Three months ago, the United States Congress quashed a presidential proposal to cut the amount of foreign aid America gives to developing countries by more than 30 percent.
This “skinny budget” was widely opposed by many congressmen, Christian leaders, political scientists and military leaders, but it was not at the forefront of political discourse among the wider public. Many people are unaware of the potential political, international and human costs that such drastic budget cuts would entail.
Many Americans overestimate what the U.S. government spends to alleviate poverty, fight hunger and provide basic medical care to the most vulnerable people around the world. According to a 2016 Kaiser Family Foundation report, the average American estimates U.S. foreign aid to be around 26 percent of our country’s spending budget, yet according to official records, only 1 percent of government spending goes to help less fortunate countries. This equals only 0.18 percent of our gross national product, which means that for every $100 the U.S. economy produces, only 18 cents are spent to help poor countries. In addition, although we contribute the largest sum of money in absolute terms, when adjusting for the size of our economy as a percentage of our GNP, we rank 20th in the world. According to statistics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the U.S. lags behind many countries that give more than five times greater shares of their GNPs.
Sharing a fraction of our resources with the much poorer world is not only a basic human obligation, it is also vital for our national interest and security.
The link between poverty and the risk of war has been well documented by political scientists, and empirical research confirms that poorer countries are consistently at a greater risk of war, civil unrest and rise of extremist ideologies. This trend is most notable in sub-Saharan Africa – this most impoverished region of the world also has the highest frequency of ethnic conflict, state collapse and genocide. In the Americas, the Shining Path insurgency in Peru was a direct result of economic hardship experienced immediately after the effects of the Latin American debt crisis in the 1980s, and the Mexican unrest in Chiapas in 1994 was linked to the negative economic effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement on the native population. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict also tends to grow more acute when living conditions in the Palestinian territories worsen.
The relationship between poverty and war is familiar not only to academics, but also to professionals on the battlefield. As soon as the president’s proposal to slash foreign aid was announced, 15 experienced Army generals and admirals drafted a testimony warning of the consequences to U.S. security. They argued that military power alone cannot protect our interests abroad or ensure the long-term safety of our country.
Foreign aid is critical to America’s national security, because it ensures U.S. diplomatic influence abroad, promotes democratization and political stability, and builds alliances. According to our military officers, it is the only way to conduct proactive conflict prevention and foster peace in unstable regions, and it is far less expensive than deploying the military after conflict has erupted.
In addition, impoverished regions are more vulnerable to corruption, provide fertile grounds for radicalization by terrorist organizations such as Al Qaida, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and ISIS.
Apart from being crucial to world peace, foreign aid also helps to prevent health crises and the spread of contagious diseases. Under the president’s proposed cuts, the amount of funding the U.S. gives to organizations that focus on the treatment and prevention of contagious diseases, such as HIV, Ebola, tuberculosis and more would be reduced by one-third, which would inevitably lead to acute shortages in medications, vaccines and medical equipment in the most affected areas. We could lose our ability to quell outbreaks and health crises before they spread across the globe.
Particularly hard hit would be struggling countries such as Uganda, where (according to World Bank statistics) the percentage of people living in extreme poverty dropped from 53 percent to 34 percent between 2006 and 2013, thanks in great part to U.S. relief efforts. Still, one of the leading causes of death in some regions of this country, especially among young children, is malaria, which is mostly curable with medication that can be obtained for less than $5 a dose.
The administration’s disregard for all of these negative consequences motivated a coalition of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox clergy to protest the foreign aid budget cuts in front of the U.S. Capitol earlier this year. Thanks to opposition from Christian and humanitarian organizations, churches, the military, political scientists and many congressmen, the proposed budget cuts will not move forward – for now.
However, it is inevitable that proposals to cut foreign aid will come up again. Therefore, it is crucial that we continue to advocate for sharing a fraction of our riches with the much poorer world to save lives and to promote peace.
Dr. Kamila Valenta is a member of St. Gabriel Church in Charlotte and a part-time professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where she teaches courses on ethnic conflict.