Concern about U.S. Plan to Cut UN Funding
UNITED NATIONS, 25 Jul 2011
A 25 percent cut in contributions to the cash strapped United Nations, embargo on funding for the UN Human Rights Council and making assistance conditional on countries’ voting behaviour at the UN are some of the salient features of a new U.S. legislation.
Called the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of Financial Year 2012, the bill was passed by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on July 21. It authorizes spending for the U.S. State Department, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and international institutions for fiscal year 2012.
Freedom House, a leading U.S. non-governmental organization, has expressed concern that the legislation “could have damaging and far-reaching effects on the way U.S. foreign assistance is administered.”
Unless a Presidential waiver were signed on a case-by-case basis, the bill as passed by the Committee would not only “cut off vital foreign assistance to more than 70 countries, including Egypt, Brazil, Ethiopia, Haiti, Jordan, and Thailand,” but also make “the awarding of non-security aid” to countries dependent on their voting behaviour at the United Nations (UN), Freedom House said in a statement on July 22.
Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization based in Washington. It supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.
“Cutting off assistance to governments with which the United States has a variety of shared interests, including security, trade, and economics is short-sighted and could harm the United States’ bilateral relationships worldwide,” said Sarah Trister, congressional liaison at Freedom House.
“Furthermore, making assistance conditional on voting with the United States at the UN is a strong-arm tactic and is not the message this country should be projecting to the world,” she added.
The legislation would increase transparency and reporting requirements and set out clear goals for U.S. aid policy, said Freedom House, referring to provisions that promote religious freedom and human rights in countries such as Egypt, China, Syria, Russia, and Vietnam as well as the restriction of assistance to Sri Lanka except for humanitarian and democracy and human rights programs.
While Freedom House is “pleased the Committee focused their attention on human rights issues in so many strategically important countries;” it has expressed reservations.
“[. . .] Some provisions in the legislation would severely hinder America’s ability to financially support democratic development and the protection of human rights in these [strategically important] countries by limiting the type of assistance that could be provided,” cautioned Trister.
UN FUNDING
Freedom House points out that the legislation also includes language that would prohibit U.S. funding for the United Nations Human Rights Council and cut U.S. contributions to the UN by 25 percent.
The bill also indicates a cut off in all funding to the Organization of American States (OAS), a body that the U.S. was fundamental in creating.
“While Freedom House understands the need and desire for spending cuts at a time of fiscal austerity, cutting such vast amounts to the foreign aid budget harms the United States’ long-term goals and at the same time has almost no impact on our overall budget deficit,” said David J. Kramer, president of Freedom House.
The irony of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of Financial Year 2012 is that it is wide off the mark: if wishes Americans expressed in a recent public opinion poll on budget priorities were respected by the Administration, the United States would be spending at least eleven times the amount it actually does on foreign assistance.
According to the poll, most Americans estimate that foreign assistance comprises 21 percent of the annual budget, and favour reducing it to around 11 percent. The reality however is that U.S. foreign aid currently makes up only about 1 percent of the federal budget and, according to Freedom House, money for democracy and human rights programming accounts for one-tenth of 1 percent of the total budget.
“Further cuts to what is already a miniscule part of the budget are both unwarranted and would appear to have little popular support,” says Freedom House.
The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reported that in 2009, the United States was the largest donor providing USD 28.7 billion in net ODA flows, representing an increase of 5.4 percent in real terms over 2008. Its ODA/GNI ratio rose from 0.19 percent in 2008 to 0.20 percent in 2009.
ODA is an acronym for official development assistance and GIN for gross national income. According to a UN General Assembly resolution in 1970, developed countries like the U.S. should be providing 0.7 percent of their GNI for ODA. With the exception of Nordic countries and the Netherlands, the target has yet to be achieved.
Total net U.S. ODA flows increased to each region, particularly to sub-Saharan Africa (by 10.5 percent to USD 7.5 billion). ODA also increased significantly to Afghanistan (by 39.5 percent to USD 3.0 billion). U.S. net ODA to the group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) increased by 13.6 percent to USD 8.1 billion.
Meanwhile, USAID says that it has embarked on an ambitious reform effort, USAID FORWARD, to change the way the agency does business. This involves new partnerships, an emphasis on innovation and a relentless focus on results. It gives USAID the opportunity to transform its agency and unleash its full potential to achieve high-impact development.
Announced by USAID Administrator Dr. Rajiv Shah, USAID FORWARD is critical to achieving President Obama’s vision of the United States as the global leader in international development.
“This initiative is an early outcome of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) led by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and aims to modernize and strengthen USAID so that it can meet the most pressing development challenges and work more efficiently towards its ultimate goal – creating the conditions where its work is no longer needed,” USAID said in an official statement.
USAID is rebuilding its budget capacity to allow for increased responsibilities and capacity to manage constrained budget resources and ensure the agency will be able to align resources against country strategies, make difficult trade-offs, and re-deploy resources toward programs that are demonstrating meaningful results.
In consultation with the Department of State, USAID has created an Office of Budget and Resource Management in the Office of the Administrator that provides increased responsibilities over execution of its budget. “With these increased responsibilities, USAID is proposing difficult funding tradeoffs in order to continue robust funding of key operational and program priorities.”
Go to Original – indepthnews.net
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.