Foreign aid shouldn’t be first thing on the chopping block

{mosads}

Foreign assistance creates long lasting partnerships with countries and foreign publics—partnerships that benefit the national security of the United States.  By helping to educate, empower, employ, and befriend people in other countries, we decrease instability that we have ended up spending trillions to combat.

So what are we spending to do this?  Relatively little.  The entirety of non-military U.S. foreign assistance money for FY2011 is $34.7 billion.  That amounts to less than one percent of the Federal budget.  Let me repeat that again:  one percent.  That’s one percent we spend on the entire world.  And as a percentage of GDP, the U.S. has ranked rather low on its government-sponsored foreign aid, giving only 1/5th the amount Sweden does. (However, it is important to note that in terms of private donations the U.S. ranks very high.)

Consistently, the average American greatly misperceives the amount of U.S. spending on foreign aid.  In a 2010 poll, the median assumption was that the Federal government spends 25 percent of its budget on foreign aid.  In the same pole, the median recommendation by Americans for spending levels was 10 percent.  That’s far above the reality of the situation.

Ok, so we don’t really spend much money on foreign aid.  But why should we be spending any at all? What do we get out of it?

According to USAID, money spent on combating malaria has saved 1.1 million lives in sub-Saharan Africa.  Maternal mortality has decreased from 546,000 in 1990 to 358,000 in 2008.  In terms of financial benefits, in 2009, we exported more than $500 billion in goods to developing countries. Aid helps creates business, and that’s good for the prosperity of the United States.

But there’s more.  In a recent publication by the Professional Services Council, it is noted that development and diplomacy spending is directly linked to 10 million American jobs.  Every $4 spent by the State Department in Iraq has saved $45 in military spending.  PSC also cites the example of South Korea, which despite the massive exploitation of WWII and the following devastation of the Korean War, has evolved into a democracy and important trade partner with the U.S.—and we all enjoy Korean goods today.

Let’s also not forget that prominent members of the military community, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have called for increased funding to the State Department.  Institution building, reduction of poverty, and helping meet basic health needs all contribute to the establishment of more stable environments in which the American military is less likely to be called into action.

The U.S. also has a vested interest in remaining a global, competitive leader.   We should not cede our ability to influence people worldwide through democracy promotion programs, education, healthcare, and supporting human rights, especially when it costs relatively little to make a big impact.

In the end, it is important to recognize our financial troubles and live within our means.  We should require our foreign aid agencies to account for the money they spend and demonstrate its benefit.  Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for a “Third Way” between aid critics and proponents that places more responsibility on the leadership of foreign countries to ensure the best use of aid money.  The goal, as Blair explains, is to “use aid to end aid” by creating the building blocks for prosperity.  And maybe, like South Korea, these countries and people can be transformed from recipients into donors.

So rather than focusing on the one percent of spending on foreign aid, let’s get realistic and put our priorities in order.

Matthew Wallin works for the American Security Project, a non-partisan think tank in D.C.