In seeking to address our national debt, a small but vocal consortium often set their sights on foreign assistance. As an example, a 2019 Pew Research Center poll found that out of 12 of 13 areas of federal spending, no more than a quarter of those surveyed favored spending cuts. Foreign assistance was the only exception.
We can certainly testify to hearing from that vocal minority, who often make the case in public forums about reducing or even ending such assistance. As determined as they may be, that doesn’t mean we should cut foreign aid. There are strong economic, political and moral arguments in favor of American leadership in the world. And to truly lead, America must be generous.
Not surprisingly, many Americans would rather see the federal government deal with problems at home first. Domestic needs like making housing, education and health care affordable or fixing decaying infrastructure are priorities for many.
But even eliminating foreign aid wouldn’t do much to free up resources. At $39.2 billion for fiscal year 2019, foreign assistance is less than 1% of the federal budget. That’s a small price to pay to help stabilize the world.
Many critics also overlook the value of our foreign assistance. From bolstering democracy and human rights to strengthening free economies to fighting poverty and despair, foreign assistance has fortified peace and prosperity around the world. As documented in the Bush Institute’s new paper, Choose Freedom, encouraging democracy and human rights is “essential to advancing American values, and security and economic interests around the world.”
Foreign assistance has helped transform onetime enemies like Germany and Japan into partners and allies. Once impoverished and autocratic countries, South Korea and Taiwan have joined the ranks of developed and democratic nations. Places like the Czech Republic and Poland, recipients of foreign aid just 25 years ago, are now providing assistance themselves.
And while some may incorrectly conflate reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq with all foreign assistance, senior military leaders often make the case that diplomacy and development can prevent the need for military intervention. Former defense secretary and retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis put it succinctly in congressional testimony, telling lawmakers, “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”
In cutting U.S. foreign assistance, economic needs don’t disappear. But support for American interests and values often does. Moreover, countries like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia are content to fill the void, with little to no transparency in doing so.
Aid also has offered opportunities for U.S. market growth.
Over the past decade, nearly two-thirds of the growth in U.S. goods exports was to major USAID partners. By encouraging free market principles, private sector development and economic stability, aid investments have assisted in cultivating robust and growing demand for American goods and services abroad.
In addition to promoting security and stability, the protection and advancement of human dignity is (and should remain) a vital driver of U.S. foreign assistance. Simply put: It is morally right.
One of the most prominent examples is the sustained progress of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). A “dream big” global health partnership,PEPFAR remains the largest contribution by any country in fighting a single disease. First authorized in 2003 under President George W. Bush, PEPFAR was a direct response to the overwhelming burden of the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa.
PEPFAR has strengthened capacity and infrastructure, ensured access to vital services and addressed stigma, prevention and related issues like women’s and girls’ empowerment and gender-based violence. More than that, the program is estimated to have saved more than 18 million lives since its inception. Thanks to bipartisan support, PEPFAR has continued under subsequent administrations, with Congress reauthorizing the initiative three times, most recently in December 2018.
While some may attack foreign assistance as wasteful, misguided or taking resources away from American communities, our international engagement ought to be viewed as an investment in people — both at home and abroad. By addressing poverty, disease and bad government abroad, the United States not only improves the human condition but also enhances our nation’s standing and security. The temptation to withdraw within our own borders has been a recurrent theme throughout our history, today espoused in “America First” rhetoric.
But we withdraw at our own peril and in contradiction to our values. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has said, “I think Americans are the most generous people in the world with the shortest attention span.”
Natalie Gonnella-Platts is director of the Women’s Initiative at the Bush Institute, and Lindsay Lloyd is the Bradford M. Freeman Director of Human Freedom at the Bush Institute. A longer version of this essay appeared in “The Catalyst: A Journal of Ideas” from the Bush Institute. It is being distributed by InsideSources.com.