USAID should be cherished, not maligned

For a new US administration to review the country’s main policies in terms of objectives and optimizing the resources allocated to attain them is understandable, completely legitimate and, above all, necessary. After all, the American people spoke last November at the ballot box and wanted a change. And foreign assistance is no exception.

Nevertheless, President Donald Trump’s executive order to pause all foreign assistance funded by or through the State Department and the US Agency for International Development for 90 days pending a review of “programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy” was nothing short of demagoguery to justify wrecking the humanitarian world. It is a move that will not make America great again, but rather exactly the opposite.

For now, it might be the case that the federal judge who last Thursday ordered a temporary lift to this funding freeze that has shut down US aid and development work worldwide has created the space for the new administration to save face. It should rethink this policy, which is as damaging for the developing world as much as it is to US interests, but this is an administration that seems to keep digging whenever it is in a hole.

For those who argue that America needs to reinvent itself as great again, the solution is not to turn its back on the world. One of the reasons that the US has been considered by many as a great nation is due to its foreign assistance programs since the end of the Second World War. And this has never been a form of charity, even if it has been charitable — this extension of its soft power has always been an important tool of foreign policy.

The Marshall Plan of 1947 was instrumental for the recovery of Europe and the rebuilding of its economies. Nevertheless, in return, it created markets for American goods and it enlarged the community of democracies that provided both an ideological safety net and strategic depth at the height of the Cold War. It was crucial for Europe’s security and prosperity, but equally so for the US.

USAID was established in 1961 by the Democratic President John F. Kennedy with the clear aim of allocating resources to certain countries to counter Soviet influence. Today, in a world where Washington competes with Beijing to influence developing countries, ending USAID paves the way for a major rival to replace America’s friendship and influence — two essential commodities in any sensible foreign policy.

It is true that foreign assistance is a large component of America’s international affairs budget, but for many decades both the executive and legislative branches of the US government have seen this as an instrument of foreign policy, serving America’s national security and commercial and humanitarian interests. Its objectives include promoting economic growth, reducing poverty, improving governance, expanding access to healthcare and education, promoting stability in conflict regions, countering terrorism, promoting human rights, strengthening alliances and curbing illicit drug production and trafficking. Moreover, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, foreign aid has increasingly been correlated with national security policy.

Yes, it is a big expense and the agency under scrutiny, USAID, spends about $40 billion — about 0.6 percent of the total annual US government spending — on humanitarian aid, much of which goes toward health programs. And in a time of relatively slow economic growth, when there are many competing domestic demands for federal budget assistance, it is understandable that some ask if these resources should not be diverted back to health, education and other good causes at home. But this is the superficial perception of foreign assistance, as draining domestic budgets in some sort of zero-sum game instead of striking the right balance between the two.

Moreover, the suggestion that these and other development agencies operate with no accountability ignores the fact that each of these programs has built-in monitoring and evaluation processes, both internally and externally, which put to bed the wild allegations that they are infested with corruption and inefficiency. On the contrary, the agency works and supports local groups and activists, assisting a range of projects, from protecting children in war zones and areas hit by natural disasters to improving women’s health, ensuring access to clean water, treating HIV and AIDS, boosting energy security and anticorruption work, all of which help to make the world a better and safer place.

For the new US administration to single out USAID and foreign assistance more generally is partly ideological and partly populist gimmick. The latter is employed because, in times of economic hardship, it is a diversion from the need to deal head-on with the issues that are obstructing the growth of the US economy and the concomitant social hardships and divisions.

Instead, the claim is that the US is sending money to people abroad at the expense of “our own.” Ideologically, Vice President J.D. Vance described this in an interview with Fox News, referring to “a very Christian concept … (that) you love your family and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that, you can focus (on) and prioritize the rest of the world.” This bizarre hierarchy of love does not stack up because one group’s welfare should not come at the expense of the other. And “loving” — in this case, supporting — others also creates a better, safer and more prosperous environment for those who are dearest to you.

Foreign aid is a method to contain global instability and the spread of diseases, as well as one of the most effective counterterrorism tools.

Yossi Mekelberg

Of course, a better, more humanitarian world is a value worth upholding. But some societies are in a phase where this view is fighting a rearguard battle, notwithstanding the generosity of others. And since the kindness argument has lost some of its appeal, it is worth repeating, as a matter of fact, that foreign aid is a method to contain global instability and the spread of diseases, as well as one of the most effective counterterrorism tools.

Most new administrations take their time to settle in, especially as the new senior team is one with little to no experience in government. A cooling-off period, after finishing a demanding, adversarial and polarizing election campaign, is an essential foundation for any presidency. But this is not Trump. He is always in campaigning mode and he feels most comfortable there.

However, Americans should also be aware how cutting foreign assistance is going to harm their relations with the world and how, eventually, these cuts will be replicated domestically through cuts to America’s social services. The sick and the weak overseas are the first to receive this treatment, but they will not be the last.

• Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg