Is Foreign Aid Too Fat?

The incoming chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), said yesterday that the economy would be "foremost" in the decisions she makes regarding foreign assistance, and that she will trim the "fat" in existing aid programs. The current chair of the committee, Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-CA) said today that we have to make foreign aid more efficient and effective, regardless of the size of the budget. Depending on how you define "fat," we may have a bi-partisan consensus on our hands. It's that definition we have to be careful with -- it could translate into successful foreign aid reform, or it could cost those we intend to reach with our foreign assistance dollars their basic human rights, and women and girls their sexual and reproductive health.

"Fat" is not equivalent to funding. The foreign assistance budget makes up approximately one percent of the entire federal budget. Cutting foreign assistance wouldn't even dent our current deficit. It also will not strengthen national security, a stated concern of the incoming chairwoman. Foreign assistance is a critical component of effective diplomacy. There just is not much to gain, fiscally or politically, from cutting foreign aid. "Fat" can, however, refer to inefficient strategies and programs that cost money and bear little yield.

Both representatives agree we need to "shift our foreign aid focus from strategies that don't work" (Rep. Ros-Lehtinen) and "find out what works and stop funding what doesn't" (Rep. Berman). They also agree that aid programs should "reflect current realities and challenges and empower grassroots and civil society" (Rep. Ros-Lehtinen) and get the "money to people who need it" (Rep. Berman). Given these statements, we have some recommendations for the incoming chairwoman and her minority counterpart:

• Completely eliminate funding for programs that exclusively teach Abstinence-Be Faithful (AB-only): AB-only programs have repeatedly proven to have no effect on HIV prevalence rates, to increase women's risk of HIV infection, and to ignore the realities of those most at risk of HIV. As Rep. Ros-Lehtinen says, we need to "shift our foreign aid focus from strategies that don't work." Abandoning AB-only programs would be a great first step.


• Increase funding and support for voluntary family planning: There is a gross unmet need for family planning methods, including male and female condoms, in the world's poorest countries. Voluntary family planning allows women to plan and space their pregnancies, and raise and provide for healthy children. There is a vehement demonstrated demand for increased access to voluntary family planning, and health advocates and congressional leaders are calling for U.S. funding levels of at least $1 billion to meet it. Doing so would reflect "current realities and challenges" (an expressed concern of Rep. Ros-Lehtinen).


• Integrate sexual and reproductive health services: Co-locating (or linking through seamless referral processes) necessary health services, such as maternal health, family planning, and HIV prevention, treatment, and care makes sense. If women can get related services in one place, it increases the likelihood they will access the services and will improve their and their families' health outlook. That gets the "money to people who need it."

We are encouraged and heartened that there will be a focus on foreign aid efficiency in the 112th Congress. We hope, however, that in our quest to lose weight, we don't compromise our global health.

 

Follow Serra Sippel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/genderhealth

Comments

[MarcEdward]

12:11 PM on 12/10/2010

Minor point - most of our foreign aid is military in nature.
When it comes to non-military aid, we don't do very much at all.
The fat is when we hand out money for guns - that should stop.

[AZreb]

09:48 AM on 12/10/2010

My dream is to take away all the military aid and equiipment that we give to other countries (and then are sometimes used against us in the future) and use that money for humanitarian purposes - teach poor countries the best way to grow crops, to use decent sanitation methods, build clinics and teach local physicians and nurses methods of using better medical practices, encourage family planning and birth control - control where the money goes. Use the money to help rebuild homes, hospitals, schools, infrastructure after natural disasters - use it for medical needs, food, clean water and temporary housing after natural disasters (lack of clean water led to the outbreak of cholera in Haiti).

By helping the people take control of their own lives and futures, not just handing out money to their governments, more help would be given. We see how too much of our foreign aid ends up in the hands of the politicians and power-brokers of some countries - the people never receive any benefit.

Yes, I know this dream will probably never become reality - our MIC is too strong and too much money is made on building and supplying military aid and equipment to further wars.

[guveqzero]

12:39 PM on 12/10/2010

I agree with that. But, the rich will never let it happen without a struggle. Too much money is made by the military industrial complex to make it possible. Just need to look at Cheney, the US war lord.

[ArtsyJane]

02:26 AM on 12/10/2010

The reality is that over 50% of all the foreign aid America gives goes in fact to Isreal, and more particularly the Isreali military. You want to cut foreign aid, you start by cutting down the aid for Isreal. Not the aid for the starving and the sick in Africa.

Whenever you bring that fact up, it shuts down all claims for cutting down foreign aid and all whining that the US is giving too much money away. You feel like we're giving too much? All righty then, start by cancelling the money for Isreal and that should cut our giving away in half.

[basenji]

10:37 PM on 12/09/2010

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen can start by trimming the 3Billion plus we cough up to Israel each year.

[Foodgrade]

09:29 PM on 12/09/2010

It is so hard to gain critical mass in social change. There can be a situation that everyone in the country knows is wrong from oppression of women in Muslim countrys to TSA sexual abuse in American airports to global bank usury and people simply submit to it. They will all talk about how bad it is and yet no solidarity can be constructed. Must come from getting a sheep gene in here somehow.