On the recent anniversary of the earthquake that devastated Haiti last year, killing about 300,000 people and destroying thousands of schools and hospitals, I read a statistic that astounded me: Venezuela has pledged more funds for Haiti’s reconstruction than the U.S.
At the U.N. Office of the Special Envoy for Haiti, former President Bill Clinton said in his report on the earthquake’s first anniversary that Venezuela has agreed to $1.3 billion to rebuild Haiti, while the U.S. has offered $1.1 billion. If these figures aren’t surprising enough, that Washington isn’t even the largest contributor in its own region, what is to follow will be even worse.
This year, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives aims to cut $100 billion from domestic and foreign aid programs, in order to reduce the huge U.S. budget deficit. Foreign aid programs will be cut between 10 and 30 percent. It is estimated that the foreign affairs budget — financed from State Department funds to support vaccines against AIDS in Africa — will be reduced by more than 13 percent, a figure that would produce devastating outcomes.
Some ultraconservative Republicans, such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, aim to eliminate the foreign aid budget entirely. They will also attempt to eliminate the 2,170 jobs created in recent years by the State Department in order to compensate for previous job cuts. Ironically, almost all were created at the request of former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell, who argued that the United States needed “diplomatic troops” in order to improve its security in the world.
I asked the chair of the House’s Foreign Relations Committee, Miami Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is more pro-foreign aid than many of her colleagues: “Would these cuts perhaps weaken U.S. influence in the world?” She answered, “If we cut the budget at the domestic level in the U.S., how would we go about doing it so as to not affect aid to all other countries? We have a debt that is growing out of control and a sky-high deficit that we are passing on to our grandchildren. We can’t continue like this.”*
Almost all Democrats fear that the proposed cuts will be a deep blow to U.S. diplomacy. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated in his comment in September, referring to Afghanistan and Iraq, “Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.” Eliot L. Engel, minority leader of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, told me that foreign aid cuts in times of battles against drug cartels in Mexico and Central America, and the increased influence of China, Iran and Venezuela in Latin America “is something that will turn against us.”*
My opinion: Although the United States remains by far the country that grants the most amount of foreign aid in dollar amounts, it is one of the industrialized countries that gives the least in relation to the size of its economy: The country donates only 0.2 percent of its GDP on foreign aid, compared to 1 percent from Sweden. An even more alarming figure: The U.S. spends only 1 percent of its budget on foreign aid. Perhaps, after the WikiLeaks revelations, Congress should request State Department officials to dedicate more time on promoting exports and less time on writing cables on Silvio Berlusconi’s sexual escapades.
*Editor’s Note: Quotes, accurately translated, could not be verified.
It should be pointed out that this discusses only the aid given by the federal government and does not include the aid given by private citizens or organizations. But the private aid is substantial, much more so than that given by those in other countries.