plan [for 2005] actually marks an increase over 2004 levels, although much of the additional money is explained by greater spending on security for U.S. embassies and personnel overseas.” - Institute for Policy Studies
Aside: And we had the nerve to call this foreign aid.
Is Obama better?
At $744 billion, the military budget continues its upward trajectory. It also widens the gap between spending on military vs. non-military tools. Spending on non-military international engagement actually decreased since last year, from $64.9 to $60.5 billion.
The imbalance between the budget for offense (military forces) and prevention (non-military foreign engagement) actually grew from 11:1 to 12:1. - Institute for Policy Studies
Aside: Obama is spending more on defense than Bush.
But how does our non-military aid compare to the rest of the world?
Any way you cut it, the U.S. commitment looks pathetic even as our military investments look both foolish and provocative.
For example: We are pissing off China by selling $6.4 billion in defense weapons to Taiwan which we do at our own peril given that China has the second largest defense budget with no budget busting wars like Iraq and Afghanistan on its plate.
The Numbers tell the story.
Net OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (ODA) in 2008 as percent of GROSS NATIONAL INCOME (GNI) per Country
Aid amount by GNI
Source: OECD Development Statistics Online last accessed Sunday, April 12, 2009
Sweden 0.98
Luxembourg 0.92
Norway 0.88
Denmark 0.82
Netherlands 0.8
Ireland 0.58
Belgium 0.47
Finland 0.43
Spain 0.43
UK 0.43
Austria 0.42
Switzerland 0.41
France 0.39
Germany 0.38
Australia 0.34
Canada 0.32
New Zealand 0.3
Portugal 0.27
Greece 0.2
Italy 0.2
Japan 0.18
USA 0.18
Details: Aid in $
Net ODA in 2008 as U.S. dollar amounts (millions)
Country Aid amounts by dollars
Source: OECD Development Statistics Online last accessed Sunday, April 12, 2009
USA 25,439*
Germany 12,994
UK 12,217
France 10,168
Japan 8,310
Netherlands 6,522
Spain 6,138
Canada 4,577
Sweden 4,508
Italy 4,059
Norway 3,638
Australia 3,038
Denmark 2,570
Belgium 2,214
Switzerland 1,794
Austria 1,555
Ireland 1,269
Finland 1,047
Greece 636
Portugal 570
Luxembourg 382
New Zealand 355
* Compare $25.4 billion per YEAR for total Aid for the world, to the figures established in July 2009 that sets the Department Of Defense’s average MONTHLY obligations of $7.3 billion for Iraq, and $3.6 billion for Afghanistan (note that as of this writing, one year in Afghanistan will exceed the total U.S. Aid amount by over $10 billion)
Ahhhh but I have had my head handed to me by friends who point out that you can’t just look at the U.S. government’s aid…what about private support such as Bill and Melinda Gates or the Christian Aid Ministries.
Read these numbers and weep.
Quality-adjusted aid and charitable giving/GDP (%) Country
Quality-adjusted aid as percent of GDP
Source: David Roodman, An Index of Donor Performance PDF formatted document, Center for Global Development, April 2004
Sweden 0.5
Denmark 0.48
Netherlands 0.45
Norway 0.4
France 0.23
Belgium 0.21
Switzerland 0.21
Finland 0.19
United Kingdom 0.19
Austria 0.15
Germany 0.15
Canada 0.14
Ireland 0.12
Australia 0.11
Italy 0.11
Portugal 0.1
Japan 0.09
Greece 0.07
Spain 0.07
United States 0.07
New Zealand 0.03
Conclusion: Why foreign Aid? Because it represents a rational and practical investment in world stability and it is the right thing to do. In a nation that cannot think in shades of gray but only black and white…then embrace the concept of doing right.
____________
D. Arnie Arnesen is a radio and TV commentator based in New Hampshire. She has lectured at Harvard, Dartmouth, UNH, SNHU, Vermont Law School, St. Olaf, and other colleges. She is a former NH Legislator and a former democratic nominee for Governor and Congress. Arnie has been a Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government's Institute of Politics at Harvard and has trainied women who want to run for office throughout the United States and future NH Leaders. You can hear Arnie every Wednesday on Talk of Iowa on IowaPublicRadio.org and every Friday on the Dan Mitchell Show on WKBKam.com. politicalchowder@gmail.com
