Growing up, most of us can recall our parents admonishing us not to waste food by claiming that there are starving kids around the world who would dream of having that food.
Although children rightly roll their eyes when they hear this because the food cannot get to the starving, our parents do have a point. There are starving children around the world who desperately need help.
The United Nations’ World Food Program notes 870 million people do not have enough to eat and five million children die annually as a result.
Although we cannot feed them with our leftovers, our government can feed millions of these children by increasing foreign aid spending.
It can also provide life-saving treatments to the 34 million people worldwide infected with HIV/AIDS or help prevent some of the 660,000 annual malaria deaths by providing mosquito nets and medicines.
And yet we are considering cutting the foreign aid budget by five percent.
With slow economic growth after the recession and growing concern regarding government spending and the national debt, it is reasonable to question whether we can afford an increase in foreign aid spending.
How much do most U.S. citizens believe that the government is spending on foreign aid?
A study by Ezra Klein of The Washington Post shows the majority of Americans believes that the federal government spends 27 percent of its budget on foreign aid and would suggest amending this to 10 percent of the federal budget.
Most citizens are shocked when they learn the US government only spends one percent of its budget on foreign aid.
And what a punch this one percent makes. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has saved millions around the world.
An independent study conducted by Stanford University noted that in the years before PEPFAR, death rates for HIV/AIDS rose in all countries measured in the study.
After PEPFAR came into effect, however, the death toll declined by more than 10 percent in PEPFAR countries as opposed to non-PEPFAR.
The number of countries with 90 percent of its children receiving immunization for diphtheria and tetanus has more than doubled from 63 countries in 1990 to 131 in 2012 with the assistance of foreign aid expenditures.
Food assistance from the United States Department of Agriculture helped save 9.7 million people around the world from starvation in 2012.
In addition, foreign aid expenditures have positive effects for protecting the national security of the United States.
Both the Bush and Obama administrations have emphasized the emergence of threats from undeveloped states such as Somalia and Sudan.
In the era of globalization, the protection of a strong national defense does not simply consist of a military.
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted, “Development contributes to stability. It contributes to better governance. And if you are able to do those things and you’re able to do them in a focused and sustainable way, then it may be unnecessary for us to send soldiers.”
Foreign aid is a useful tool in assisting the economic and social development of developing countries.
We should remember that the State Department, not the military, has the responsibility of convincing the foreign governments that their interests should align as closely as possible with our own.
Foreign aid is an inexpensive way of displaying the goodwill of the United States to potential allies around the world.
With these arguments in mind, I could not disagree more with Rep. Ron Paul, who said, “Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.”
Although corruption is a serious threat to the proper use of foreign aid spending, the proven benefits of foreign aid spending in saving the lives of millions of people around the world as well as its national security benefits show that Paul’s argument is entirely too reductionist.
So, I would ask all of you to deeply reflect on your positions on foreign aid and consider the benefits of an increase in the foreign aid budget.
Vinod Kannuthurai is a senior public policy major and intelligence and security studies minor from Hazlehurst.
