Controversies Concerning U.S. Foreign Assistance

With the crises in Tunisia and Egypt and the possibility of uprisings elsewhere the basic concerns of U.S. foreign assistance have become front page news. This could be a historic turning point comparable to the Fall of the Berlin Wall.

U.S. foreign assistance (or "foreign aid") needs to be seen as part of our foreign policy, which is set by the President and carried out largely by the State Department and by ambassadors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.   One problem with U.S. foreign policy in general has been that it receives too little public attention. U.S. actions in the international arena have often been responses driven by fear or responses shaped by special interests - business interests or interests of particular cultural groups. At the same time the U.S. has had some notable successes: the Marshal Plan, the shaping of a democratic and pro-U.S. Japan, and the ending of the Cold War. The U.S. has also had a leadership role in the formation of several important international organizations: the United Nations (under which are, among others, the World Health Organization, the World Food Programme, and the United Nations Childrens' Fund (UNICEF)), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the G7 and the G20.

Much of the original impetus for reform of foreign assistance came originally from a recognition of how confused it was in its purposes. Rather than serving some conception of our national interest, foreign aid had come to be seen as serving some clearly special interests, notably corporate agribusiness and U.S. shipping companies, see http://hungerreport.org/2011/report/chapters/three/untie-aid.

One controversy concerning our foreign assistance has to do with the appropriateness of its existence and the competence of government -- our government or any government -- to aid the development of other countries. William Easterly, a professor of economics at New York University and a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, in his 2006 book "The White Man's Burden" argues that much of the $2.3 trillion spent on foreign aid in the West in the past five decades has been wasted and that success is much more likely to come from small-scale projects fitted to the needs recognized by the local (usually village) population. Dambisa Moyo, a former consultant for the World Bank and employee of Goldman Sachs with a PhD in economics from Oxford University, says in her 2009 book "Dead Aid" that in Africa $1 trillion of aid "has helped to make the poor poorer, and growth slower." She sees the need for reliable legal and political institutions and "enforcement of the rule of law, avoidance of excessive government expenditures and constraints on the executive" in the country seeking development. She points to China as a country that is helping African countries to develop, not because of their charitable feelings but because they want to acquire Africa resources at low prices. Both Easterly and Moyo seem to be saying that so called "aid" in the form of large gifts of money or food to governments, in the absence of realistic plans and arrangements for their use, breed and lead to corruption. Would-be donors who are ill-informed about situations, customs, and needs of their intended beneficiaries may be not have a real desire to be helpful but may instead by motivated by a desire to see themselves as kind-hearted and generous.

Another controversy about foreign assistance has to with its purpose. Some people judge foreign assistance in terms of how well it promotes the national interest of the U.S., seen as military and economic dominance. Catholic social teaching is aimed not at promoting one's own self-interest or the national interest as such but rather it is aimed at promoting human dignity and the well-being of all people. It is natural and rational for individuals and communities and nations to be concerned about and devote effort to their own well-being, but this should not be their ultimate goal, their "be all and end all."

The same people who think in terms of a narrow and short-term perspective on national interest tend to frame decisions in terms of geopolitical advantage. Thus during the Cold War the U.S. found many ways to help the advancement of African countries not committed to Soviet-style Communism. But when the Cold War ended many worthwhile projects in Africa were abandoned. To value the development of other countries means to value it consistently. Another example is the contrast between U.S. aid to Bangladesh, a country of little geopolitical importance, which has continued consistently, and our on again, off again aid to Pakistan, which we have alternately favored and distained. See http://hungerreport.org/2009/chapters/reform?start=2.

A third controversy has to do with the question of what constitutes "development." In the older economic literature and still today development is often spoken of purely as economic development, often measured as gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (the country's GDP divided by the number of people in the country). Due to the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen (author of "Development as Freedom") and others, development today is seen as the development of all of the capabilities of a country: the totality of skills possessed, the freedoms enjoyed, the quality of health care, the strength of social institutions, and the cultural vitality as well as the country's economic productivity and stability. Thus development is the advancement of well-being of the total population. However, development is seldom uniform: some segments of the population are adversely affected, some are left behind, but the population as a whole gains. Catholic social teaching urges us not to overlook those left behind.

A fourth controversy related to efforts to improve the well-being of other peoples is the question of what to do about warfare and military attacks such as took place in Rwanda and Sudan and are still taking place in Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. These often involve not trained and equipped military forces but marauding bands or even mobs and hordes. The question is whether or not the United Nations or NATO or the U.S. should send in troops to protect those being attacked. Advocates of non-violence tend to say that military force should never, or almost never, be used. Others say that it is inhuman to stand by when innocent people are being slaughtered. The Africa Faith and Justice Network (http://www.afjn.org), which draws on the experience of missionary workers in Africa, tends to oppose any form of militarism on the part of the U.S. Paul Collier has a different view. Collier has a chapter about military intervention in his book "The Bottom Billion" in which he says, "external military intervention has an important place in helping the societies of the bottom billion." He points particularly to Rwanda where half a million people were "entirely avoidably" slaughtered. Perhaps the U.S. should avoid unilateral military interventions and work to give greater depth and breadth to international law and to strengthen the International Court of Justice to enable it act decisively in emergency situations. However, international law and international justice have a very uncertain future and, at present, no strong supporters. The righting of wrongs on the global stage will continue to be difficult.

The international community is left with some awesome tasks: to prevent hatreds and injustices from occurring, to promote dialogue and non-violent solutions while hope for them lasts, to rescue when possible defenseless populations from violence inspired by hatred, envy or religious zeal, to employ peace-keeping or defensive forces to stabilize volatile situations, and to pursue reconciliation if violence does occur. People everywhere need to develop their abilities to be peace-makers, to foster mutually beneficial relationships, and to be actively concerned with each others well-being.