For more than a decade Africans have debated whether foreign assistance is a help or a hindrance. Has it lifted people out of poverty, or caused dependency, destroyed local markets, and created a stereotype of an Africa that needs rescuing by foreigners? President Trump has called for a nearly 30% budget reduction for the State Department, but Congress has the final say, and often what they pass has little in common with what the president sends over. Some argue that spending less will force the 20 US government agencies involved with disbursing US foreign assistance more efficient. Others point to crises around the world – including four famines breaking out at once, including three in Africa – and wonder how we could refuse to help our fellow man. The truth is far more nuanced. With food aid, for example, an individual receiving much-needed nourishment is kept alive, but food aid can also be used as a weapon, causing even more unrest, and dumping large quantities of free food can kill the local market, thereby forcing many more into poverty. International aid and development isn’t totally altruistic. International development creates US jobs, not just in government and at the tens of thousands of charitable organizations distributing aid, but also along the entire supply chain, as like food aid – often referred to as “corporate welfare” – most goods must be purchased, processed, and transported by US firms. Cutting foreign assistance would mean a loss of US jobs, but it would also mean a loss of US soft power and influence throughout the world.
