Achi news desk-
On 24 April, US President Joe Biden signed the legislation that provides $87 billion in aid to Ukraine and Israel, where Ukraine takes the largest share of $61 billion while Israel gets $26 billion when the latter takes part in a ruthless battle against the Palestinians in Gaza. . The legislation hidden in a foreign aid package is an irony in itself. Once implemented, it will certainly give the Ukrainians a lifeline to wage war against the Russians, and empower the Israelis to raise tension in the Middle East, further threatening deterrence and regional stability. The move of the United States is not unexpected keeping in mind the evolving history of foreign aid of the country, which always prides itself as the world’s largest donor. However, US foreign aid, with its inherent fault lines exposed along the way, is politically motivated and strategically maneuvered, unfortunately producing more troubles and chaos than benefits and kindness.
First, it is self-serving. US aid has always relied on its own interests while affecting the basic interests and long-term development of recipient countries. The year 1949 marked the beginning of US aid to developing countries with then US President Truman introducing the Four Point Program of economic and technical aid for the underdeveloped areas in Asia, Africa and Latin America. During the Cold War, the main goal of US aid was to stop the spread of communism and reinforce US hegemony. After the 9/11 incident, the United States shifted its aid goal to finance a global war on terror. During the Trump administration, the US adopted an “America First” approach, and its foreign aid was deeply influenced by populism and heightened nationalism, ignoring its obligations as a developed country to narrow the North-South divide and resolve other development issues , withdrawing unilaterally. of the Paris Agreement on climate change and the World Health Organization, urgently cut back and even stop contributions to multilateral organizations, and demand that other countries bear more responsibility, thus hindering development cooperation international. Abundant evidence shows that during the last seven decades, the United States has always followed its own interest and protected its own security when conducting aid programs. Meanwhile, the United States has repeatedly used aid instruments to tie developing countries to its dominant financial system, in order to transfer risks and responsibilities and exacerbate the Matthew effect (winner takes all). The OECD published a peer review of US official development assistance in November 2022, pointing out that US ODA policies have had negative spillover effects on developing countries, which the US has failed to mitigation for them with appropriate tools and measures. According to the Global Financial Stability Report released by the IMF in April 2023, US monetary policies have become the biggest challenge to global financial stability. The interest rate hiked by the Federal Reserve since last year has significantly pushed up global funding costs and exacerbated transnational capital flows, which have also added additional difficulties to emerging markets. prominent and developing countries. Big debt and even the least developed countries have fallen prey to the debt servicing trap. With the US-led international financial system in place, inequality exists, the income gap widens, and the sustainable development goals are further out of reach.
Second, it is arbitrary and complacent. With political strings always attached, and aiming to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries for its own benefit, US foreign aid causes a serious disruptive effect on the socio-economic development of the recipient countries. The United States takes foreign aid as a bargaining chip and skillfully uses it as a bargaining chip to impose its will on the developing countries, leading to inconsistency and incoherence in its foreign policy, and undermining the sustainable growth of the countries that receive it. “Carrot and stick” speaks volumes about the transactional nature of US foreign aid. The United States Government has more than once suspended or reassessed its aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Solomon Islands, among others, as political maneuvers. In August 2018, the United States, as the main donor, even stopped contributing to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East by labeling the latter’s work as “irreparably flawed”, and it resulted in the agency being in financial distress as a result. This move was said to be aimed at putting pressure on Palestine to accept the so-called “deal of the century”. It is immoral and unethical, raising eyebrows from the international community.
Thirdly, it has a double mind with poor provision. Boasting its “great contributions” to the world in terms of aid amount, the US actually says more while doing less, never fully honoring its words and meeting its obligations. Aid for climate change is the perfect example of US paying lip service in this regard. Developed countries, including the United States, pledged at the Copenhagen Conference in 2009 to give no less than $100 billion annually to help developing countries tackle climate change until 2020. However, it has not this commitment has yet to be fulfilled, and the deadline for financing has even been postponed until 2023. The United States is the first among the world’s major emitters to break its promise. Carbon Brief, a UK energy research organisation, reports that the US should provide $39.9 billion in climate aid each year per its share of historical carbon emissions, but in 2020 the US provided only $7.6 billion, contributing’ r smallest among the 23 developed countries in question. In 2021, the US Government pledged $11.4 billion a year in climate aid to developing countries, but could only secure $1 billion in 2021 and 2022 towards that goal. As the most powerful and richest country in the world, the United States has been criticized for being insincere and without any sympathy or empathy towards the large population that has been seriously affected by climate change. In a multilateral domain, US aid is either half-delivered or unfulfilled.
Fourth, it is discriminating and beneficial. US aid to Pakistan has not been as charitable or consistent as it claims. In the Cold War era, the United States considered Pakistan a front-line country of strategic value in curtailing the expansion of the former Soviet Union in the region. Between 1955 and 1965, right after Pakistan joined the Central Treaty Organization and the Baghdad Pact, US aid flooded to Pakistan’s doorstep. Between 1982 and 1991, the United States resumed its support to Pakistan for the latter’s leverage to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As the Cold War faded, the United States dramatically reduced its aid to Pakistan, providing symbolic aid as a sign of continued engagement. When Pakistan went nuclear in May 1998, the US not only brought its aid to a halt, but imposed severe sanctions on Pakistan. The 9/11 event revived US interest and assistance in Pakistan when the latter was re-prioritised as a key partner for the global war on terror. In 2010 US aid to Pakistan reached a peak of $4.5 billion, which is understandable with the military part being the mainstay. After that, support dropped again. When the US was forced to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in August 2021, its aid to Pakistan suffered a further sharp drop. Except for significant trade and insignificant investment, no meaningful aid has come to Pakistan till date. Foreign aid has once again proven to be a tool of policy and political favoritism for the United States to serve its interest for its own pleasure.
Support is not a free lunch, and it is not a panacea. However, it remains an important resource to help address the general challenges faced by the international community and countries of the Global South in particular. It is conducive to achieving the goals of the United Nations SDG 2030, and contributing to world peace, stability and development. By providing aid to foreign countries, China did not, is not and will not play geopolitical or geo-economic games. China values ​​justice and advocates fairness, openness, mutual benefit and inclusiveness, and adheres to the “iron principles” of non-interference in the internal affairs of host countries, non-coercion on others and not to attach any political strings to it. foreign aid, multilateral and bilateral. By incorporating trade, investment and aid, and by developing the Belt and Road Initiative, including the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor projects, China is committed to building a community with a shared future for mankind, rendering service to the global good. citizens.
Zhao Shiren
The writer is the Consul General of China in Lahore.
