by F.R. Duplantier
The Clinton administration would have us believe that U.S. foreign aid promotes American interests around the globe, but this simply isn't so. Foreign aid is a luxury we can ill afford, especially when it has adverse consequences.Believe it or not, most recipients of U.S. foreign aid vote against the United States in the United Nations most of the time. Roughly 64 percent did so in 1995, according to a recent report from the Heritage Foundation. Policy analyst Bryan Johnson offers several disturbing examples.
Nigeria voted against the U.S. 69 percent of the time in 1995, but we'll send Nigeria nearly $27 million this year despite its lack of support. The top ten countries voting against U.S. interests the most -- India, Laos, China, Lebanon, Seychelles, Pakistan, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Djibouti, and Burkina Faso -- will receive a combined total of nearly $212 million in foreign aid this year. Why are we rewarding these ingrates?
Of the ten nations receiving the most American aid -- Israel, Egypt, Russia, Ukraine, India, Peru, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Haiti, and South Africa -- only Israel, Russia, and Ukraine voted with us more often than not. Egypt, for instance, will receive over $2 billion in aid this year despite voting against us 67 percent of the time last year. India will collect more than $150 million in U.S. aid, after having voted against us 83 percent of the time.
Russia, surprisingly enough, voted against the U.S. only 33 percent of the time. It's worth noting, also, that nine of the U.S.'s ten strongest supporters in the U.N. are former Soviet bloc countries! They are: Tajikistan, Latvia, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Macedonia. Israel, which will receive over $3 billion in aid this year, is our strongest supporter, voting with the U.S. 97 percent of the time.
If the U.N. voting records of aid recipients accurately reflect their support for U.S. policies, "the U.S. is not getting its money's worth," says Johnson. "There may be many reasons why a country votes with or against the U.S. at the UN," he observes. "But it is clear from these data that foreign aid does not win friends where it counts: in supporting U.S. diplomatic initiatives at the United Nations. Clearly, the foreign aid program in general, and under the Clinton administration in particular, has done little to justify public confidence that tax dollars are being used wisely by America's foreign aid bureaucracy."
In short, foreign aid is not working. "Why, then, is the U.S. spending so much money on countries that obviously care little about America's interests abroad? And why is the Clinton administration fighting to save this program when most Americans are opposed to it?" asks Bryan Johnson of the Heritage Foundation. "Last year, Congress tried to cut the U.S. foreign aid budget as part of its plan to reduce wasteful government spending and balance the federal budget deficit," notes Johnson. "Because the Clinton administration fought these proposals, Congress was unable to make more significant cuts in foreign aid."
7800 Bonhomme St. Louis MO 63105
Fax: 314-721-3373