Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Foreign Aid Spared Massive Cuts in 2012

Although Congress spared foreign aid the massive cuts favored by the GOP-led House, aid spending continues to pale beside Pentagon appropriations.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

Despite the budget cutting and anti-U.N. frenzy that seized Republican lawmakers over the past year, U.S. foreign aid and support for multilateral institutions emerged in somewhat better shape than many observers had expected.

After negotiations by conferees from the Republican-led House of Representatives and the Democratic-led Senate, agreement was reached late this week on a diplomatic and foreign-aid package totalling 53.3 billion dollars for fiscal year 2012.

The amount was about 2.4 billion dollars less than what President Barack Obama's administration originally requested last February.

However, some 11.2 billion dollars of the total is earmarked for a special "Overseas Contingency Operations" (OCO) account for non- military expenses in Iraq, Afghanistan and other "front-line states". That total was substantially more than Obama's original request, with the result that other accounts were diminished.

"When you look at the final FY12 International Affairs Budget, it is a mixed bag," said Liz Schrayer, executive director of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, a bipartisan group that has lobbied for increased foreign assistance and support for the State Department.

"In the short term, we are pleased the agreement avoids the deep and disproportionate cuts to these programmes from earlier versions of the bill and welcome the bipartisan recognition of the importance of development and diplomacy," she noted.

"However, in the long run, the cuts to funding for non-war-related programmes is of grave concern given the challenges and turbulence in the world today."

Indeed, the package, which is part of a larger trillion-dollar omnibus appropriations bill, includes substantial cuts in funding for a number of multilateral agencies, including the U.N. and its peacekeeping budget.

Most bilateral aid accounts survived the budget process relatively intact either at or slightly below levels approved for 2011.

On the other hand, language included in the final appropriations package, which is expected to be approved by both houses by Saturday night, requires that a number of key aid recipients, most importantly, Egypt, Pakistan, and the Palestine Authority (PA), comply with strict conditions in order to collect the assistance.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, must certify that Pakistan is cooperating with U.S. counter-terrorism efforts before it can receive hundreds of millions of dollars in counter-insurgency assistance.

Similarly, Egypt cannot receive its annual 1.3 billion dollars in military aid and another 250 million in economic assistance until Clinton certifies that it is complying with the 1979 Camp David accords with Israel and that the transition from military to civilian rule is on course.

The conditions on aid to both countries could be waived by Clinton, however, if she finds it would serve U.S. national security interests.

The PA would also be denied several hundred million dollars in economic aid if it is recognised as a state by any U.N. agency besides UNESCO – whose governing board admitted Palestine as a member state last month – during the year.

By admitting Palestine, UNESCO immediately lost Washington's 80- million-dollar annual contribution – or 22 percent of its 2011 budget – as a result of laws enacted by Congress in the early 1990's that require Washington to cut aid to any U.N. agency that recognises Palestine as a state.

As approved by the conferees, the Senate version of the foreign aid appropriations bill – which was much closer to the administration's original request – generally prevailed over the far more draconian House version.

Among other provisions, the House version called for making all contributions to the U.N. and its specialised agencies voluntary, zeroed out contributions to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) and the agency that supports Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), and mandated U.S. withdrawal from the Organisation of American States (OAS).

"With all the pressure for budget cuts and as much of a political push as there's been for cutting contributions to international organisations, it could have been a lot worse," said Don Kraus, president of Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), a grassroots group that supports the U.N.

Still, he noted, contributions to the U.N. and other international organisations will fall about 170 million dollars short of the administration's request of 1.6 billion dollars.

"It's very conceivable that we will end up going into arrears in one or more of these agencies, and that diminishes U.S. leadership capacity and our credibility," he said, adding that a 130-million- dollar shortfall for U.N. peacekeeping operations "will make it difficult for the U.N. to pay troop-contribution nations and plan as effectively as it could".

Washington currently pays 27 percent of the budget for the world body's peacekeeping operations.

The administration wanted to increase U.S. contributions to multilateral agencies dealing with global warming and climate change by as much as 300 percent over 2011 levels, but they will instead remain at this year's level.

Thus, Obama had requested 144 million dollars for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and 190 million dollars for the Strategic Climate Fund, but Congress appropriated only 90 million dollars and 50 million dollars, respectively.

On the other hand, the House version of the bill had recommended zeroing out accounts related to climate change and appropriating only 70 million dollars to the GEF.

On bilateral assistance, House proposals to cut support for family- planning programmes, international disaster and refugee assistance, food aid, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), by 25 percent or more were rejected by the conferees, who generally retained or slightly increased current funding levels for these programmes.

"On the one hand, we commend Senate and House negotiators for doing the best they could with the limited allocation they had to work with given the debt deal and the goals set by the appropriation (committee) chairs," said Ken Forsberg, a senior policy analyst at InterAction, a coalition representing nearly 200 U.S. humanitarian and development agencies.

These goals included in particular "maintaining strong funding levels for global health and child survival programmes, agriculture and food security, basic education, clean water, and international disaster and refugee assistance".

"But we should not lose sight of the fact that in an increasingly global world where U.S. leadership is vital, it's troubling that we are at best treading water with regard to our civilian international engagement."

He noted that, apart from the OCO account, the U.S. will spend only 42.1 billion dollars on its international affairs and foreign-aid programme.

By contrast, Congress this week approved 518 billion dollars for the Pentagon's 2012 core budget, which excludes some 115 billion dollars for war-related costs in Afghanistan alone, as well as another seven billion dollars to sustain the U.S. nuclear-weapons arsenal.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org). His blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), a stalwart advocate of Pentagon spending now based at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, says he would have voted for the Iraq War even if he had known the Bush administration’s claims about WMDs were false.


Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is a conservative Republican congressman who was voted into office as part of the “tea party” surge in 2011 and nominated by Donald Trump to be director of the CIA.


Although better known for his domestic platform promoting “limited” government, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has expressed strong sympathies for projecting U.S. military power abroad.


James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) was one of Congress’s staunchest foreign policy hawks and a “pro-Israel” hardliner.


A self-styled terrorism “expert” who claims that the killing of Osama bin Laden strengthened Al Qaeda, former right-wing Lebanese militia member Walid Phares wildly claims that the Obama administration gave the Muslim Brotherhood “the green light” to sideline secular Egyptians.


Weekly Standard editor and PNAC cofounder Bill Kristol is a longtime neoconservative activist and Washington political operative.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


Print Friendly

Hopeful that Donald Trump may actually be their kind of guy, neoconservatives are full of praise for the cruise-missile strike against Syria and are pressing for more.


Print Friendly

Steve Bannon’s removal from the NSC’s Principals Committee doesn’t mean that he’s gone from the White House or no longer exerts a powerful influence on Trump. His office is still located very close to the Oval Office, and there’s nothing to indicate that his dark and messianic worldview has changed.


Print Friendly

Promoting sanctions that could undermine the Iran nuclear deal, pushing security assistance for Israel, combatting BDS, and more.


Print Friendly

Contrary to some wishful thinking following the Trump administration’s decision to “put Iran on notice” and seemingly restore U.S.-Saudi ties, there are little signs of apprehension in Tehran.


RightWeb
share