During last night’s CNN GOP debate a typically ignorant Republican voter asked the candidates if they thought we should cut foreign aid around the world because Americans at home are hurting. Yes, Americans at home are hurting, but human beings around the world are hurting a great deal more.
And, typically, Americans are not only selfish, but ignorant about how much foreign aid we deliver around the world to the poor, the starving, the homeless and the helpless. Republicans love to talk about American exceptionalism, and about religion, and about being “pro-life,” and on and on and on. Yet, they want to defund the United Nations, which is singularly responsible for feeding millions of children that without that assistance, would die.
Indeed, Rick Perry said last night, “I think it’s time we had a very serious discussion about defunding the U.N.,” and asked, “Why are we funding that organization?
Well, Mr. Perry, and all you isolationist ignorant selfish self-centered hypocrites, the U.S. cannot “defund” the U.N. We pay for a mere 22% of its operating budget (when we actually agree to pay our bill, which former President Bush refused to do for years.) And that money goes to what you no doubt would consider frivolity, like peacekeepers, and educating women, and keeping poor starving infants from dying. So much for your religion and your “pro-life” policies.
It’s incredible, but Republicans want America to end all aid to foreign countries. Do you know how much America gives to other countries? Not 10% of our GDP, but less than 1% of our GDP. Yes, America, in 2008, gave to the world zero point one nine percent: .19% of our GDP goes to help the rest of the world.
Bill Gates, Microsoft founder and now head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in his 2010 letter, “Rich Countries’ Aid Generosity,” wrote that wealthy countries’ “generosity represents a much smaller portion of foreign aid than many people realize.”
The best way to measure aid generosity is to look at it as a percentage of GDP. The most generous countries — Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Luxembourg—give 0.72 to 1 percent of GDP to foreign aid, which is phenomenal. Most other European donors give between 0.3 and 0.5 percent, and a majority have committed to get to 0.51 percent by 2010. France has traditionally been the strongest giver of this group, but in the mid-2000s their aid actually decreased a bit. Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom have all made significant increases over the last few years and are now close to or ahead of France. Italy was at the low end of European givers even before the Berlusconi government came in and cut the aid by over half, making them uniquely stingy among European donors. These cuts will show up in Italy’s 2009 aid figures. Bob Geldof put it well when he said the Italian government is suggesting “they want to balance their budget on the backs of the poor—how shameful.†In June, I met with Prime Minister Berlusconi personally to make the case for more support, but I was unsuccessful. This is a huge disappointment since I still think the Italian public wants to be as generous as people in other countries.
Canada and Australia are significant givers, at about 0.32 and 0.29 percent, respectively. Japan used to be a generous giver and has made some strong promises, but they are down at 0.20 percent. Unless the new government changes things for the better, they will fall short of their commitments.
There has been an effort to get Russia, China, and the rich oil countries to do substantial giving, but so far the numbers have been modest. South Korea, however, has become a significant giver, providing over $800 million last year, which is 0.09 percent of its GDP, with a commitment to increase to 0.25 percent by 2015.
The United States is the biggest giver in absolute terms, but in percentage terms gives only 0.19 percent. In recent years, a significant portion of this assistance went to reconstruction in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If Congress passes President Obama’s proposal to double giving, however, the United States will get up into a very respectable range. [Did not happen.]
Deficits are not the only reason that aid budgets might change. Governments will also be increasing the money they spend to help reduce global warming. The final communiqué of the Copenhagen Summit, held last December, talks about mobilizing $10 billion per year in the next three years and $100 billion per year by 2020 for developing countries, which is over three quarters of all foreign aid now given by the richest countries.
I am concerned that some of this money will come from reducing other categories of foreign aid, especially health. If just 1 percent of the $100 billion goal came from vaccine funding, then 700,000 more children could die from preventable diseases. In the long run, not spending on health is a bad deal for the environment because improvements in health, including voluntary family planning, lead people to have smaller families, which in turn reduces the strain on the environment.
(Apologies for the poor video but it’s the best available.)