The One Percent Worth Defending
By Jessie Daniels
There’s another one percent coming under attack these days – the US foreign aid budget. Many who are pushing for cuts argue that we do not receive anything in return for our foreign assistance. With one in five Americans believing that foreign aid accounts for as much as 30 percent of the budget, it is not surprising that this argument could score political points. But it is not good policy because, in many cases, providing foreign aid gets us a big bang for a cheap buck. The debate has, however, opened the door for a more serious discussion about US foreign assistance.
Already, both the House and the Senate want to cut the President’s $60 billion fiscal year 2012 budget request for foreign aid and State Department Operations – the Senate by $6 billion, the House by $11 billion. Automatic cuts in 2013 stemming from the failure of the Congressional Supercommittee would further cut foreign aid. At a recent Republican presidential debate, some candidates went even further and suggested zeroing out foreign aid. A key part of that argument is that foreign aid should not be given to countries that do not share our interests. But our foreign aid budget does not consist entirely of bilateral aid. It also funds programs that not only counter the complex challenges we face today but also have direct and indirect impacts on American interests while offering a high return on investment.
One of these programs is the US Global Health Initiative, which helps combat malaria as part of its mission. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the life-threatening infectious disease is most prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa. But it is also preventable and curable. Doing so can have a significant humanitarian impact on the African population.
It can also have significant benefits for the United States. As the WHO points out, “[e]conomists believe that malaria is responsible for a ‘growth penalty’ of up to 1.3% per year in some African countries.” Public health expenditures rise as a result, sometimes by as much as 40 percent. Without this kind of burden, many of these countries could direct those funds towards needed programs that promote stability. Moreover, rising health expenditures and weak economic growth could have a negative impact on the burgeoning consumer class in Africa, which could in turn hurt American businesses and entrepreneurs. Over the last decade, US trade with sub-Saharan African countries has more than doubled. The consulting firm McKinsey & Co. predicts that consumer spending in Africa will reach $1.4 trillion in 2020. In helping to combat malaria, we could open new markets in Kenya to goods produced in Kentucky.
With the automatic cuts triggered by the Supercommittee’s failure to reach an agreement, the American Foundation for AIDS research (AmFAR) recently estimated that reduced funding for the US Global Health Initiative would lower the deficit by 0.42 percent. Yet, that deficit reduction would prevent 4.5 million people from receiving treatment for malaria and would result in an estimated 5,000 more deaths from the disease. Given the far-ranging impact that this sort of foreign aid can have, is it really worth the human costs to shave 0.42 percent off the budget?
Since this debate over cutting foreign aid began, a diverse array of supporters – from Evangelical leaders to former Secretaries of State – has emerged to urge protection of international development funds. The Truman National Security Project has launched the new “Make Us Strong” campaign which is bringing together a coalition of national security professionals to highlight how international development financing helps mitigate the global challenges we face. These advocates show not only how small foreign assistance is as a percentage of the federal budget but also the positive impact that U.S. foreign assistance has both at home and abroad. By pointing to these types of examples, they can also help counter the perception that our money supports corrupt, unstable governments and garners little results.
In the aftermath of World War II, America realized that its security depended upon Europe and East Asia’s development. Our subsequent commitment has had long-lasting effects. Not only have we built strong alliances with those countries, but many are now large importers of American goods. As we embark on an election year, the debate over foreign aid is taking center stage. The fight against cuts should be fierce, but it is even more important that foreign aid advocates make a case for the impact of these funds and why they should matter to the American people. As US soft power becomes increasingly vital to managing our role in the world, foreign aid is the one percent we cannot afford to lose.
About the Author
Jessie Daniels is a Truman National Security Project fellow based in New York City. She has written case studies on the Northern Ireland Peace Process, pre-9/11 Intelligence and the creation of the Director of National Intelligence for the Project on National Security Reform. She has also conducted research on future security challenges and multilateral responses at the International Peace Institute in New York. From 2003 to 2007, she worked as a national security legislative aide to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Her work has been published in Asia Times Online, The Moderate Voice, The Reaction, and Foreign Policy Digest. Jessie holds a master of international affairs degree from Columbia University’s School of International Affairs and bachelor’s degree in history from Columbia College.