Archive for category: Foreign Aid

Foreign aid coverage and information.

,

6 Facts Proving How Influential U.S. Foreign Aid Is


At a time when the United States’s new budget has recently been released and is a popular political conversation topic, and when four countries in Africa and the Middle East are approaching starvation, knowing the power of U.S. foreign aid is beneficial.

6 Facts Proving How Influential U.S. Foreign Aid Is

  1. In 2015, the United States spent around $49 billion on foreign aid. This is the most spent since directly following World War II and is around the same as the amount spent after the 9/11 attacks.
  2. The United States is also the most generous country toward foreign aid, leading by more than $10 billion ahead of the second most generous country, Germany. However, while this may cause one to think the United States is generous, it is only generous compared to other countries.
  3. The United States only spent 1.3 percent of its 2015 federal budget on foreign aid.
  4. The United States contributed about 28 percent of these countries’ total foreign aid assistance: Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen. The countries are facing displacement by Boko Haram insurgents (Nigeria), unprecedented drought (Somalia), civil war (South Sudan) and hunger crisis (Yemen).
  5. Last year, the United States donated $6.4 billion in humanitarian aid, more than a quarter of the total global funding to the U.N.
  6. Since the conflict started in late 2013, the United States has given South Sudan more than $2.1 billion. This assistance reportedly reached over a million people and helped avoid famine.

Given these facts, a 100 percent increase to the U.S. foreign aid budget–which would be insignificant if other areas of the budget such as that of the defense department were adjusted–would be a significant boost the country’s ability to help others. The situations in these four countries (amongst others) continues to worsen, and humanitarian organizations have recognized the importance of acting swiftly.

Call your representatives and mention these timely issues. Email them if you cannot call. These issues will not waver without our assistance.

– James Hardison

Photo: Flickr

, ,

5 Quotes From Former Presidents on Foreign Aid

Foreign Aid Quotes
The Trump administration’s proposed cuts to the International Affairs Budget would slash U.S. foreign aid to levels not seen since the ’70s and ’90s. Foreshadowing these proposed cuts, President Trump remarked during his campaign that America should “stop sending foreign aid to countries that hate us.”

In a March 2016 interview, Trump also commented on the purported futility of foreign aid as he spoke about building schools in Iraq: “I watched as we built schools in Iraq, and they’d be blown up. And we’d build another one, and it would get blown up… And yet we can’t build a school in Brooklyn… at what point do you say, hey, we have to take care of ourselves.”

How does President Trump’s position on overseas assistance compare with other U.S. presidents? Here are five quotes from former presidents on foreign aid:

  1. George W. Bush, NPR interview, April 2017 — “When you have an entire generation of people being wiped out, and the free world turns its back, it provides a convenient opportunity for people to spread extremism.”
  2. Barack Obama, Vox interview, Feb. 2015 — “If you look at our foreign assistance as a tool in our national security portfolio as opposed to charity, and you combined our defense budget overall with our diplomatic budget and our foreign assistance budget, then in that mix, there is a lot more we should be doing.”
  3. Ronald Reagan, White House remarks, Oct. 1987 –“You know the excuses: We can’t afford foreign aid anymore, or we’re wasting money pouring it into these poor countries, or we can’t buy friends—other countries just take the money and dislike us for giving it. Well, all these excuses are just that, excuses—and they’re dead wrong.”
  4. John F. Kennedy, Remarks upon signing the Foreign Assistance Act of 1962, Aug. 1962 –“The amount of money that is involved in the nonmilitary areas are a fraction of what we spend on our national defense every year, and yet this is very much related to our national security and is as important dollar for dollar as any expenditure for national defense itself.”
  5. Harry S. Truman, Statement upon signing the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948, Apr. 1948 — “Our program of foreign aid is perhaps the greatest venture in constructive statesmanship that any nation has undertaken. It is an outstanding example of cooperative endeavor for the common good.”

These quotes from former presidents on foreign aid highlight the longstanding history of American engagement overseas. Here are two examples of these sentiments in action: firstly, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948, otherwise known as the Marshall Plan, played a vital role in helping to rebuild Europe after WWII. Consequently, the European Union is now the largest trading partner of the U.S. Secondly, George W. Bush’s investment in the PEPFAR initiative continues to save countless lives from the scourge of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and is widely acknowledged as a remarkable success.

Foreign aid serves many purposes: ensuring national security, promoting humanitarian values and advancing U.S. economic interests overseas. Disengaging and ceding our leadership in this regard is not in our nation’s best interest. The above quotes from former presidents on foreign aid present a different vision for U.S. leadership overseas than from the isolationist approach outlined by President Trump.

Thankfully, with Trump’s proposal “dead on arrival,” it appears many members of Congress concur with these former presidents on the value of foreign aid and the vital role it plays in pursuit of the national interest.

– Michael Farquharson

Photo: Flickr

,

The Battle to Alleviate Global Poverty

The Battle to Alleviate Global Poverty
The Trump Administration has recently proposed severe budget cuts that will drastically reduce U.S. foreign aid in the developing world. In response to this potential risk, it is essential to identify the various developing countries that receive financial assistance that is necessary for developing the economic, political and social structures. Being able to differentiate between varying forms of foreign assistance is necessary in fully understanding what the U.S. can do to develop these struggling countries around the world.

Although foreign aid is extremely beneficial in efforts to alleviate global poverty, it is temporarily effective when compared to the long-term sustainability that is achieved through foreign investments. Nonetheless, foreign aid is extremely vital in potentially liberating a developing country from the negative consequences of recession, malnourishment and poverty. In distinguishing between foreign aid and foreign investments, it is crucial to understand how both efforts fundamentally affect the world’s poor.

Foreign aid is simply the donation of goods and services to developing countries, which generally is represented by a “cash value” articulated through the goods and services. However, alongside this aid derives contingencies for the recipient. For example, the goods and services heavily influence economic, political and ideological deviations that ultimately benefit the progression of the donor’s advancements in their worldly position.

Although this foreign aid is very resourceful during struggling times, citizens of developing countries seek more than just donations from countries around the world. The citizens strive for opportunities from development organizations to train them in various life skills that will help them lead healthy and successful lives. These developments will aim to improve their social and economic situations, giving them the tools and opportunities to raise themselves out of poverty, thus furthering the efforts to alleviate global poverty.

On the other hand, foreign investment is preferred to aid due to the long-term sustainability that accompanies the ventures made in developing countries. By investing in the encouragement of entrepreneurship, the development of small businesses and growth of financial investments, it benefits both the donors and the recipients. These investments generate economic activity and employment for not only the developing countries, but it produces additional consumer markets to boost trade within the host countries.

Nonetheless, foreign aid is an effective form of assistance for a developing country that needs immediate relief before devastating living conditions become destructive to the country’s well-being. By only lending goods and services to these developing countries instead of implementing teaching techniques, it could potentially hurt the development of encouragement and self-sufficiency overseas.

However, without foreign aid, these crisis-stricken nations would not be able to save the structural components of the countries. In order to alleviate global poverty and produce long-lasting effects on many struggling countries across the developing world, philanthropic nations need to understand that strongly investing in developing countries creates bigger impacts on furthering the world’s poor.

– Brandon Johnson

Photo: Flickr

, ,

Why Foreign Aid Budget Cuts Don’t Save Money


Among the many controversial changes to the U.S. federal budget proposed by President Trump, reductions in spending on health in foreign countries may prove the most costly. Contrary to popular opinion, the amount of money spent by the U.S. on assisting foreign countries to stay healthy is extremely small, and foreign aid budget cuts will not save the country any significant amount of money.

“It is very troubling,” said Georgetown University global health expert Lawrence Gostin. “Especially when you think of the pivotal role the U.S. has played over the years in global health. The world is lost without U.S. leadership.”

For reasons unknown, one of the most persistent myths Americans believe about the federal budget is that the government spends nearly 20 percent of it on foreign aid. In reality, even before Trump’s proposal can take effect in 2018, less than one penny of every dollar goes to foreign assistance of all types. When factoring in the gross national income, the U.S. spends a shockingly low 0.16 percent of its budget on helping improve the lives of those in developing countries.

Cutting back on foreign aid spending may actually end up costing the U.S. The outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus, which occurred between 2014 and 2016, proved that there is no such thing as an isolated national health crisis in the current global economy. In order to protect American citizens from infection, the U.S. government had to spend $2.3 billion to help contain the spread of the epidemic.

Spending on foreign aid helps to prevent catastrophic outbreaks like Ebola from happening, which consequently results in financial savings. Perhaps most importantly, foreign aid budget cuts may not save money because foreign assistance spending is not so much a charitable donation as it is an investment in the future. According to the Lancet Commission, spending on global health can provide returns of a whopping nine times the initial investment.

The good news is the proposed budget cuts remain just that: a proposal. Congress must approve the full budget before the changes take place, and representatives rely on feedback from their constituents when making decisions on important matters such as these. Securing the future of foreign aid investment may be a phone call away, and our guide to contacting local representatives is a great place to start.

– Dan Krajewski

Photo: Flickr

,

America’s Foreign Aid Spending


Foreign aid has been a part of American culture ever since the end of World War II. Under this modern international order, the U.S. has been able to successfully flourish and spread its message of democracy. Former Secretary of State John Kerry said, “The money we devote to international programs … amounts to just one percent of the total federal budget.”

The main piece of legislation that authorizes the use of foreign aid is the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1960. While this act provides an outline and structure for dealing with foreign aid, Congress decides on most budget decisions and distribution of funds through various bills. This year’s proposals for specific financing have already been laid out in the FAA.

In order to properly finance obligations made in the 1960 legislation pursuant to section 476, more than $1 billion is to remain available until the fall of 2018. This specific bill makes $1.7 billion accessible for assistance to foreign countries. Although this seems like a lot of money, this is an $877 million cut in aid compared to the 2016 foreign aid budget. However, aid to Eurasia will remain the same at $930 million in order to combat Russian aggression in countries like Ukraine.

Congress sets the standard and fosters the responsibility of stabilizing funds responsibly. By enforcing specific conditions on the distribution of foreign aid, international goals can be successful. This affords leverage in critical situations of destabilization, like negotiating democracy with countries that erupt into a military coup.

Destabilization of a nation can reduce access to basic health services. Through the effort of international funding, governments can “control pandemics before they reach our shores.” The current budget that the U.S. Congress has agreed on includes $8 billion toward funding worldwide healthcare initiatives. A portion of this money was used to successfully implement the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR), ultimately ending child and maternal deaths that previously had been unavoidable.

In addition, supporting the international community allows for the stabilization of nations and prevents the spread of terrorist activity. In the current 2017 budget, $71.1 billion is to be distributed in order to combat terrorist networks like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al Qaeda.

Through international efforts, nations have been assisted from destabilization and diseases have been contained. The budget plan for foreign assistance this year will be distributed appropriately once budget decisions are finalized and approved.

– Nick Katsos

Photo: Flickr

,

How Foreign Aid Works

Foreign aid
Angus Deaton won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Economics for his research on the effects of foreign aid on economic development in developing countries. The most important message to be taken from his work is that foreign aid is only one small piece of the equation. To say that foreign aid directly translates into economic growth is an oversimplification. Without transparent and effective governmental institutions and sound economic policies, research shows that aid is not always effective.

Foreign aid works when all of these different variables come together. It’s a simple equation. It has become popular sentiment to denounce aid as ineffective, based on specific case studies where all of these variables were not in place and results fell short of their targets. While not all aid is effective, this rhetoric flies in the face of all of the progress that has been made because of aid. The truth is that foreign aid works when all of the variables — effective institutions, policies, and transparency — are in place.

Aid has been especially effective in improving health in Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Malaria rates dropped by 51 percent between 2000 and 2012 after 300 million bed nets were given out by the World Health Organization (WHO). Ten million HIV-infected individuals are now receiving life-saving medicine. Tuberculosis rates have dropped by 45 percent since 1990, and 122 million children’s lives have been saved since 1990. This progress is largely due to the work of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), which has immunized 580 million children around the world. Extreme poverty has been cut in half since 1990, and African poverty rates have dropped by 10 percent since 1999.

These are huge success stories that deserve recognition. Foreign aid works. Not only does it work, but it is also in the interest of U.S. national security. Former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge said, “The programs supported by the International Affairs Budget are as essential to our national security as defense programs. Development and diplomacy protect our nation by addressing the root causes of terrorism and conflict.”

The questions asked in U.S. policymaking circles today shouldn’t be whether to cut aid or not; the question that needs to be asked is how to increase the efficacy of aid and to grow upon our successes. Cutting the International Affairs Budget would discredit all of the hard work and successes that have come out of these operations in recent decades.

– Josh Ward

Photo: Flickr

, ,

“Power Africa” and the Return on Investment of USAID


On the surface, the term “foreign aid” indicates a government policy that is purely altruistic. The reality is that foreign aid is also an investment. Aid opens new opportunities for American businesses overseas and promotes domestic job growth by developing future trading partners. The Power Africa initiative is a prime example of the return on investment of USAID.

Two-thirds of people in sub-Saharan Africa do not have access to electricity. Established in 2013, Power Africa is a government-led partnership aiming to double access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa. The initiative aims to establish 60 million new connections for homes and businesses by 2030. American firms, such as General Electric and SunEdison, sponsor and manage projects in conjunction with other international and local businesses.

Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) recently highlighted the return on investment of USAID and the Power Africa initiative. He elaborated, “USAID put $8 billion up and attracted more than $45 billion [in commitments].” According to USAID, $2.8 billion has been spent thus far and $14 billion guaranteed. That amounts to a return on investment ratio of one to five.

The return on investment of the Power Africa initiative should not solely be considered a short-term goal; USAID funding and assistance have fostered immediate short-term investments by U.S., African and other international businesses. However, the long-term ramifications of the development of the energy sector in sub-Saharan Africa have the potential for much larger returns.

Growing the energy sector and bringing more and more African citizens into the global marketplace creates new opportunities for American exports. Access to electricity boosts business growth in the local economy, improves medical care, encourages investment and creates a platform to further integrate Africa into the global economy.

Power Africa benefits current and future generations of Africans as it gives them the opportunity to become more self-reliant and less dependent on foreign subsidies. For example, South Korea received billions of dollars in U.S. foreign assistance from the 1940s through the 1970s. In 2013, South Korea was the sixth-largest trading partner of the U.S., with exports of $42 billion and imports of $62 billion.

The Marshall Plan is another notable success story of the return on investment of international development money. The Marshall Plan was a policy under President Truman in which the U.S. government spent just over $120 billion in today’s dollars to rebuild Western European economies after World War II. The policy was a resounding success. The U.S. now exports approximately $240 billion to the EU every year, and millions of Americans have jobs as a result.

Historical examples provide concrete evidence that both the recipient and donor benefit from foreign aid. Power Africa has the potential to transform the energy sector in sub-Saharan Africa and provide further evidence of the return on investment of USAID.

– Michael Farquharson

Photo: Flickr

,

Why Cutting Foreign Aid Won’t Reduce US Debt


President Trump is counting on cutting foreign aid to sustain his controversial new budget plan. He intends to introduce massive tax cuts while simultaneously pledging to increase defense spending. This plan would increase the already steep national debt of $600 billion per year. The president needs to slash other areas of the budget to prevent this.

Reducing foreign assistance is one of the major proposed solutions. The only problem? Foreign aid accounts for less than one percent of the federal budget. This year, the U.S. plans to spend $36.5 billion on foreign assistance. Even cutting that entire amount does not come close to offsetting the suggested $54 billion increase in defense spending.

Trump vows to boost annual defense spending by 10 percent. He needs to counterbalance this by reducing non-defense spending. Most federal spending is non-discretionary, going to entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. Therefore, cuts would have to come from discretionary spending, half of which goes to defense. Since Trump insists on increasing defense spending, reductions will be made to other categories.

Alongside foreign assistance, there are several other areas being considered for spending cuts. These categories include the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Endowment for the Arts, which have respective budgets of $8 billion and $148 million. Cutting these areas does not put a significant enough dent in the $54 billion minimum needed to cover the proposed increases.

President Trump is playing off the lack of public knowledge about these figures. Most Americans believe over 25 percent of the federal budget goes toward foreign aid. They also have similar misconceptions about the amount reserved for federal assistance programs. Consequently, many citizens support cuts in these areas because they think the budget emphasizes programs that only support very specific groups of Americans and foreigners. This confusion leads people to believe that budget plans like this make sense.

Even if the proposed numbers add up, it is highly unlikely that Trump will be able to cut large amounts of foreign assistance without significant pushback. Government officials have come out in protest of the proposal already. They maintain that cutting foreign aid will be harmful to global stability and conflict resolution.

Reducing the foreign aid budget will leave no solution to crisis other than war. By increasing defense spending and decreasing diplomatic tools, the budget would eliminate some of the most important and effective instruments used to combat extremism. Military operations work hand in hand with diplomatic resolutions to keep the U.S. and the world safe. Thus, cutting foreign aid is not the way to “Make America Great Again.”

– Lindsay Harris

Photo: Flickr

, , ,

15 Foreign Aid Statistics


The following 15 foreign aid statistics help to understand the topic of foreign assistance. Most Americans don’t know much about U.S. foreign aid. There are many misconceptions about what foreign aid is and how much of the federal budget goes to it each year. Here are 15 foreign aid statistics.

  1. The U.S. government states, “Foreign assistance is aid given by the United States to other countries to support global peace, security, and development efforts and provide humanitarian relief during times of crisis. It is a strategic, economic and moral imperative for the U.S. and vital to U.S. national security.”
  2. The first U.S. aid program was created in the aftermath of World War II.
  3. In 1961 Kennedy signed the Foreign Assistance Act which created The United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
  4. The Kaiser Family Foundation conducted a study in 2015 and found that most Americans thought the U.S. spends too much on foreign aid. Twenty-six percent was the guess for how much of the total federal budget goes towards it.
  5. Out of the total $4.15 trillion proposed budget for 2017 by Obama, $42.4 billion was set aside for foreign assistance.
  6. $25.6 billion was set for economic and development assistance. The top three countries receiving this aid are Afghanistan, Jordan and Kenya.
  7. Economic and development assistance includes many programs, the largest being Global Health Programs, Economic Support Fund, Development Assistance and Migration and Refugee Assistance.
  8. Within Global Health Programs, most of what the U.S. gives goes towards fighting HIV/AIDS.
  9. Some of the smaller programs falling under economic and development assistance include International Disaster Assistance, Food for Peace, Millennium Challenge and The Peace Corps.
  10. About $16.8 billion was budgeted for U.S. security assistance in 2017. The top three countries receiving this aid are Afghanistan, Israel and Egypt.
  11. The main programs falling under U.S. security assistance include Foreign Military Financing, Afghanistan Security Forces Fund and Coalition Support Funds.
  12. The U.S. spent more than $14 billion from the foreign aid budget on deliveries of arms sales in 2015. According to The Washington Post, “in terms of arms sales, [the United States] controls at least half of the global market.” The top three countries receiving these deliveries were Saudi Arabia, Australia and Iraq.
  13.  Less than one percent of the entire U.S. annual budget is spent on International Development and Humanitarian Assistance.
  14.  Oxfam says three changes to U.S. foreign aid would help make it more effective: “Focus first and foremost on fighting poverty. Recognize that local citizens and governments are in charge of their countries’ futures. Put more U.S. aid resources in their hands. Continue to provide more useful information about U.S. aid.”
  15. In an interview with NPR, Phyllis Pomerantz (public policy professor at Duke University) said, “On the one hand, you can say that the U.S. is the most generous because it is one of the biggest donators to foreign aid, but on the other hand, we have one of the lowest percentages of gross national income donated to foreign aid.”

These 15 foreign aid statistics help to better understand what U.S. foreign aid is, how much money goes where and what needs to be reworked as we look towards the future.

– Shannon Elder

Photo: Flickr

,

Six Things to Know About Poverty in Palau

Palau_Poverty
The Pacific islands are susceptible to poverty due to their remoteness, geographic spread, frequency of natural disasters, high level of exposure to overseas markets, small internal markets and limited natural resources. However, of these Oceanic nations, the island of Palau seems to be struggling the least. Here are six facts about poverty in Palau.

  1. Palau has one of the highest standards of living in Pacific countries, with a GDP of $232.9 million, an adult literacy rate of 97% as of 2015 and a life expectancy of 69. However, the Micronesian nation still relies heavily on United States foreign aid through the Compact of Free Association. The compact includes a wide range of federal programs set to continue until 2030.
  2. Of the population of 21,864, an estimated 24.9% individuals are affected by poverty in Palau. Most of those affected are among the rural population, who rely on small-scale agriculture and fishing for their livelihoods.
  3. The mortality rate for children under the age of five is 22 per 1,000 live births. In comparison, the United States’ child mortality rate is roughly six per 1,000. Skilled health personnel attend nearly all births.
  4. In 2016, the amount of Palau’s population considered obese was 55.3%. A 2006 school health survey found 35% of children were either overweight or at risk. The prevalence of obesity and malnutrition can be attributed to the introduction of the western diet, which provides consumers more calories for less money and nutritional value.
  5. For nearly two decades, Palau has sought legal reform regarding domestic violence. While there are statutes prohibiting and punishing violent behavior, no statute specifically addresses domestic violence. However, the Palau Family Protection Act aims to offer protection and deter further acts of family maltreatment, including violence, abuse and neglect. The Act also seeks to expand police officers’ ability to assist victims and enforce the law effectively.
  6. Following the El Nino weather phenomena in 2016, Palau declared a national state of emergency due to drought conditions. UNICEF provided the Ministry of Health with pre-positioned emergency health and nutrition supplies including a comprehensive health kit that could serve 1,000 people. In response to the drought, household water containers were distributed to community health centers to be used for drinking water storage.

Greater commitment to development initiatives has played a key role in keeping poverty in Palau at bay. In a broader context, the principles of emphasizing foreign aid and diplomacy can possibly be applied to other Oceanic nations and eventually strengthen the autonomy of those respective nations.

– Casie Wilson

Photo: Flickr