Copyright 2002 The Christian Science Publishing Society Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)
February 26, 2002, Tuesday
SECTION: USA; Pg. 02
LENGTH: 734
words
HEADLINE: Foreign aid recast as tool to
stymie terrorism
BYLINE: Howard LaFranchi Staff
writer of The Christian Science Monitor
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
HIGHLIGHT: Looking to fight root causes of attacks,
some call for doubling of international aid.
BODY: It used to be easy for US government officials
to respond to pressure for any increase in foreign aid: Republicans or
Democrats, they just said no.
Foreign aid was
widely considered wasteful, a way for corrupt foreign officials to line pockets,
tax dollars up to no good.
Last month, Treasury
Secretary Paul O'Neill complained about poor countries receiving "trillions of
dollars in aid over the years with precious little to show for it." Even under a
Democratic administration and eight years of prosperity, foreign aid fell - to
where the US spends less on aid as a percentage of national income than any
other developed country.
But now some voices -
spurred on by a war on terrorism - are singing a new tune. Some aid advocates,
as well as some conservatives, and even military officials, want to see the Bush
administration at least double international assistance to help meet what
they say are some of the root causes of terrorism - poverty, poor health, a lack
of educational and development opportunities.
"What we spend on foreign assistance is an integral part of our
national security strategy," Rep. Jim Kolbe (R) of Arizona declared recently at
a House appropriations subcommittee hearing.
The
proposed international affairs budget for fiscal 2003 is $ 16.1 billion,
of which $ 3.8 billion is earmarked for areas that development experts consider
crucial, including basic education, health care, disaster
relief, and democracy promotion.
Not top budget
priority
President Bush spoke in his State of the
Union address of the need to do more about global poverty and limited
educational opportunities. But while his proposed budget would increase
"international assistance" spending by about $ 750 million, critics note
that well over half of the increase is for military assistance.
"We agree with the [president's] words of support,
but they're not reflected in the fine print of the budget," says Mary McClymont,
president of InterAction, a coalition of 160 US-based international-aid
organizations.
Like other critics, she says
expanding foreign aid would serve the national interest by "enhancing our own
state security."
Jeffrey Sachs, director of the
Center for International Development at Harvard University, says that by
raising foreign aid by just one-tenth of one percent of GNP - a move that would
yield about $ 10 billion - the US would "start having an adequate strategy for
fighting terrorism at its roots."
In a December
report for a World Health Organization commission, Professor Sachs concludes
that a "new global partnership between developed and developing countries" to
invest in public health could not only save lives, but "strengthen global
security."
Assistance groups are mindful of aid's
poor reputation, so they are calling for a doubling of aid over the next five
years, coupled with stronger efforts to make programs more effective and
efficient. Ms. McClymont says it's also time to point out not just failings, but
how effective international assistance has been. According to
InterAction, programs have helped cut in half adult illiteracy in developing
countries over the last three decades. Early-warning systems helped avert
famines last year in Ethiopia, Central America, and Afghanistan.
Deeper philanthropic motives
Some Americans involved in grass-roots international assistance
say that if the focus on national security gives foreign aid more urgency, they
are for it.
"It resonates with people especially
after Sept. 11, it helps persuade the American public that foreign aid is
actually good for them, too," says Rye Barcott, a Marine lieutenant who, on his
own, established a youth program in Nairobi, Kenya, to promote community
sensibilities and harmony - principally between poor Christian and Muslim
populations. Still, Mr. Barcott - whose organization, Carolina for Kibera,
survives on private funds - says more than just self-interest should be behind
US foreign aid.
"Doing this because you think
you're getting at the causes of terrorism is fine, but at some point that's
insufficient," he says. "I think there is a noble reason for assistance: not
that it's a hand out, but an investment in human potential."
Document 119 of 298. 