Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:17:09 +0200
Countries are right to ban USAID
http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/varga.jpg?w=144
By Mark Varga
April 30, 2014
Mark Varga is a political consultant in Budapest.
What is USAID good for? Revelations that the agency-which stands for the US
Agency for International Development and offers humanitarian assistance
around the world-funneled money to Cuba to start a social media program bent
on spreading political content and eventually overthrowing Fidel Castro sent
shockwaves across the world. This "
<http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/04/03/cuban_twitter_and_other_time
s_usaid_pretended_to_be_an_intelligence_agency> digital Bay of Pigs" is just
the latest installment in the never-ending series of revelations that have
compromised America's desired image as a good and just hegemon. In truth,
this is simply business as usual for USAID and the swathe of related
philanthropic foundations and aid donors that have been used as vehicles for
US foreign policy.
Rather than gasping in surprise at USAID's covert exploits, it is important
to take a step back from the media brouhaha surrounding the organization and
look at the bigger picture. Indeed, on closer scrutiny, several patterns
emerge underneath the business of giving money away for supposedly
high-minded causes. Saving the world and alleviating world poverty is just
one such motive. Power in the form of promoting a Western-backed design on
what is right is another one. <http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are> USAID for
one makes no secret of this mission, stating on its website that its purpose
is to "further America's interest while improving lives in the developing
world."
This is just part of the picture. In fact, under the generic title of
philanthropic organizations, one can find a plethora of governmental
agencies, foundations, charities, friendship societies, and NGOs. In the US,
many are financed by both sides of the political divide and are powered to
achieve political goals. Indeed, ever since the 1960s, when conservative
foundations began <http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/phall/Herman-CH1.pdf>
giving grants to key institutions, philanthropic organizations have been
closely connected to the public policy cycle
How to keep friends
Even before the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, strategic grant
making has been used extensively to notch progress toward both internal and
external political goals. For the better part of the Cold War, the US has
maintained geopolitical influence in the world by financing friendly regimes
and pushing for like-minded reforms. Egypt for instance has swallowed some
$71 billion of aid since 1946. Pakistan was propped up to the tune of $67
billion.
After Kennedy created USAID in 1961, the agency has been the proving ground
of US foreign assistance objectives, used to project US soft power on a
global scale. In a landmark
<http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/06-029.pdf> Harvard paper
from 2006, it was proven that countries rotating onto the UN Security
Council received on average 59% more aid. As soon as their term ended, aid
would fall to historic lows. In a
<http://www.stanford.edu/class/ips216/Readings/wang_99.pdf> related study
from 1999, T.Y.Wang from Illinois State University found that UN voting
patterns on vital issues to American interests were successfully swayed
through the practice of aid giving, rewarding compliance and punishing
political defiance.
To maintain its position in the world, the US has to dole out wads of cash
to political regimes around the world. More revelations about the way USAID
operates were
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/14/usaid-under-fire-for-spending-bi
llions-on-questionable-foreign-programs/> brought to light in the form of a
multimillion-dollar "incentive fund'"disbursed to foreign governments to
push through reforms deemed by Washington as being priorities. The US
government gave $15 million directly to Afghan officials in exchange for
passing a law on violence against women. Another $15 million was given last
year for implementing budget changes.
How to make enemies
Such moral decrepitude has come under fire from multiple countries that have
hardened their stance towards aid organizations in general. In a show of
force, Russia passed a law forcing foreign NGOs to register as "foreign
agents." Afterwards, it ordered USAID out of Russia over allegations of
undermining the government. It may have seemed as yet another example of
Russian authoritarianism, but
<http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-protests-usaid-hilary-clinton-state-d
epartment-2011-12> Business Insider reported the leaking of 60 MB of emails
between US agencies and opposition groups in Russia, showing that the US was
paying these opposition groups and backing anti-Putin protests in Moscow.
Russia was not the only country to expel USAID from its territory. From
places like Eritrea, all the way to <http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7069>
Ecuador, Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia, the American agency either had its
offices closed by the respective governments or is in the process of
shutting down. These countries have expressed fears over USAID's
destabilizing influence. In a now famous case, a Cuban-based American
contractor Alan Gross was sentenced to 15 years in prison for "acts against
the integrity of the state." He had been covertly outfitting the Jewish
community with telecommunications equipment illegal in Cuba.
>From friendly aid to friendly fire
What does all this mean? Simply put, political power is no longer projected
using the mechanisms of yore, but has found new vehicles in the form of
foreign aid. Though foreign leaders who decry the political motivations of
"humanitarian" NGOs come across as paranoid, a cursory glance at history
suggests otherwise.
It is woeful that laudable goals like "promoting democracy" or
"strengthening civil society" are used by the United States to push for
regime change according to their interests. Using the misfortune of less
developed countries as a cover to advance specific foreign policy agendas
compromises the credibility and legitimacy of all foreign aid. Regardless of
content, Washington's dabbling in the internal affairs of other countries
with such intensity is morally wrong and has endlessly backfired.
In a world of inconsequential "red lines" and "costs," Washington is on the
verge of losing its most precious asset: its soft power. When political
posturing is not involved, aid agencies help and provide the critical
difference between life and death for countless people across the developing
world. It should have stayed like that.
(image/jpeg attachment: image001.jpg)