Two Thirds of U.S. Foreign Aid is Really Military Aid
IN FOCUS, 2 Jan 2012
David Wallechinsky & Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov – TRANSCEND Media Service
When some Americans complain that foreign aid is wasting taxpayer money abroad that could be put to better use at home, they may not realize that today’s version of foreign aid isn’t what it used to be. Call it the Pentagon-zation of U.S. foreign assistance.
Until a few years ago, the State Department was the leading U.S. government agency when it came to doling out foreign aid. But beginning in the second term of George W. Bush’s presidency, and continuing through the Obama administration, the Department of Defense has surpassed the State Department in supporting foreign initiatives, most of which have been military oriented.
For the past two years, the Pentagon has been given $10 billion more than the State Department for foreign aid projects. With $17 billion, Defense officials plan for the coming year to invest in foreign military and police training, counter-drug assistance, counterterrorism activities and infrastructure projects, among other programs,.
Among the expenditures included in the recently passed 2012 National Defense Authorization Act are $1.1 billion to the government of Pakistan for alleged counterinsurgency efforts and $415 million for two programs known euphemistically as the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund and the Commander Emergency Response Fund. Translated into everyday English, this means cash that can be handed out by U.S. commanders.
Gordon Adams of the Stimson Center told iWatch News that by shifting foreign aid to military programs “you end up strengthening those instruments which are least democratic fundamentally.”
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.
Dear David Wallechinsky & Noel Brinkerhoff,
In saying Americans “…..may not realize that today’s version of foreign aid isn’t what it used to be”, I’m afraid you are not enlightening your readers. I can assure you that what you claim happened under “George W. Bush’s presidency and continuing through the Obama administration”, is the same, exactly the same as happened under Clinton, Reagan and other Presidencies before theirs.
The world is not in the mess it is just because of two USA Presidents. It takes more than that and it takes not only American Presidents, but Presidents and Prime Ministers of several countries, UK, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Israel, Russia, China, to name just a few.
All these countries have “foreign aid” programmes. Foreign aid is not Charity. What is given MUST bring a benefit to the giving country. Politicians have a duty to “honour their promise” to the “main” donors to their political party. These are invariable industrialists connected to the Arms Trade. Governments must “push” sell of weapons, bombs, fighter-jets, warships, spying equipment, etc, etc.
As an (involuntary and accidental) observer of UN activities fifty years ago, I witnessed dozens of wars or revolutions, military coups, etc, been brewed and concocted thanks to “Foreign Aid”. The Media would announce, for example “100 million dollars of Foreign Aid to some African country, for the construction of 5 Hospitals, 20 schools and 500 miles of roads”, which was what diplomats of the concerned countries reported. However, the deal under the table was: “you can have the 100 million dollars, but only if your country spends 70 million in our military equipment” (this included not only weapons and vehicles, but also military uniforms)Thus, only 30 million were left for worthwhile causes, but such deals were possible if the “receiving politicians or diplomats kept 10 million for them, so there was only 20 million left, which vanished in mysterious Administrative costs. This is why on the African continent, when 50 years ago you had 2 million people dying every year from malnutrition or lack of medical care, we now have over 3 million in the same situation.
In the meantime, the African continent has “enjoyed” a good number of Games of War, all courtesy of the USA and its allies and rivals.
The benefit to USA and Co, is not always helping the military export trade. It is also the gold, copper, drugs petrol and slaves (particularly women and children), as Foreign Aid is not always cash. Foreign Aid can be directly 1,000 rifles, 500 bombs, 100 tanks, etc.
Much work needs to be done my friends,
Alberto
Roughly three-thirds of China’s foreign aid is railways, ports, highways, and hospitals.
This may go unnoticed in the West now, and even by recipient countries, but the Chinese will persist and, eventually it will make its mark on the hearts and minds and economies of needy people everywhere.
Our own policy of arming repressive governments is, like so much that we do, intended to fatten our arms industry’s next quarterly profits.