When hearing the term “foreign aid,” one probably thinks of the U.S. giving money to poor countries for food and water. While this assumption is partially correct, U.S. foreign aid is also a means of economic and political strategic fodder for the U.S. Foreign aid often includes providing money to foreign countries for militarization efforts or providing assistance from the U.S. military itself.
U.S. Foreign Aid
While some oppose the U.S. giving aid to other countries in favor of using the same money to bolster the U.S. economy and provide national security, they usually do so under the false pre-tense that around 25 percent of our national budget is geared toward foreign aid; the real number is only around 1.5 percent.
In fact, foreign aid acts as economic investment with other countries and creates trading allies, providing a return on investment. Also, foreign aid works to provide national security for the U.S. by stabilizing countries rife with conflict and poverty; such measures often end wars before they even begin. This notion was confirmed by a letter to President Trump from over 120 retired generals, urging the president to reconsider the ‘benefits’ of the proposed cuts to the foreign aid budget.
Throughout the history of U.S. foreign aid, one can simply follow our military. Here are four of the big shifts in U.S. foreign aid policy.
Marshall Plan
Foreign aid, as we consider it now, started post-WWII. In 1947, two years after the war, Secretary of State George C. Marshall insisted at a Harvard commencement ceremony that the U.S. needed an aggressive plan to rebuild Europe. The Marshall Plan, officially known as the European Recovery Program, passed the next year.
In the next four years, the U.S. provided more than $13 billion in aid to European nations. The move, while helpful, was also tinged with a political agenda — the U.S. needed allies in Europe against an emerging enemy, the Soviet Union. The U.S. remains close allies with these European nations and 13 of them are current NATO members.
President Harry S Truman supplemented the humanitarian efforts provided by the Marshall Plan with further military and economic aid to allies in Europe by way of the Point Four Program, a technical aid program aimed at sharing U.S. technology and knowledge of agriculture and industry. This measure was ultimately a gesture meant to create allies against the emerging USSR. Truman then signed the Mutual Security Act of 1951, which replaced the Marshall Plan and shifted its priorities to containing the spread of communism.
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was created out of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by President John F. Kennedy. The assumption was that by combining foreign aid programs, the U.S. could be a better leader and moral authority for the rest of the world (read: prevent the spread of communism).
USAID is now the main operator of U.S. foreign aid programs, leading development and humanitarian efforts across the globe ranging from the Feed the Future program, a global food security program providing funding, health services, water and protection to aiding peoples suffering from conflicts in South Sudan.
The Cold War
In the 1970s, the focus of foreign aid shifted from economic and political development, to meeting “basic human needs.” This lead to an emphasis on food production, nutrition, health and education — all means to providing developing countries with the means to be self-sufficient. Still, there was a political tinge. The U.S. was largely acting on anti-communism interests and Middle East peace initiatives. As a result of these priorities, Israel and Egypt became large recipients from U.S. aid.
Toward the end of the 1980s, Congress was tasked with reducing the national deficit and foreign aid was at less than 1 percent of the national budget. Still, foreign aid followed into the same countries as our military including Panama in 1990 after the U.S. invaded Panama during Operation Just Cause under President George H. W. Bush.
Due to the end of the Cold War and Congress’s continued efforts to maintain the budget deficit, foreign aid remained less than 1 percent of the federal budget until the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Contemporary Foreign Aid
From 2003-2014, Iraq and Afghanistan received increases in economic and military assistance from the U.S. Afghanistan became the largest recipient of U.S. aid in 2017 at $4.7 billion. President George W. Bush also created the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003, which supports over 14 million people in over 50 countries living with HIV/AIDS. PEPFAR’s website claims to have helped more than 2.2 million babies to be born HIV-free to pregnant women living with HIV and AIDS.
In 2008, President Obama renewed PEPFAR and also signed the U.S. President’s Policy Directive on Global Development. The Obama administration called it the first of its time, but the measure resembles Kennedy’s act to instill the U.S. by way of foreign assistance and development at the forefront of moral and economic authority globally. The directive has a wide berth of goals aimed at providing increased global food security, global health and national security by working on poverty-related issues in impoverished nations.
Today, President Trump continues to insist we trim the U.S. foreign aid budget by over 30 percent, which will inevitably cut some humanitarian programs entirely. The Trump administration claims the cuts will go to bolstering national security, but as we’ve learned and as over 120 retired generals stated to President Trump, U.S. foreign aid is a form of national security.
– Nick Hodges
Photo: Flickr
Life Expectancy in Uganda
Life expectancy in Uganda has significantly improved in the past decade. Ugandan men born in 2016 are now projected to live 59.8 years, and women have a life expectancy of 64.8 years. This is a marked increase from 2000 when Uganda’s average life expectancy was only 47 years.
The higher rate of life expectancy correlates to more expected years of schooling (11.6 years) and an improved Human Development Index (HDI) value, a summary measure that assesses the long-term progress of a given nation. In 2017, Uganda’s HDI value was 0.516, a substantial 66 percent jump from 1990.
Raising the Life Expectancy Rate
The Ugandan government is working proactively to raise the life expectancy rate even more in the future. In conjunction with The Family Planning Association of Uganda, its initiatives include lowering the population growth rate from 3 percent to 2.6 percent, improving the current population’s physical and mental health as well as social standards and implementing fertility reduction measures. The government additionally plans to incorporate sex education in schools, maternity and paternity benefits and raising the legal marriage age.
The government’s efforts to limit population growth have proven to be effective. “[B]ecause they have smaller families than in the 1980s that makes them enjoy some kind of mental peace and increase their life expectancy,” said Paul Nyende, the head of The Institute of Community Psychology at Makerere University. He also added, “People had an average of eight children in those years, but the number has now been reduced to four because they are sure of their children’s survival.”
Life expectancy in Uganda is steadily improving, but there is much work to be done. Uganda has not yet met the threshold of a developed country. Even with Uganda’s improved HDI, the East African country still remains low in the development category when compared to the 70 years or more found in developed countries.
Issues That Need to Be Addressed
The country’s health care continues to be among the worst in the world. In fact, according to The World Health Organization, Uganda is ranked 186 out of 191 nations. This has gotten worse in recent years since many of Uganda’s hospitals have closed and a large number of medical personnel have left the country for better opportunities.
“Communicable diseases like HIV, malaria and lower respiratory infections are still taking the lives of far too many Ugandans. Children are at particular risk, and neonatal ailments like sepsis, pre-term birth and encephalopathy have killed thousands of infants. There is still a lot of work to be done…” said Dr. Dan Kajungu, Executive Director of Makerere University Centre for Health and Population Research (MUCHAP).
However, Uganda has already set itself up as a global example in regards to addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Uganda continues to successfully combat HIV/AIDS with a comprehensive strategy involving abstinence, partner reduction and barrier protection, all resulting in the reduction of HIV to a manageable level since the early 2000s. This is in contrast to rising HIV rates in many other countries and has played a key part in Uganda’s improvements to life expectancy.
Furthermore, improvements have been made in the health sector in regards to maternal and child mortality rates, which have dropped from 488 to 336 per 1000 for maternal and 54 to43 per 1000 infant. Immunizations are up as well. At least 72 percent of children will receive measles vaccination before their first birthday.
Going forward, in order to continue increasing life expectancy rates in Uganda, the government must entice skilled Ugandans living abroad to return as well as provide opportunities for people currently living in the country, like education and better career options. If the same rapid acknowledgment is given to other areas of concern in national health, life expectancy in Uganda can only rise.
The government is taking steps in the meantime to nurture their health sector despite the imminent challenges. Goals include movement towards universal health coverage, bolstering immunization rates and having prepared responses to disease outbreaks. The future is promising, and Uganda’s ministry of health expects further improvement as other initiatives take deeper root.
– Yumi Wilson
Photo: Flickr
Fighting Human Trafficking in Thailand
Modern slavery plagues millions of communities globally. Human trafficking, a $150 billion plus industry, impacts lives regardless of race, gender or economic status. Human trafficking in Thailand is a major national problem.
Children and Human Trafficking
With convenient trafficking routes that funnel women and children in and out of the country, Thailand has become a popular destination for traffickers. Extreme poverty, particularly in rural areas makes children vulnerable. Research estimates that around 60,000 children are trapped in the sex trade in Thailand. Direct intervention can be extremely difficult, due to the violent nature of this criminal activity.
There are a number of risk factors that make children vulnerable to human trafficking. Poverty and hunger can cause parents to sell their children into slavery with the hope that they will find a better life. In addition, traffickers target homeless and isolated children, hoping to lure them with false promises. A lack of education or understanding of their legal rights, also makes children more vulnerable.
In Thailand, most children only attend school for about 7 years. The most susceptible population are girls living in orphanages who are about to graduate into the outside world.
Peacework Safe Girls Campaign
Peacework, a non-profit based in Virginia, has developed the Peacework Safe Girls Campaign to combat child trafficking in Thailand and other countries through education and empowerment. The Safe Girls Campaign empowers children with financial self-reliance and avoid the chains of trafficking.
The Peacework Safe Girls Campaign hosts a variety of different empowerment projects at orphanages in Thailand staffed by university students from the United States working alongside university students in Thailand.
In Saraburi, Thailand, Peacework partners with Asia Pacific University, a Seventh-day Adventist university east of Saraburi. The partnership between Peacework and Asia Pacific University focuses on the development of a financial independence curriculum. They present the curriculum to the orphanages and shelters on an annual basis.
Peacework Safe Girls Campaign empowers children in Chiang Rai as well. Chiang Rai sits at the top of Thailand, and ineffective border regulation results in well-used trafficking routes. Peacework partners with Keep Girls Safe, an initiative of the Adventist Development and Relief Agency that runs a shelter for young girls. The Safe Girls Campaign sends university students from the United States to Chiang Rai to run educational workshops for shelter residents.
Breaking the Cycle of Poverty
Through these projects, the Safe Girls Campaign helps children achieve self-determination that helps them avoid trafficking. Equipped with knowledge about their legal rights and the skills to pursue a profitable career, vulnerable children can take control of their futures and resist the cycle of trafficking. The work also gives children the tools to lift themselves out of poverty. Entrepreneurial development equips them to pursue a financially stable career.
While the scale of the campaigns’ reach may be small, the impact of economic empowerment on the lives of orphans in Chiang Rai and Saraburi are sure to have a ripple effect. In addition, the tactics they are developing to fight human trafficking and poverty are inherently valuable to ending the epidemic globally.
The prevention work Peacework does through the Safe Girls Campaign is crucial in the fight to end trafficking and it currently hopes to expand the campaign to countries around the world. Their prevention strategy can be applied to any country. The Safe Girls Campaign empowers children to pursue better lives.
– Julia McCartney
Photo: Flickr
US Foreign Aid to Belarus: The Gateway to the East
Although much of Europe has changed since the end of the Cold War, Belarus certainly has not. The leadership of this tiny-landlocked country of more than 9.5 million people has forcefully held onto its Soviet-style economy. So much so that Belarus is often described as Europe’s last dictatorship. Despite this, U.S. foreign aid to Belarus could help foster a new economy and a new partnership.
Belarus Holding Russian Standards
Belarus is a relatively new country, gaining independence from The Soviet Union in 1991. In 1994, Belarus’ first president, Alexander Lukashenko, was elected and has subsequently been the nation’s only president so far. His reign has seen a steady consolidation of power and a weakening of a democratic institution. Because of this, the West has experienced tense relations in regards to aiding and working with the Belarusian government.
Moreover, the state’s economy is comparable to the Soviet model of a centralized economy. Around 50 percent of Belarus’ workforce is employed by state-owned entities, which make up 75 percent of the country’s GDP. This has produced an extremely rigid economic structure that is not rational in a highly globalized world.
While poverty had fallen from 60 percent in 2001 to around 1 percent in 2013, Belarus was still not on steady ground. It was able to reduce poverty rapidly because of favorable energy pricing and productivity growth with its largest trading partner, Russia.
Belarus in Crisis
However, these factors are no longer in play for the benefit of Belarus. Productivity in Russia has dropped while energy prices have increased alongside the accumulation of debt to Russia. Hit by a recession in 2014-2016, the economy’s fragile structure was exposed when poverty increased by 3 percent in Belarus overall with 6 percent in rural areas.
On top of this, the Belarusian state has been unable to adapt to national and transnational health and safety issues. First, Belarus is currently experiencing an epidemic of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The U.N. Development Program reports that 89 percent of all deaths in the country are due to NCDs.
Second, human trafficking has become such a significant problem that The U.S. Dept. of State labeled Belarus as a tier 3 country when it comes to trafficking (the worst tier attainable). Here, Belarus serves as an important ‘gate-keeper’ that buffers The E.U. from, or exposes it to, the spread of human and drug trafficking.
What can be done about this situation? E.U., U.N. and U.S. foreign aid to Belarus have begun to answer this question.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
The first focus of USAID is strengthening the private sector. USAID has implemented numerous projects over the years that have been tasked with helping build a stronger Belarusian economy. One project, called TechMinsk, is a technical and business boot camp for young entrepreneurs and start-ups. As of 2017, $7 million has been invested in 200 entrepreneurs and 90 start-ups newly introduced to Belarus’ economy. Through educational training and international programs, more than 6,000 enterprises have been strengthened and/or created.
The second focus of USAID is to create a stronger civil society in order for a freer form of government to flourish. Civil society organizations (CSOs) are an essential part of this plan. CSOs are meant to increase the involvement of the general public in policy-making decisions. As of 2016, 140 CSOS had been trained and funded, totaling more than 8,000 hours. Each year, more than 60 Belarusian professionals from different sectors (business, law, education, government and civil society) are selected for exchange programs in The U.S. These professionals are exposed to the innovations of U.S. nongovernmental organizations and how to apply these innovations in Belarus.
United Nations Development Program & the European Union
The U.N. has been at the forefront of engaging Belarus with the rest of the world. While free-market businesses only form about 30 percent of the Belarusian economy, the government has invited The U.N. to provide aid and expertise in expanding this percentage. Although Belarus ranks poorly for its control of human trafficking, its government has joined The U.N. Group of Friends United against Human Trafficking. Here, the Belarusian government will receive foreign aid and advice on how to best stop the surge of trafficking through Eastern Europe
The E.U. and Belarus have continued trade relations, although, relations have been strained. However, in 2014, Belarus and The E.U. initiated a new relationship. After years of tense relations and sanctions, 2014 saw the renewed interest on both sides for important talks regarding visa liberalization.
Belarus Working Toward a Better Tomorrow
While Belarus hasn’t let go of its tightly controlled government and economy, foreign aid is changing the narrative. These national and international bodies listed above have all taken steps to open Belarus up to the greater world and expose its people to ideas of different societies and freer economies.
Here, interests overlap on both sides. On the West’s side, it has a vested interest in stopping the spread of human trafficking throughout Europe and The U.S. In comparison, Belarus needs a counterbalance against its dependency on the Russian government and economy. Foreign aid has slowly opened up Belarus to build a sturdier and freer nation. However, more U.S. foreign aid to Belarus will be needed in order to create a strong, new ally in Eastern Europe.
– Tanner Helem
Photo: Flickr
John McCain’s Legacy with Foreign Aid
On August 25 2018, Senator John McCain passed away at the age of 81 from a year-long battle with brain cancer. He had served in The U.S. Senate for over 30 years. During his tenure as an Arizonan Senator, he earned the title of a Maverick because of his service in the navy and his willingness to act independently from The Republican party. One of the most famous instances of this was his choice to vote against the repeal of The Affordable Care Act.
John McCain’s Legacy with Foreign Aid
He left behind him a complex voting and ideological history that included John McCain’s legacy with foreign aid. While he was a strong believer in defense spending and military intervention, he was a strong supporter of foreign aid spending as well. To McCain, one of the best ways to ensure America’s safety was to invest in other countries.
One of the best examples of John McCain’s legacy with foreign aid was in 2017. President Donald Trump’s budget plan for 2018 included cuts to foreign affairs spending, which includes foreign aid. The cuts totaled roughly $18 billion. One of the countries that would have suffered the most was the small North African country of Tunisia. In 2016 the country had received $177 million dollars; in the new budget, they would receive only $54 million dollars.
Sen. McCain spoke against the proposed cuts, wrote several opinion pieces and released a joint memo with Sen. Tim Kaine. In a forum, Sen. McCain promised that funding towards Tunisia would be restored. Funding to Tunisia is important because several Tunisians had been recruited into ISIS and many would return as ISIS lost territory in Syria and Iran. Sen. McCain asked, “haven’t we learned our lesson?” He also cited that Tunisia was important in the fight against ISIS and that cutting foreign aid to Tunisia was both “misguided and dangerous.”
A Memo to Congress
On June 15, 2017, Sen. McCain and Sen. Kaine released a joint memo urging Congress not to cut foreign aid. At the beginning of the article, McCain and Kaine used a famous quote from James Mattis, who now serves as the Defense Secretary under President Trump, “if you don’t fully fund The State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.”
The memo cited that helping developing countries is one of the best routes to achieving a safer world. It states, “[s]uch cuts will make it harder to make America safer”. It also discussed how improving economies in developing countries can help improve the United States economy because it creates more of a demand for American goods and services.
The memo backs this claim by examining how aid in Africa paid off. “By improving their plight, we improved opportunities for our exports and investments.” A majority of the world’s fastest growing economies are now in Africa. It also addressed some of the misconceptions surrounding foreign aid, including that, in reality, The United States only spends roughly 1 percent of the budget on foreign assistance.
Following Sen. McCain and several other Congressional leaders’ dissent, the Trump Administration did not cut the foreign aid budget nearly as much as it intended to. The foreign affairs budget was only cut by roughly $4 billion instead of the proposed $18 billion.
Sen. McCain’s defense of foreign aid helped stop the President from severely cutting spending. While he was once considered a Warhawk, he understood the importance of foreign aid as another tool of defense for The United States. John McCain’s legacy with foreign aid will remain as an example long after his passing.
– Drew Garbe
Photo: Flickr
How Sea Changes Hurt the World’s Poorest
It’s no coincidence that there is a new natural disaster in the news every day around the world — the earthquake and tsunami that just hit Indonesia; Typhoon Mangkhut in East Asia; Hurricane Florence in the Carolinas; monsoon flooding in Bangladesh; and Hurricane Michael in the Florida Panhandle are just a few of the storms that saturate our daily media sources.
Scientists agree that rising sea levels and sea temperatures as a result of climate change are increasing the frequency and intensity of such disasters. Research shows that climate-change-related natural disasters will disproportionately affect the world’s poorest countries and citizens. These environmental events are just one example of the many ways that sea changes are hurting the world’s poor.
Rising Sea Levels Hurt Agriculture
According to a 2015 World Bank report, “agriculture is one of the most important economic sectors in many poor countries. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most sensitive to climate change, given its dependence on weather conditions: from temperature, sun and rain, through climate-dependent stressors (pests, epidemics, and sea level rise).” This effect is felt by farmers — usually the poorer citizens of poor countries — who find their livelihoods threatened by natural disasters and the heavy flooding that wipes out their crops.
When agriculture suffers, the price of food skyrockets. This change then leaves families who already struggle to acquire adequate nutrition in an even more dire situation. Statistics show that poor families already spend a huge percentage of their income on food, and the World Bank predicts there may be 73 million people pushed into extreme poverty by 2030 from the rising costs of food alone.
Rising Sea Temperatures Breed Disease
The World Bank report says a small rise in sea temperatures “could increase the number of people at risk for malaria by up to 5 percent, or more than 150 million more people affected. Diarrhea would be more prevalent, and increased water scarcity would have an effect on water quality and hygiene.”
People who don’t have access to clean water, generally people living in poverty, would be at the greatest risk of developing diseases and they often lack the resources to treat infectious or bug-borne diseases once a family member is infected. The report, which called for climate-informed development, concludes by saying that poverty reduction and climate change can’t be treated separately, as the two go hand-in-hand.
Refugees
There are over 1600 confirmed deaths in Indonesia after an earthquake and tsunami hit the island of Sulawesi on October 5th, 2018. In fact, the U.N. stated that over 190,000 people are in need of urgent help — aftershocks have caused the destruction of 2,000 homes due to mudslides and makeshift refugee camps are being set up. At the most basic level, these events are pushing already poor people into extreme poverty through the destruction of their homes, forcing them to resettle elsewhere.
A 2017 Cornell study found that rising seas could cause 2 billion refugees by the year 2100 (these are truly climate change refugees). This means that around one-fifth of the world’s population will be made homeless by climate change. The effects will be felt most strongly by people living on coastlines, and those in the world’s poorest countries will suffer the most.
As the seas warm and rise, research shows that the frequency and intensity of these disasters will rise as well, forcing more and more people to abandon their homes.
Sea Changes and the Poor
Rising sea temperatures are a result of global warming’s effects on ocean habitats and the human communities that depend on them.
The authors of an article about how poor countries and fisheries are the most negatively impacted by warming seas found that, “despite having some of the world’s smallest carbon footprints, small island developing states and the world’s least-developed countries will be among the places most vulnerable to climate change’s impacts on marine life.”
Actions for the Future
Andrew King, a climate researcher at the University of Melbourne in Australia and the author of a study from the AGU on global warming, argues that: “The results are a stark example of the inequalities that come with global warming…the richest countries that produced the most emissions are the least affected by heat when average temperatures climb to just 2 degrees Celsius [3.6 degrees Fahrenheit] while poorer nations bear the brunt of changing local climates and the consequences that come with them.”
There are ideas for how to better protect these places in the future to be prepared for these sea changes. Long term, the solution will be tackling climate change head-on.
-Evann Orleck-Jetter
Photo: Flickr
CARE’s Impact on Disaster Relief in the Philippines
CARE is an international humanitarian organization that provides emergency relief and international development projects. Their mission is to save lives, fight against poverty, accomplish social justice around the world and help everyone to live in security. They also place focus on both women and children in several different countries who do not have equal rights and opportunities. CARE works in 94 countries around the world and supports over 1,000 humanitarian-aid and development projects fighting against global poverty.
CARE in the Philippines
This non-governmental organization has worked in the Philippines since 1949, and is known for responding to emergency disasters and providing preparedness and recovery. While typhoons and other natural disasters continue to affect the lives of many Filipino people, CARE’s disaster relief in the Philippines provides effective and innovative responses to emergencies.
CARE has responded to every typhoon in the Philippines, including Typhoon Pablo (Bopha) in 2012 and current Typhoon Mangkhut in 2018. One of the strongest storms, Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) in 2013, impacted around 17 million out of over 98 million people in the central region of the Philippines; this storm caused about 1.1 million homes to be damaged or destroyed.
CARES’ Disaster Relief
Regarding this storm, CARE immediately took action starting with providing aid to the Filipino people. After about a year, CARE provided emergency food assistance to over 54,000 households, feeding more than 9,000 children within their supported government school feeding program and training 500 community carpenters to rebuild destroyed homes. The program’s humanitarian aid in the Philippines has also involved and implemented an awareness of principles for building safer houses as well as identifying exactly what the most vulnerable in the Philippines need.
CARE has partnered with disaster professionals to respond to those affected by this typhoon; the organization also hopes to accomplish providing aid to 150,000 Filipino people who survived this emergency and natural disasters.
CARE continues to provide disaster relief in the Philippines and responds to every storm and disaster:
This organization constantly continues their work in providing programs and teams to help relieve the Filipino people’s suffering during these storms and disasters. CARE focuses on providing disaster relief in the Philippines also promotes and desires to increase community resilience.
How CARE Provides its Aid
CARE provides its aid by amplifying the capacity of the people’s needs, adapting and predicting how certain disasters and issues are going to affect the population as well as discovering the causes of those in need of assistance. Due to this effort and dedication, CARE creates a better chance of implementing their humanitarian work while also adapting, protecting and reducing issues arising within the country.
CARE is currently responding to Typhoon Mangkhut, which is known to be one of the strongest storms to hit the northern Philippines in September 2018. CARE has immediately provided emergency response teams to Cagayan and they are continuing to assess damage and needs of the affected villages and towns. According to David Gazashvili, CARE Philippines’ Country Director, Care has “brought some supplies and shelter repair materials ready to be distributed to the affected families.” They are continuing to work with others responding to this typhoon to help assist the Filipino people’s needs.
Other Organizational Aid
Global Hand is a non-profit partnership that supports CARE and everything they do for the Philippines and other countries. The group also supports CARE’s desire to eradicate poverty and help those in need, especially families and those in need of aid and assistance.
Of course, there are other organizations such as USAID who have aided the Philippines during disasters. During the 2013 typhoon, USAID and the World Food Program had the ability to send 55 metric tons of nutritional foods to more than 20,000 children and 15,000 adults. According to USAID, the U.S. offered $20 million for humanitarian assistance for the emergency disaster in the Philippines.
CARE has always been there for the Philippines, never failing to be by the country’s side and help respond to emergency and natural disasters. While CARE also provides assistance in achieving equal rights for women and children as well as responds to sexual, reproductive and gender-based violence, CARE’s continued focus on disaster relief in the Philippines also helps end poverty. Their efforts in creating and implementing projects, programs and assistance will better the future and health of the Philippines.
– Charlene Frett
Photo: Flickr
Global Relations: A Brief History of US Foreign Aid Policy
When hearing the term “foreign aid,” one probably thinks of the U.S. giving money to poor countries for food and water. While this assumption is partially correct, U.S. foreign aid is also a means of economic and political strategic fodder for the U.S. Foreign aid often includes providing money to foreign countries for militarization efforts or providing assistance from the U.S. military itself.
U.S. Foreign Aid
While some oppose the U.S. giving aid to other countries in favor of using the same money to bolster the U.S. economy and provide national security, they usually do so under the false pre-tense that around 25 percent of our national budget is geared toward foreign aid; the real number is only around 1.5 percent.
In fact, foreign aid acts as economic investment with other countries and creates trading allies, providing a return on investment. Also, foreign aid works to provide national security for the U.S. by stabilizing countries rife with conflict and poverty; such measures often end wars before they even begin. This notion was confirmed by a letter to President Trump from over 120 retired generals, urging the president to reconsider the ‘benefits’ of the proposed cuts to the foreign aid budget.
Throughout the history of U.S. foreign aid, one can simply follow our military. Here are four of the big shifts in U.S. foreign aid policy.
Marshall Plan
Foreign aid, as we consider it now, started post-WWII. In 1947, two years after the war, Secretary of State George C. Marshall insisted at a Harvard commencement ceremony that the U.S. needed an aggressive plan to rebuild Europe. The Marshall Plan, officially known as the European Recovery Program, passed the next year.
In the next four years, the U.S. provided more than $13 billion in aid to European nations. The move, while helpful, was also tinged with a political agenda — the U.S. needed allies in Europe against an emerging enemy, the Soviet Union. The U.S. remains close allies with these European nations and 13 of them are current NATO members.
President Harry S Truman supplemented the humanitarian efforts provided by the Marshall Plan with further military and economic aid to allies in Europe by way of the Point Four Program, a technical aid program aimed at sharing U.S. technology and knowledge of agriculture and industry. This measure was ultimately a gesture meant to create allies against the emerging USSR. Truman then signed the Mutual Security Act of 1951, which replaced the Marshall Plan and shifted its priorities to containing the spread of communism.
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was created out of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by President John F. Kennedy. The assumption was that by combining foreign aid programs, the U.S. could be a better leader and moral authority for the rest of the world (read: prevent the spread of communism).
USAID is now the main operator of U.S. foreign aid programs, leading development and humanitarian efforts across the globe ranging from the Feed the Future program, a global food security program providing funding, health services, water and protection to aiding peoples suffering from conflicts in South Sudan.
The Cold War
In the 1970s, the focus of foreign aid shifted from economic and political development, to meeting “basic human needs.” This lead to an emphasis on food production, nutrition, health and education — all means to providing developing countries with the means to be self-sufficient. Still, there was a political tinge. The U.S. was largely acting on anti-communism interests and Middle East peace initiatives. As a result of these priorities, Israel and Egypt became large recipients from U.S. aid.
Toward the end of the 1980s, Congress was tasked with reducing the national deficit and foreign aid was at less than 1 percent of the national budget. Still, foreign aid followed into the same countries as our military including Panama in 1990 after the U.S. invaded Panama during Operation Just Cause under President George H. W. Bush.
Due to the end of the Cold War and Congress’s continued efforts to maintain the budget deficit, foreign aid remained less than 1 percent of the federal budget until the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Contemporary Foreign Aid
From 2003-2014, Iraq and Afghanistan received increases in economic and military assistance from the U.S. Afghanistan became the largest recipient of U.S. aid in 2017 at $4.7 billion. President George W. Bush also created the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003, which supports over 14 million people in over 50 countries living with HIV/AIDS. PEPFAR’s website claims to have helped more than 2.2 million babies to be born HIV-free to pregnant women living with HIV and AIDS.
In 2008, President Obama renewed PEPFAR and also signed the U.S. President’s Policy Directive on Global Development. The Obama administration called it the first of its time, but the measure resembles Kennedy’s act to instill the U.S. by way of foreign assistance and development at the forefront of moral and economic authority globally. The directive has a wide berth of goals aimed at providing increased global food security, global health and national security by working on poverty-related issues in impoverished nations.
Today, President Trump continues to insist we trim the U.S. foreign aid budget by over 30 percent, which will inevitably cut some humanitarian programs entirely. The Trump administration claims the cuts will go to bolstering national security, but as we’ve learned and as over 120 retired generals stated to President Trump, U.S. foreign aid is a form of national security.
– Nick Hodges
Photo: Flickr
Poverty in Nigeria and ActionAid
Nigeria is currently experiencing extreme global poverty. According to the World Poverty Clock, the poverty rate in Nigeria is 44.4 percent out of a population of about 198 million.
ActionAid Fights Poverty in Nigeria
As poverty continues to rise in Nigeria, there is definitely hope for a better future. ActionAid, a global humanitarian organization, is trying to eradicate poverty in Nigeria and continuing their service despite the growing statistics.
ActionAid in Nigeria seeks equal rights for all genders, social justice and fight the growing epidemic of poverty. It is hoping to create a world where Nigeria’s population doesn’t have to suffer anymore. They work with communities, social movements and the poor in order to provide aid needed in the country.
ActionAid’s Work in Nigeria
ActionAid’s programs involve health, education, food and agriculture, human security in conflict and emergencies, women’s rights and democratic governments. These projects are needed to ensure a better future in Nigeria.
ActionAid has been continuing their work in Nigeria, including their aid and assistance in 2018. According to Vanguard, in October 2018, ActionAid is finding ways to help displaced persons in Nigeria. It has donated about N3million toward relief materials. This donation will help many of those in the Abagena Internally Displaced Persons camp who have suffered the herdsmen crisis.
According to the ActionAid Nigeria Country Director, Ene Obi, they “‘brought about 380 mattresses, 350 bags of rice, 436 packs of sanitary pads, 341 packs of diapers for babies, five sets of baby bath, five cartons of baby food and 436 packs of bar soaps for washing and personal hygiene use.'” These materials will help many who are currently displaced and are suffering poverty.
Women and Children in Nigeria
ActionAid also focuses on women and children. It has provided start-up kits to about 100 women in Nigeria. This organization provided assistance to many women in the Northeast in order to give them an opportunity to create and begin building small businesses.
According to Obi, the women are being trained to gain skills and knowledge to provide for their families by starting their own microbusinesses. Whether it’s tailoring, producing food or sewing, ActionAid is doing everything it can to make sure these women escape poverty and are able to provide food to their children.
Alleviating Poverty in Nigeria and Nonprofits
There are other organizations that are trying to end poverty in Nigeria. The MacArthur Foundation, for example, has been supporting organizations and work that has been done to eradicate inequality and the lack of education in the country. The foundation has been creating grants with the purpose of supporting higher education for girls.
The Youth Education and Leadership Initiative or YELI is an organization that wants to reduce education-related issues and challenges in Nigeria. Their goal and mission are to provide programs that enhance both primary and secondary education and help build effective leadership. This is to not only reduce poverty but also help build peace among the youth. These projects include providing the poor with small libraries, scholarships, seminars and even workshops.
Conclusion
ActionAid as well as other nonprofits are working to end poverty in Nigeria. Although poverty is becoming an increasing epidemic in the country, there is still hope for the people and the future.
– Charlene Frett
Photo: Flickr
Top 10 Facts About Hunger in Myanmar
Myanmar is the second largest country in Southeast Asia but has one of the least developed economies in the world. Food security in the country is threatened by natural disasters, isolationist policies, conflicts and ethnic violence. Millions of people are living below the poverty line. It is important to know the top 10 facts about hunger in Myanmar to help illustrate food insecurity conditions in the country.
What are the Top 10 Facts About Hunger in Myanmar?
These top 10 facts about poverty in Myanmar may paint a grim picture but the country has developed in many ways from 1990 to 2017. It reached the Millennium Development Goal of reducing hunger by half in 2015 and its HDI value has increased by 61.5 percent,i.e. from 0.358 to 0.578. Life expectancy has increased by 8 years and the mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling increased by 2.5 years and 3.9 years respectively.
Many organizations that work on alleviating poverty and ending hunger help thousands of people each year. However, the above top 10 facts about hunger in Myanmar show that there is still a lot of work to be done.
– Aleksandra Sirakova
Photo: Flickr
Child Poverty in New Zealand
In New Zealand, 27 percent of children live in income poverty. This means that around 290,000 children struggle with a multitude of difficulties including homelessness, missed meals and lack of heating at home.
In addition to both short-term suffering and long-term financial and health issues for the individual, child poverty in New Zealand costs the national economy more than $6 billion per year. While this phenomenon is long withstanding, the government has recently committed to quantifying and systematically addressing this problem.
Education, Employment and Health Impacts
The measure of child poverty in New Zealand is not legally defined but is generally accepted to be the situation in which the child lives in the home where the household income is below 60 percent of the national average. These children suffer from a number of related harms, including lower educational achievement, diminished employment opportunities and poor health.
The inability to afford a uniform, lunch or other school materials can inhibit a child from attending school, and an unstable home life and hunger can decrease performance in class. In the long run, this influences job opportunities and future income, creating a poverty cycle.
Child poverty also has a significant influence on the health of a child. Those living below the poverty line are six times as likely to die of sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI), three times as likely to get sick and twice as likely to need a hospital visit, compared to the average child.
As an adult, these kids are predisposed to develop a number of chronic health problems, including heart disease, addiction, obesity and dental complications. Poor physical health and hardships growing up increase the risk of mental health issues as well.
Government Action
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has made child poverty in New Zealand a government priority, promising to cut child poverty numbers in half over the next decade. The recently submitted New Zealand Child Poverty Reduction Bill commits the government to make child poverty a priority, sets targets for which the government is directly accountable and requires transparent reporting about national child poverty levels. It currently has cross-party support, as well as endorsements from many organizations and advocacy groups.
Many aspects of the bill rely on recommendations from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC), focusing on children’s rights and well-being with an emphasis on including family and community context. Some of the steps outlined in the bill include housing assistance, energy payment in the winter, restructuring of benefits for newborns and high-level data reporting.
Government Responsibilities
The government does not currently release statistics on child poverty levels. Budget impact and progress reports required by the bill would provide a legal framework for determining these programs and gauging the success of the outcomes.
While government commitment inspires hope, to make a significant decrease in levels of child poverty in New Zealand strong policy solutions must be implemented and the budget must be adapted to support those programs. Adoption of the Child Poverty Reduction Bill would hold the government accountable by law to alleviate child poverty, thereby improving the lives of a significant portion of the population.
Many of the recommendations and programs proposed by the bill have proven to be successful in other countries around the world, offering confidence that the children of New Zealand can have a brighter future if the government continues to take action.
– Georgia Orenstein
Photo: Flickr