whether foreign aids should be administered or not

 whether foreign aids should be administered or not

Developed countries provide foreign aid to the developing and underdeveloped countries to boost their economy. The foreign aid may be of great importance to the donors or not. The paper will discuss whether the aids should be administered or not and give a comparison of the two sides. The United States is the leading country in providing foreign aids, especially in Africa. Foreign assistance is budgeted in their yearly budget. However, most of the foreign aid has a negligible impact on the aided nation.

Background

United States budgets billions of dollars to support foreign policies in supporting American priorities. For example, from 2015 to 2018 United States estimated 2.6 billion dollars to Central America. In return, America expects the countries it has assisted in supporting its policies. They include the promotion of regional economic growth, improving governance through collecting taxes, promote security training, border security, and improving worker training. The U.S. does not deliver the aid directly to the recipient state but contracts with non-governmental organizations or educational institutions in providing services to the citizens.

For example, the United States may decide to train police in Central America. U.S. signs contract with a third party like a federal law enforcement training center in Georgia, which undertakes training. Before the selection of the trainees, the U.S. conducts thorough research to ascertain the legibility of the trainees to ensure corruption and blackmail cases do not arise. In 2019 Trump government had enquired $27.7 billion funding for the fiscal year.

If the U.S. cut foreign aid, the recipient states will weaken the goals of the U.S. For example; the recipient countries may not be in a position to manage terrorism, improve infrastructure, and also have a stable economy to compete with other countries. If the U.S. withdraws the recipient country, reciprocate to European countries for donors or borrow in China and Russia, which weakens the economy of the country. Each donor has its goals and objectives to be met by the recipient, which are diversified.

Support for statement

Several factors support the assertion that the U.S. should increase foreign aid spending. First, foreign aid improves the economy of the recipient state. Developing and under-developed countries contrite to the growing world market economy. A study conducted by the world economic forum project found out that the contribution of developing countries to the world market was significant, and it will shoot by 2050. For example, the study estimated that by 2050 Nigeria would contribute 5.4% while India will donate 4.9% of the world market economy. By providing foreign aids, the country’s economy will improve, and the U.S. will benefit from increasing exports to such countries.

Second, it’s essential to increase foreign aid since, even if it is cut, it will not balance the federal budget. The federal government spent only 1% of its national budget as a foreign aid. According to the USAID (2017), research recorded that the U.S. only pay 1.2% of its federal budget in foreign aid disbursement.

Third, foreign aid is not a bank check for the corrupt states. Foreign aid is not used as a charity to the recipient country. U.S. disburse the aid through agencies like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which fund activities, especially emergencies to the affected states. In rare cases, funding is done directly to the recipient state without involving third parties. For example, the Sindh Basic Education Program in Pakistan was funded directly by the U.S., but the funds were directly channeled to the project.

Fourth, foreign aid strengthens the military sector; if the U.S funding is increased, the recipient state will have enough money to purchase ammunitions for military preparedness. A country that is stable in the military it’s easier to thrive ii economy due to political stability within the state. It reduces the cost of U.S. interventions in case of war outbreaks.

Fifth, foreign aid has assisted the education and health sector globally. For example; polio, tuberculosis malaria have been managed in many areas. HIV/AIDS is manageable due to the provision of Anti-Retro viral (ARVS) to the developing country. Poverty has been gradually eliminated since affordable education and health serviced are accessible to ordinary people. For example, between 2000 and 2014, 3.3 million children’s lives were saved due to child health.

The opposition of the statement

The United States should reduce foreign aid due to various reasons. First, the U.S. spends a lot of foreign aid. According to the opinions polls conducted in the U.S showed that it sends 25% of the federal budget on foreign aid. Secondly, there is an unfair contribution of foreign assistance by the wealthy states. Wealth states are supposed to contribute 0.7% of GNP to support developing countries. United states provide a higher percentage compared to the other states.

Third, the program is only supported by the democrats with little support from Republicans. The congress proposed a bill in 1990, and on voting, the democrats supported it more than the republicans. Currently, both the democrats and the Republicans support the program. However, during the reign of Ronald Reagan and George w. bush were republicans, and they recorded the highest foreign aid. For example, Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Presidents Malaria Program were initiated in the 2000s, and the results were significant.

Fourth, foreign aid is streamlined in corrupt countries. U.S disbursement is conducted in several ways. For example, in 2018, the spending was done as follows; 34% was channeled to multilateral organizations, 21% of the foreign aid went to the government, and 20% was channeled to non-profit organizations. When the U.S. wants to disburse international state, it does so through private sectors and does not direct the funds to the recipient government directly. Accounting for the expenditure is required by the U.S. to audit the spending.

Fifth, foreign aid was channeled to autocratic governments. During the cold war, the accusation was true. The foreign assistance was done at the expense of weakening the enemies.

Comparison and analysis

From both the proponent and opposes reasons, we can conclude them. In both argument, it’s clear that only 1% of the U.S spends on foreign aid. This is because the opposing reasons were based on the opinion polls but not the facts. Both the \argument proved that the expenditure of foreign aid is well utilized since there are several mechanisms of the disbursement. In both the argument, foreign assistance is fostered to achieve the U.S goals, especially strengthening the military personnel of the recipient state. Both arguments are based on statistics. However, the two cases differ in lightly on the facts provided. For the opposition it’s more of myths since it relied on contradicting opinion polls while proponents based the arguments on facts.

In conclusion, the proponents of the statement that U.S. should increase the foreign aid outweighs the antagonists. Therefore, U.S. should increase foreign aid to stabilize the economy of the recipient countries. For example, some diseases have been eradicated such as polio especially in Africa. However strict rules should be put in place to ensure financial audit of the funds to ensure transparency and accountability.