BIZBIZCOMMENTCOMMENT
B6 Monday September 2, 2019
By Song Wei
US President Donald Trump’s
recent plan to freeze $4 billion
in foreign aid incited broad
bipartisan backlash. The fund-
ing is actually unobligated,
expiring balances from fiscal
year 2018, and is supposed to
go to the US Agency for In-
ternational Development, UN
peacekeeping activities, and
UN humanitarian programs.
Trump’s explanation for
the proposed freezing is clear:
funding for foreign aid is be-
ing spent wastefully. “We give
billions and billions of dollars
to countries that don’t like us,
and I’ve been cutting that a
lot,” Trump said. Yet, Trump
eventually had to drop the plan
to cut foreign aid, not because
the moral value of aid has
overcome utilitarian political
consideration, but because the
plan touched the bottom line
of Congress.
The US Constitution gives
Congress the power to manage
the spending of the federal
government, which doesn’t
allow for administrative inter-
vention. Eliot Engel, New York
Representative and Chairman
of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, said that, “This
administration’s contempt
for Congress is astounding ...
When Congress decides how
much we can spend on foreign
assistance, it isn’t a suggestion.
It’s the law, backed up by the
Constitution.”
What’s even more thought-
provoking from the incident
is that Congress’ debate on
Trump’s foreign aid cuts
mainly focused on whether
foreign assistance can safe-
guard US national interests,
with no mention of its pledge
about development concepts
in the Foreign Assistance Act.
Secretary of State Mike Pom-
peo said, “We’ve got to make
sure we are using [the funding]
in ways that are effective; that
American interests are repre-
sented in the way we spend
that money.” Meanwhile, the
opposition believed that cutting
foreign aid would seriously
harm the US’ global interests.
Nita Lowey, Chair of the House
Appropriations Commit-tee, called the idea of cutting
foreign aid “wrong-headed,”
noting that, “There’s biparti-
san, widespread understanding
that these funds are essential
for US global leadership and
protecting the security of the
American people.” Republican
and Democratic lawmakerssent a joint letter to the Office
of Management and Budget
(OMB), writing that “These
funds, which were appropriat-
ed by Congress and signed into
law by the president following
lengthy, bipartisan negotia-
tions, are essential to promot-
ing US global leadership and
protecting the security of the
American people.” Thus, it
seems that it has become the
consensus among US politi-
cians that foreign aid is meant
to protect its own interests,
while the development pur-
pose of foreign aid has been
completely ignored.
The attitude of the Ameri-
can people toward foreign
aid is even more straightfor-
ward. Growing nationalism
and populism are activating
American isolationism. Ameri-
can people are calling on the
government to use taxes for
their own country rather than
to help other countries. Seeing
the world from a competitive
perspective, they question how
aiding people in other coun-
tries helps them.
Liz Schrayer, CEO of the
nonprofit US Global Leader-
ship Coalition, called the
aid-cut plan “a reckless and
irresponsible move,” and said
“OMB appears set on taking
a sledgehammer to one of
the most minuscule parts of
the entire federal budget that
would significantly damage
America’s security and eco-
nomic interests.”
In fact, even at the establish-
ment of foreign aid programs,
the US already set the fun-
damental goal of achieving
political purposes. American
theorists have held many
discussions in this regard. For
example, realists believe that
foreign aid is a tool, essentially
a means of achieving political
goals by using bribery. Even
humanitarian assistance is
no exception. Institutionalistsclaim that, although multilater-
al aid emphasizes common in-
terests over national interests,
specific capital investment still
cannot rid itself of geopoliti-
cal influence. Constructivists
believe that even though aid
donors claim that targets like
promoting poverty reduction
and sustainable development
are value-neutral, assistance
measures can only be neutral
when the recipient country has
neither geopolitical value nor
economic value to the donor
country. They also believe that
it is only in these circumstanc-
es that expected aid effects
can be achieved. The essential
utilitarianist nature of these
beliefs makes it hard for aid to
facilitate the development of
the developing countries.
With this outlook, US aid
cannot help resolve develop-
ment issues like addressing
climate change, promoting
gender equality, and focus-
ing on youth employment.
Developing countries can only
rely on mutual cooperation
among similar countries to
achieve their own develop-
ment. With the rise of protec-
tionism and unilateralism,
US foreign aid has abandoned
its moral cover, with no more
emphasis on the international
consensus reached at the UN
2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Then, promot-
ing the South-South coopera-
tion to achieve mutual benefit,
uniting and striving is the only
choice and the only way out for
developing countries.The author is an associate
research fellow at the Chinese
Academy of International Trade
and Economic Cooperation
under the Ministry of Commerce.
[email protected]Trump’s plan to cut foreign aid draws fierce opposition from Democrats and Republicans
African continent is no place for Japan-China rivalry
By Hu Weijia
C
hina has no intention of making
Africa a forward position for a
jostle with Japan, but any Japa-
nese provocation against China is a dan-
gerous game.
A three-day conference attended by
top leaders of more than 40 African
countries concluded recently in Yoko-
hama, Japan, where Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe warned Africa against accu-
mulating too much debt. What was the
target of Abe’s words? Many believe he
was trying to provoke disputes between
Africa and China, as the latter’s lending
has been described by some in the West
as “debt-trap diplomacy.”
While Abe warned
Africa about debt, he
encouraged Japanese
investors to lend more
to projects in Africa. According to the Ja-
pan Times, Abe on Wednesday pledged
to aggressively promote private-sector
investment in Africa, although he failed
to set a new numerical target on funds to
be funneled to the continent.
China is a key factor in Japan’s Africa
policy. This may explain why there is an
inherent contradiction in Abe’s words.
He warned about debt because he wants
to reduce China’s business presence in
Africa, but he is also trying to increase
Japan’s influence by lending more to the
continent. Japan’s policy on Africa maymake the continent a
new strategic tool of
geopolitical competi-
tion with China.
Abe said that he hopes to cooperate
with African countries to safeguard the
Indo-Pacific, which connects Africa and
Japan, according to the Japan Times. It
seems Japan is not only a supporter of
the US-led Indo-Pacific strategy, but it
also wants to play an important role in
the strategy, or even replace US leader-
ship and take the helm, pushing it for-
ward in line with Japan’s own national
interests. China is always glad to see
Africa building diversified cooperation
partnerships with different countries
including Japan. China hopes Africa’seconomic cooperation with China and
Japan can be complementary. However,
Japan’s policy makes that almost impos-
sible. Japan’s strategy has a tendency to
contain China.
China is unlikely to turn a blind eye
to Japan’s implicit hostility. We advise
Japan to rethink its strategy on Africa
and make sure that its own presence in
Africa, along with other countries’, can
coexist in harmony instead of clashing.
If Japan deliberately adopts a strategy to
counter China’s influence, this will work
against the interests of Africa and harm
regional cooperation.The author is a reporter with the Global
Times. [email protected]E
YEONECONOMY
Page Editor:
[email protected]Illustration: Xia Qing/GT