U.S. Foreign Assistance: Wherefore and Whereto?

In 1961, at the height of the Cold War, amid tense confrontation between the “free world” and “communism,” the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was established on President John F. Kennedy’s initiative as the chief government agency for rendering assistance, chiefly economic one, in the first place to developing countries. The main purpose of the new organization at that time was formulated as the stimulation of economic growth and the struggle against poverty in Third World countries.

In 1961, at the height of the Cold War, amid tense confrontation between the “free world” and “communism,” the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was established on President John F. Kennedy’s initiative as the chief government agency for rendering assistance, chiefly economic one, in the first place to developing countries.

The main purpose of the new organization at that time was formulated as the stimulation of economic growth and the struggle against poverty in Third World countries. The idea was that gradual improvements to living standards as a result of long-term American assistance would help underpin pro-American sentiment among the population in a target country, and help ensure the countries’ governments followed pro-American foreign policies. Otherwise, as American political leaders maintained at the time, developing countries could fall into chaos and choose socialism, ending up in the Soviet Union’s or China’s sphere of influence. This, in Washington’s opinion, would represent a growing threat to the country’s national security.

USAID Activities Today

USAID’s mission today primarily involves supporting economic growth and the development of democratic institutions, and also rendering humanitarian assistance. The Agency’s activities cover such areas as health service, agriculture, and trade. It is worth noting that “promoting democracy” has never been the Agency’s chief goal. Moreover, USAID analysts, unlike senior figures in George Bush Jr.’s State Department, officials in his Administration, George Bush Jr. himself, and Republican legislators, are all well aware that the strategy of sponsoring “color revolutions,” that is, non-violent action to bring young pro-American leaders to power by provoking mass protest against undemocratic regimes, signify only the beginning of possible democratic transformations, but offer no guarantees of their successful conclusion [1].

Photo: www.usaid.gov
USAID Infographic

At the same time, USAID makes a considerable contribution to the funding of the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, which are run by the U.S. Republican and Democratic Parties respectively. These institutes seek to exert influence on political developments with the aim of promoting democratization inside the countries where they operate. Non-profit and non-party organizations in their official status, in reality they are the U.S. Federal Government’s foreign policy instruments, as it provides the lion’s share of their funding. In particular, these institutes played an active role in “instructing in democracy” some of the leaders of the “Arab Spring” in Tunisia and Egypt [2]. Ironically, as an upshot of this “democratization,” it was the Islamists representing anti-Western forces that came to power in both countries.

Today, USAID employs some 8,000 people, including foreign citizens. It operates on a global scale providing assistance to more than 80 countries where it runs its foreign missions.

Increasing the Role of Development

A new upsurge in interest regarding foreign assistance (or “development” in American political terminology) took place in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States in September 2001. The Republicans and Democrats both maintain that weak, failing and fragile developing states represent a threat to United States’ national security, since they may fall easy prey to terrorists, tyrants, and international criminal groups. Consequently, they are in need of help, and this is where USAIDS comes in as one of the available sources. Notably, the 2006 Bush Doctrine stated that development worked to strengthen U.S. diplomatic and defense capability, and to reduce long-term threats to the country’s national security by fostering the formation of stable, prosperous and peaceful communities.

The Republican Administration of George Bush Jr. embarked on a course toward considerably increasing the role of development in the United States’ foreign policy toolkit. While in 2000 the volume of foreign assistance was just $10 billion, it rose to $22.7 billion in 2007, i.e. it more than doubled over that seven year period. Reforms targeting to the procedure by which foreign assistance is allocated were launched with an eye to dealing with the specific requirements of particular developing countries.

The setbacks that America has suffered can be explained by flaws in their foreign policy mentality, which were both highly naïve and utopian. Founded in a sense of their own exceptionalism, their impregnable belief that their model of democracy and the market economy was universally applicable to all humankind was a cornerstone of traditional American national consciousness.

Photo: James G. Pinsky / U.S. Navy Photo
Haitian workers move cooking oil supplied by
the USAID at a distribution center at Port-Au-
Prince international airport

The Barack Obama Administration went even further in these procedural reforms. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that development was to become a pillar of U.S. foreign policy, equal in its significance to diplomacy and defense (3D equality: defense – diplomacy – development). In 2010, Barack Obama signed a directive on global development that aimed to map out measures to be taken in the area of development, diplomacy and defense so as to achieve their greater interaction and combined impact as part of an integrated approach to national security issues. However, the Democrats failed to achieve the goals set, since Congress was focused on tightening up and pruning budget items in order to reduce the country’s massive budget deficit.

Flaws in American Foreign Policy Mentality

The Republican Administration of George Bush Jr. took an active role in “promoting democracy” by both armed force and peaceful means, for the sake of what they saw as greater national security. In the largely Muslim countries of Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington attempted to impose democratic patterns by armed force, while in post-Soviet republics the method chosen was “color revolutions.” As a case in point, it was not without U.S. assistance that pro-Western young leaders came to power in Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004). But all this was to no effect. Iraq and Afghanistan remain riven by conflict. Mikhail Saakashvili established a police state. And Ukraine under “Orange rule” was hit by an unprecedented economic crisis. Why did all this happen?

The setbacks that America has suffered can be explained by flaws in their foreign policy mentality, which were both highly naïve and utopian. Founded in a sense of their own exceptionalism, their impregnable belief that their model of democracy and the market economy was universally applicable to all humankind was a cornerstone of traditional American national consciousness.

In essence, the reverse side of this belief is the disregard for the immense diversity of the surrounding world in cultural, ethnic, confessional, geographic and many other respects. As a result, foreign policy ideas and concepts employed by the American political elite often prove to be abstract and detached from the realities of international life.

Hence also their naïve conclusions that if American-style democracy does not work in any particular country, it is the “undemocratic” leader who is to blame, and the country’s centuries-long non-Western traditions have nothing to do with it. A further conclusion is that all problems will be resolved if the leader is replaced by a young and pro-American one, elections will be democratic, corruption defeated, and sustainable economic growth will follow. It was this that was the motivation underlying “color revolutions.” But the reality has been different. However, quite a number of people in the U.S. political elite continue to insist on “promoting democracy” on a global scale.

Where the Lion’s Share of USAID Assistance Goes

The “war on terror” started by the George Bush Jr. Administration has been continued by the Democrats. For the Obama Administration, the top priority countries are Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Alongside Israel and Egypt they represent the main objectives for USAID’s activities. In 2011, assistance via USAID amounted to more than $2.6 billion for Afghanistan, around $472 million for Iraq, around $1.8 billion for Pakistan, around $3 billion for Israel, and around $1.6 billion for Egypt. By comparison, over $66 million was allocated to Russia, over $88 million to Georgia, and over $127 million for Ukraine. The CIS countries, including Russia, were only entitled to a fraction of what went to those countries that were top priority for the United States. And any assumptions that, with these meager resources, any serious influence can be brought to bear on a country’s domestic policies, are just a delusion.

The USAID mission in Russia mainly aimed to foster the creation of market mechanisms, support health services, and to help foster the development of democratic institutions and civil society, fight corruption, and protect the environment. Most of its projects and programs were carried out through Russian NGOs and local government. As part of its activities, the Agency provided assistance in the fight against AIDS and TB, in maternal health care, and in social welfare for children and people with disabilities.

Photo: RIA Novosti
Russian humanitarian aid in Kyrgyzstan

It can be argued that the Russian authorities’ October 2012 decision to terminate USAID’s activities in Russia was a mistake. The move can be viewed as an indication of exaggerated fears about the extent to which Western powers can influence Russia’s domestic affairs, fears typical of political culture in this country. Nevertheless, even given these fears, a more flexible approach could have been taken, such as, for example, closing down the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute missions while leaving USAID intact.

Russia: From Recipient to Donor

One question that arises, in view of the above, is: Should Russia create its own governmental organizations to render assistance to other countries? This should certainly be done, but not to the detriment of the wellbeing of its own citizens.

Development Assistance in Central Asia:
Strategic Horizons of Russian Engagement (Rus)

Let us recall that the USSR had the State Committee for Foreign Economic Relations (GKES). This powerful organization was engaged in building up industry in Asian and African states that chose the socialist development path. This policy aimed to develop, in accordance with Marxist ideology, “the most advanced” working class. In 1976, the GKES was cooperating with 75 countries, with over 2,000 industrial enterprises and other projects built as a result. However, this large-scale foreign aid was rendered by the USSR government for ideological reasons, and came at the expense of the Soviet people’s standard of living.

Modern democratizing Russia, with its GDP less than one-sixth that of the United States, should not repeat American or Soviet experience. Its policies need to be selective, that is, identifying the countries on any continents where sympathies for Russia have been shaped historically, and offering them a reasonable amount of assistance, thus improving Russia’s image and strengthening political and economic ties. It would be rational in this respect to address the most outstanding problems and needs of each country and include as mandatory appropriate coverage in the national mass media of Russian aid deliveries. This would serve as a moral example, that Russia never leaves its allies in need or in trouble, even though it does not rank among the wealthiest countries. In Europe, these recipient countries could include Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and Slovakia; in Asia – Mongolia, Vietnam, Iran, Thailand; in Latin America – Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia.

However, no immediate successes should be expected in terms of the improvement of Russia’s image in the world. The United States, European countries and China all provide assistance with the same aim and to (some of) the same countries. Obviously, Russia will have to compete and ready itself for many years of painstaking work in this area.

1. At Freedom’s Frontiers: A Democracy and Governance Strategic Framework. PD-ACF-999. Wash.: USAID, 2005. P. 12.

2. Nixon R. U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprising // The New York Times, 15.04.2011.