On Thursday, Bill Gates promised $750 million to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, which recently has lost donor appeal — and, as of Tuesday, also it’s executive director — because of corruption in the countries it operates. Gates announced at the World Economic Forum that neither these charges nor the tough economic climate are an “excuse for cutting aid to the world’s poorest.” Gates’ commitment to foreign aid in any and all circumstances represents the opinion of most Americans who support foreign assistance for moral and national security reasons. Foreign aid costs only 1% of the federal budget, yet GOP candidates consistently criticize the practice, threatening to cut it off completely or, as in the case of Mitt Romney, imply that the U.S. should leave it to countries like China to “take care” of poverty. If current GOP candidates properly understood the American public and foreign aid, they would tone down their hawkish stance on overseas assistance and acknowledge the benefits of contributing to aid organizations like The Global Fund.
According to a recent World Public Opinion report and the 2010 Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll, a strong majority of Americans support the provision of “food and medical assistance” (74%) and “aid to help needy countries to develop their economies” (62%) even in economic downturns. U.S. citizens believe that developed nations have a “moral responsibility” to help poorer countries and to take measures that support their democratic ambitions. In addition, most respondents said that helping developing countries is good for the America’s own economic growth.
It is for these reasons that President George W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, and Gates put up serious cash for the creation of The Global Fund, a multilateral financing organization that disburses grants directly to national governments. In 2010, The Global Fund suffered a cash shortfall and the U.S. renewed their commitment by increasing their contribution by 40% to $4 billion — far higher than any other country — because the return on investment was obvious. In just 10 years, The Global Fund financed AIDS treatment for 3.5 million people; diagnosed and treated 8.6 million cases of TB; distributed 230 million bed nets; and saved 7.7 million lives.
For all the criticism Bush received for his foreign policy, he understood the importance of foreign aid and was generous with it. He established the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which outside the Global Fund, has done more than any other organization to support global antiretroviral treatments. Unfortunately, his peers in the GOP primaries do not get share the same understanding of foreign aid’s importance. In November, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said, "I think the aid is all worthless. It doesn't do any good for most of the people. You take money from poor people in this country and you end up giving it to rich people in poorer countries."
Paul’s contempt for corruption is understandable, but the beneficiaries of The Global Fund’s work would disagree that foreign aid only benefits the rich. Further, donors like the World Bank mandate internal controls and interventions that make corruption less rampant and easier to find. In fact, The Global Fund’s own investigators pinpointed the $32 million of misused funds in their programmatic work, which is only a 0.3% rate of lost monies on $13 billion of disbursed grants. The possibility of theft is a reason to include parallel accountability measures such as those prescribed by President Bush, not to deny the poor life-saving interventions.
In addition, corruption is a leading cause behind a country’s stagnant growth and destabilization. Investing in a nation’s internal stability pays direct dividends to U.S. national security. This is lost on GOP candidates who prefer war mongering over a sophisticated use of 21st century diplomatic tools.
David Solimini of the Truman National Security Project explains, “America’s power relies on more than our military might. Foreign aid makes the world safe and stable for America, ensuring that problems overseas stay small and stay over there. America should never hand all of the power and influence that comes with foreign aid to China as Mitt Romney suggests. From the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift, to building schools in Afghanistan and vaccinating children in Africa, foreign aid has made America respected as the world’s great power.”
If the GOP is serious about maintaining U.S. leadership in the world, they need to participate in multilateral aid mechanisms like The Global Fund. More importantly, to win over the American people — and private philanthropists like Gates — they should understand that helping poor nations is a strong value to which citizens adhere. Without this clarity, they not only risk losing votes but also compromising our national security.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Discussion
Btw, It is time America ends it's govt. enforced "welfare for nations" programs. Especially when our own welfare is going down the tubes. Don't look to Romney for the answers; for that, we need Ron Paul!
For any and all who do not truly understand our economy and where the money comes and goes, please search you-tube for "The American Dream - How our Money system is corrupted " and take 30 mins. to watch it. All the other arguments are secondary as you'll see....http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature
This account has been disabled.
This account has been disabled.
G. Washington, a hero of libertarians, payed tribute and ransom to Barbary Pirates and sent troops to force people pay their whiskey tax. B. Franklin, another darling, supported the payment. T. Jefferson sent the US Navy to subdue the Pirates against the wishes of Congress and expanded the Presidency with the "illegal" land grab for western expansion. J. Madison enacted the first revenue legislation and caused a depression in the US because of his unwillingness to act against the British and French disrupting our merchant shipping. Madison spoke out against the disruptive states' rights influences that by the 1830's threatened to shatter the Federal Union. Actions speak louder than words. States and local govt fail their people through -CNP
1 Replies
I hope liberals understand that supposed peace-monger Ron Paul is against the United Nations, against government humanitarian aid, and against emergency assistance for countries suffering from natural disasters.
He can smile and act "folksy" all he wants, but the reality is that his policies would lead to the suffering of millions of people. I mean - I guess he just waves that all away and tells himself, "Once we have a libertarian utopia, none of these problems will exist anyway, because the invisible hand will fix them." So I guess that's his self-rationalization. That's what gets him off the hook and transforms him from a blood thirsty sociopath to a folksy "principled" libertarian.
7 Replies
5 Replies
4 Replies
Money given to the Global Fund is not foreign aid, per se. That money is directed toward a specific purpose. Judging by your article, a medical purpose.
Foreign aid is money given directly to foreign governments. THAT is money wasted.
Romney's assertion that we should leave foreign aid to China I find a little baffling and an indicator of his lack of expertise on foreign policy/international relations. To maintain hegemony, which most in the government and many citizens want for the U.S., whatever influence can be wielded that is positive is in our favor. Better to be known for saving lives than being military interventionist.
As for how aid gets dispersed and is assessed for effectiveness, I think that calls for a different conversation. But foreign aid is, as mentioned, around 1% of GDP, that is not that much nor is if enough to drastically improve the lives of Americans like some think it might if we didn't give foreign aid at all.
I cannot stand behind a piece where Americans should be 'forced' to give to charity. We already are through taxation and redistribution through government programs.
While I give credit to the author for recognizing one of the few silver linings to Bush's presidency (he did amazing things to slow down the progress of AIDS and Malaria in Africa) I cannot stand the thought of someone saying "you must give to this."
I for one get enough taxes taken out of my meager paycheck. I doubt any US president would stop all humanitarian aid, but I for one want to stop giving it to countries that aren't too friendly to us. It's time to start being a little more Machiavellian, and realistic about whats needed.
7 Replies
5 Replies
4 Replies
Who are you to steal from your neighbor, and give to someone else?
Even if the aid -did- reach the intended people (which it usually doesn't), what gives you the moral authority to take an American's wealth at the barrel of a gun, and then throw that wealth overseas?
Let the private charities perform their tasks.
If you fancy yourself a charitable individual, give up a portion of your wealth (or all of it) to these causes. But don't expect me to sign away my property rights because you think it'll be good PR.
52 Replies
13 Replies
12 Replies
25 Replies
24 Replies
10 Replies
8 Replies
If Ron Paul wants to prevent Americans from donating, then you could say he is against foreign aid.
He is against government sponsored foreign aid. There is a difference.
Government is good willing me to death.
Great article, but I think it's important that outside mere leadership, how it directly impacts our security militarily and economically really needs to be hit home for many voters. It's like housing prices in a neighborhood. If you help your elderly neighbor fix their roof. Yes, it's "free work" but you directly impact the value of your own home by maintaining the neighborhood. Helping others really does help us.
22 Replies
21 Replies
20 Replies
The importance of humanitarian U.S. foreign aid can not be underestimated. (Please note the word "humanitarian") The question though is how much can the federal budget absorb and how much should private foundations be encouraged to provide. Yes, the foreign aid budget is only just slightly over 1% of the total, however, in times like these, small things can not be overlooked; nickels and dimes add up to dollars. Government provided humanitarian foreign aid shouldn't be abandoned, but we must make sure the dollars the tax payers invest are used properly and that the recipient countries are doing all they can to prevent corruption and/or redirection of those funds away from direct support of the intended use.
1 Replies
Very good article, Sehreen. I am not going to disagree with any of the statistics or numbers you have shown, but you lose me when you say that Americans should be forced to contribute to foreign aid programs. If you and others want to join together and voluntarily contribute time and money and persuade others to do so, then that's fine, but you lose all credibility when you advocate force to do so. If it is virtuous to help others less fortunate through aid, virtue can only come through a choice; to force someone to make the "right" choice destroys the whole concept of virtue and morality. It is not your ends I disagree with, but your means.
I would be more inclined to donate to those 50 cent per day charities if the government wasn't already deciding I have to pay that anyways.
There's so much flawed logic in this piece, written by a former State Dept. flunky. Google "Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa" and "Aid to Dependent Dictators" for starters. Beyond the ineffectiveness and corruption with foreign aid, it's unconstitutional and impossible to justify given our needs at home. Let the 72% of Americans that support foreign aid so through voluntarily through charity rather than picking their neighbors' pockets.
16 Replies
12 Replies
11 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
BS. The high percentage of people you cite as being for intl. aid should be able to decide for themselves where and how much to spend.
This is about a government that tells you what to do with your money, this isn't about helping people. Did the govt. force Gates to donate that sum?
Well done, Sehreen. You are correct that US leadership in the world is built upon more than military superiority: how stupid are we to think that simply by having the most weapons we are then the biggest dog in the park? Hmmm?
The dictionary definition of the simple word "liberal" includes the terms: generous, open and giving. I take that to mean charitable, as well - as in the adage regarding the catching of flies. It's easier with honey. Let us win the hearts and minds of the people of the world who can change the world. Let them see "FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" upon those sacks of flour, cans of cooking oil and malaria nets.
9 Replies
8 Replies
6 Replies
I fully support our government giving foreign aid at times of extreme suffering and emergency. Otherwise it should be by referendum.
2 Replies
1 Replies
The government should neither legislate nor compel morality. I don't doubt Americans will continue to support foreign aid through nonprofit organizations, churches, etc., as they already do. And when they do so, it isn't a political power move. Look at Libya and Yemen and tell me Ron Paul is wrong.
1 Replies
If Americans are truly that generous then grant us the opportunity to voluntarily give to the gates foundation and other privatly opperated organisations instead of stealing it from our income taxes cause that is what the government thinks we want.
Ron Paul's statement is completely out of context. He even repeated it in the last debate. He is against MILITARY aid/spending. Hard to take an article seriously when an article about foreign aid concerning diseases blatantly uses a quote that says "the aid" without any context.
2 Replies