Trump review of foreign aid reopens debate: How reliable is the US?
-
Howard LaFranchi Staff writer
Tucked away in last year鈥檚 $60 billion U.S. foreign aid budget was a $15 million drop in the ocean.
Literally. The money paid for projects in Pacific island nations to help them cope with rising sea levels caused by climate change.
Many American taxpayers might think this was just a do-good expenditure of no relevance to them.
Why We Wrote This
A story focused onThe temporary freeze in U.S. foreign aid, which sowed confusion and panic among U.S. aid agencies and foreign recipients alike, raises anew the issue of how, in a competitive world, Washington helps itself by helping others.
But the point of the budget line was not to be charitable. It rarely is with foreign aid. The underlying purpose was to further a long-term strategic goal 鈥� in this case, countering China鈥檚 rising dominance by making the United States the reliable partner of choice in the region.
Thousands of such U.S.-funded projects around the world 鈥� from counterterrorism projects in the Horn of Africa to women鈥檚 small-business development programs in Central America 鈥� have been left in limbo since Secretary of State Marco Rubio froze foreign aid and issued stop-work orders on projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Secretary Rubio said Jan. 24 he was launching a full review of the U.S. foreign aid budget 鈥� the world鈥檚 largest 鈥� to bring it in line with President Donald Trump鈥檚 鈥淎merica First鈥� foreign policy.
The order sowed confusion and panic among U.S. employees of government aid agencies and foreign recipients of aid alike 鈥� with some in the public health sector warning that lives would be lost because of the abrupt cutoff.
By Tuesday Secretary Rubio had issued a waiver exempting lifesaving humanitarian assistance from the aid freeze.
鈥淕ood week for Russia and China鈥�
Still, many experts are warning that even a temporary pause in foreign assistance programs is likely to have long-term implications for U.S. interests.
In a world of sharpening big-power competition, they say, any moves that damage America鈥檚 image as the reliable big-power partner are going to enhance the prospects of Washington鈥檚 major competitors.
鈥淭his has been a very good week for Russia and China,鈥� says Jon Alterman, senior vice president for global security and geostrategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. 鈥淪uddenly the perception is that the U.S. government is the chief driver of risk around the world,鈥� he says, 鈥渁nd that can鈥檛 help but encourage countries to look elsewhere for stability and partnerships.鈥�
鈥淚 can鈥檛 imagine China and Russia aren鈥檛 going to try to capitalize on this,鈥� he adds.
Incoming administrations often undertake reviews of foreign aid. It is unusual, on the other hand, to shut down all foreign assistance pending a monthslong review.
鈥淭his is a 鈥榮top and take a look鈥� [review] rather than a 鈥榢eep it going while you take a look,鈥� which has generally been the approach before,鈥� says a former Republican congressional staffer, who requested anonymity to speak openly.
That difference 鈥渉as led to the sky-is-falling reaction we鈥檙e seeing now, but at the end of the day I think the freak-out mode will be more than the actual impact warrants,鈥� the former specialist in foreign aid oversight says.
Charity versus core U.S. interests
Many international agencies and nongovernmental groups have already received funding to see them through the pause, the former staffer says. And the Biden administration front-loaded some funding in anticipation of this type of action.
But it is Washington鈥檚 long-term and reliable assistance programs that build up goodwill and trust, say people in the aid sector. Some experts cite as one example the聽President鈥檚 Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The program to address HIV/AIDS was initiated by President George W. Bush and has been maintained by every president since.
Such initiatives are not ultimately charity programs, says Dr. Alterman, who served on the State Department鈥檚 policy planning staff under President Bush. Almost without exception they serve core U.S. interests by furthering strategic goals and promoting U.S. values in a world of sharp values competition.
鈥淭he U.S. is not the world鈥檚 charity bank,鈥� he says, 鈥渂ut when we help governments improve the lives of their people, over time that improves the lives of Americans as well.鈥�
If PEPFAR reduces the number of AIDS cases in Africa, he says, that eventually reduces the number of cases in the U.S. 鈥� and saves American lives. (On Wednesday the U.S. waived the stop-work order on PEPFAR funding, at least temporarily.)
All sorts of U.S. aid programs have similar knock-on effects, Dr. Alterman believes. 鈥淵ou could argue that U.S.-funded water projects in Jordan have helped keep Jordan stable. And that in turn helps keep Israel secure, which has been a U.S. policy and strategic goal for decades.鈥�
Preserving the 鈥渉alo effect鈥�
Some aid recipients will be 鈥渓osers鈥� after the review, says the former Republican congressional staffer. 鈥淏ut that is no different from any other administration鈥檚 review.鈥�
Some foreign aid experts say that initiatives construed as promoting LGBTQ+ rights or migration in any way are very likely to be axed.
As for China, the former congressional staffer says there are good reasons to be concerned about Beijing鈥檚 growing influence, but that the U.S. foreign aid review is not one of them.
鈥淚f Beijing has more influence providing 5% of some U.N. aid agencies鈥� budgets than the U.S. has providing 25%, it鈥檚 appropriate to question why that is and to evaluate how to change that,鈥� the former staffer says.
Dr. Alterman is less sanguine, worrying that any damage to Washington鈥檚 image is going to play into the hands of its adversaries.
鈥淭here is a halo effect that occurs because the U.S. has been helping people around the world lead better and healthier lives,鈥� he says.
鈥淚f China is perceived as the one who is reliably helping governments and helping the people lead better lives, while the U.S. is browbeating governments and turning away from the people,鈥� he adds, 鈥渢hat will inevitably have an impact 鈥� and probably one the U.S. doesn鈥檛 want.鈥�
