Last night I was told that my stances on U.S. foreign policy are un-”American.” While I personally believe that citizenship is an arbitrarily created concept and, therefore, does not automatically warrant greater attention than human solidarity, there is an economic logic to my critique that surpasses boundaries of nationality.
Take the issue of U.S. food aid. In the most recent edition of Forei
gn Policy Magazine, Helene Gayle, President and CEO of CARE USA, argues that U.S. food aid policy does “more harm than good.” What she means is this: under current U.S. food aid policy, the majority of food given to developing countries in crisis must be purchased from U.S. farmers and then shipped overseas on U.S. carriers in order to be distributed or sold at its final destination. The problem: in an effort to ensure benefit for American workers and corporations into U.S. food aid policy, the U.S. Agency for International Development spends more on shipping and administration (65 cents on every dollar) than it does on providing actual food to the starving populations we aim to help.
Gayle points out that “the generosity of the U.S. government and its citizens would be far better served if more food aid came in the form of cash.” Such a system would not only give humanitarian aid agencies more flexibility to respond more efficiently and appropriately, but would free up funds to be spend locally, stimulating production with developing countries towards stronger, more self-sufficient economies.
Is building stronger, more self-sufficient economies and communities abroad not the end goal of U.S. foreign assistance? Some might say, “Well sure, but now you’ve cut out the American worker altogether.” While this is true, the sacrifice is short-term. We will spend less money in the long-term on foreign aid if we invest now in supporting developing countries as they build their own infrastructure and industries. Countries with these qualities make better trade partners, a relationship which is and should be designed to create American jobs.
Besides, isn’t standing by inefficient programs simply because they create jobs something that the U.S. criticizes socialist governments for?
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 11, 2009 at 9:38 am
Zeeshan
Hi Sarah,
Great critique!
From what i’ve heard from friends/colleagues at USAID, there is usually so much corruption in these countries that it just doesnt make sense to write a check and expect it to trickle down to the masses. USAID even factors in a certain percentage of funds that will inevitably never be accounted for, if im not mistaken.
The flip side is that if 65% of funds are being diverted to overhead – we’ve got a problem! I wonder how USAID responded to Gayle’s thoughts…
Thanks for posting this!
January 11, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Sarah Frazer
Zeeshan,
I hear you on the corruption issue. But even credible organizations like CARE and Catholic Relief Services that have their base here in the U.S. are often still required to purchase U.S. grown food and ship it to their country offices if they are operating within a USAID grant.
The policy limits their ability to purchase from local markets, which would reduce transportation costs as well as CO2 emissions, in addition to feeding families quicker in times of crisis. But worst of all, by preventing these NGOs from spending locally, the U.S. government is perpetuating the foreign aid dependency cycle, requiring the poor in developing countries to depend on U.S. tax payer charity, rather than allowing them to actually develop their own agricultural industries.
If we had allowed developing countries to do so, much of the suffering of the recent food crisis could have been assuaged by even the most basic levels of local food production. Instead, approximately 100 million joined the ranks of the undernourished and chronically hungry. The current number now rests just under 1 billion worldwide.
January 12, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Zeeshan
Thanks for that information, Sarah.
I am wondering how a US diplomat would respond to your views. Would they take the position of one who is sympathetic to your argument, since it is clearly logical and reasonable. Or would they take the stance that our “products” deserve an equal opportunity to be sold in the international marketplace?
I am not entirely convinced that the US indulges in charitable activities for the sake of charity, per se. Im sure there’s more than meets the eye, as your information shows…
January 13, 2009 at 10:00 am
Sarah Frazer
Well said, Zeeshan, well said.
January 15, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Carolyn DeChants
Thanks for writing about this important topic, Sarah. I noticed that Oxfam America has just published a fact sheet about the same idea and they called it “tied-aid”. (The fact sheet is at http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/campaigns/aid_reform of anyone wants to check it out.)
Sometime I wonder how foreign aid would be different if groups like Oxfam and CARE had just as much lobbying power as American agricultural and industrial groups.
January 16, 2009 at 10:13 am
Zeeshan
Good point, Carolyn. I think if the non-profit sector made more effective coalitions, we’d see much more effective results. Power in numbers!
March 3, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Virgilio
I was ignorant of the influence of government on charity and foreign aid. I think this ignorance is a large part of the problem. I think you have a very clear point on the counterefficiency of buying the food here at a higher price and paying for transportation costs. I don’t think it is anti-American to desire change, but I think that most people who donate don’t think exactly how they want their money spent. In a problem like this, they might make the organization liable whereas legislation is to blame.
Would outsourcing the organizations be a solution towards their freedom from the grain lobby?
Where is the line drawn in creating an organization that must be report to the government? Is it in the number of people leading it? Is it in the amount of money fluctuating within? Why must the government regulate beyond taxes and tax-deduction?
March 6, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Sarah Frazer
Hey Virgilio, thanks for continuing the dialogue! Here’s one response from Aaron Sherinian and Tom Miller at the Huffington Post about the problem with an uncoordinated outsourcing of US humanitarian assistance.
“An American Brand the World Already Believes In”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-sherinan-and-tom-miller/an-american-brand-the-wor_b_171563.html
Second, taking US food aid out of domestic farm policy and budget and putting it in foreign assistance policy and budget, where it belongs, would be a start in removing it from the reaches of the US grain lobby.
And third, to your point about who is responsible for implementing US foreign assistance, there is a new coalition of organizations, many of whom receive USAID funding, calling for a modernization of this entire process. Their message is that while the U.S. is the largest net donor of foreign assistance, our government pursues no coordinated strategy or agreed upon set of goals to guide those investments. The official staff designated to implement these investments has been reduced by half over the past 20 years and the foreign assistance budget remains constrained by hundreds on Congressional earmarks, protecting parochial special interests, which undercut aid effectiveness and our ability to eradicate poverty in the long-run.
So, this group called the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (http://modernizingforeignassistance.net/) is asking President Obama to slow down and reassess the effectiveness of our mechanism for giving foreign assistance before we jump on doubling the net amount. Their asks are:
1) Formulate a National Strategy for Global Development (the MDGs come to mind)
2) Rewrite the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to reflect today’s modern challenges (a lot has changes since then!)
3) Increase funding for and accountability of foreign assistance
4) Streamline and strengthen the organizational structure for providing US foreign assistance (one suggestion is a Cabinet-level Department of Development that would share a seat at the table with the Department of Defense and Department of State in order to more accurately represent our proclaimed three-prong strategy of Defense, Diplomacy, and Development)
I hope this helps!
Sarah
April 10, 2009 at 8:01 am
Virgilio
P.s. : From the New York Times: “Captain Phillips was captured Wednesday during an hours-long battle that began when the Somali pirates attempted to commandeer the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama, a 17,000 ton container ship that was carrying tons of food and relief aid to Mombasa, Kenya. The pirates gained control of the ship for a number of hours, but the unarmed American crew of 20 then managed to overpower the pirates and retake command.”