VanBuren 1

Joel VanBuren
Mrs. Rohlfs
English 10
12/18/14
The U.S. Should Ensure that Foreign Aid is Being Used Effectively
In 2012, the United States donated close to $40 billion worth of foreign aid. In theory, the
U.S. lending so much money and resources to struggling nations is a very positive thing. The
problem with foreign aid lies beyond the prospect of wasted or lost U.S. money. Foreign aid
becomes an issue when it is misused to hurt a nations people rather than help them. Foreign aid
is often misused by governments who were supposed to be using it to benefit their people, and
sometimes, the unfortunate people who were supposed to benefit from the aid end up suffering
more than they were before. The U.S. should cut monetary aid to struggling countries if they are
not using it appropriately and effectively because foreign aid is often pocketed by the elite class
in poorer countries, countries can become dependant on foreign aid and not eliminate their
deficit, and aid can be used to militarize a nation and further oppress its people.
The first reason nations should be held accountable for the use of their foreign aid is that
foreign aid is often pocketed by the elite class of the struggling nation. Lord Peter Bauer, a
British economist, was known for trying to develop struggling nations through means other than
direct aid. He once said Foreign aid is an excellent method for transferring money from poor
people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries(Bauer qtd. in Tupy)." This issue is most
prevalent in Pakistan and various nations in Africa. In Pakistan, the biggest culprits for wasted
foreign aid are its ruling elite class who use a chunk of the aid to finance their own lavish
lifestyles. The most ironic part isnt even that the nations richest people are pocketing a portion

VanBuren 2
of foreign aid. Its that a majority of these people dont even pay taxes. In an interview with
News Statesman, Imran Khan, a former popular cricket player and Pakistani politician,
informed the magazine that indeed only two million of Pakistans 180 million citizens pay taxes.
In 2011, Nawaz Sharif a former Pakistani premier, who is also a billionaire paid 5,000 rupees in
taxes (equivalent to 60 U.S Dollars). Yousuf Gilani, another ex-premier more recently stripped
of his title in 2014, paid no taxes at all(Khan qtd. is Hasan). Khan has a a very simple solution to
fix Pakistans economic issue- higher taxation. As is stands only one in every 90 Pakistani
citizens pays taxes. Pakistans minimum tax potential is three trillion rupees- a trillion over its
entire expenditure. While it likely would not be a popular choice among Pakistans people,
proper taxation would more than pay for the nations annual expenditure, and help it eliminate its
deficit. Simply put, the U.S. should cut a majority, if not all- aid to Pakistan. Aid should not be
provided to a nation where a large portion of it is wasted, and it has the potential to cover its
expenditures with its taxes alone. If held accountable, Pakistan would not be able to waste such
large amounts of U.S. money, and would likely not need it at all.
Like Pakistan, Africa has an issue of the upper class pocketing foreign aid. The difference
is that opposed to already rich people with ties to the government pocketing the aid, in Africa its
the leaders themselves. In 2002 then-Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo estimated that
African leaders pocketed at least $140 billion between 1960 and 2000(Tupy). The largest issue
that arises from this isnt just the the fact that the moneys being stolen. In a place such as Africa
thats so unstable, foreign aid has prevented democratic development by financing dictators who
are oppressing any opposition to their rule(Tupy). In fact, Paul Collier, a professor of economics
at Oxford University, estimates that aid financed 40% of all of Africas military spending from
1960 to 1999. Such a large portion of aid is pocketed by the rich and powerful in Pakistan and

VanBuren 3
Africa. In Pakistans case, the money isnt needed in the first place, and in Africa, it is largely
being used to further oppress a people whose quality of life is already so low. The U.S. should
not be funding nations who dont need aid at all, or are using it to hurt their own people.
The second reason the U.S should cut foreign aid to nations who are not using it
effectively is that many nations are not motivated to restructure their own economy. The best
example of this goes back full circle to the African leaders who pocket large amounts of aid.
Africa is filled with run-down airports, and factories, and various other improvements built
directly by other donor nations. These improvements are useless because they can not be fundedwhether its because Africa is unable to do so, or the aid given to the African governments is
pocketed by the governments leaders. Its a vicious cycle. Aid is pocketed by people powerful
enough to do so, leaving directly donated improvements useless. Because of this, Africas
economy cannot improve. In fact, though Africas isnt just not improving economically, its
economic state is actually declining. World Bank data shows that Africa received almost 12
times as much aid per person as India between 1975 and 2005. Yet over the same period, India
grew at an average annual rate of 3.5%, while Africa shrunk at a rate of 0.16% per year(Tupy).
However, because African leaders are able to keep foreign aid for themselves, they are not
motivated to restructure their economies. The United States should hold Africans leaders
accountable. They should ensure that the aid that is supposed to be used to benefit an entire
nation is not being pocketed or having little effect on the African economy, or directly use
money and resources to make improvements in Africa.
The third reason the U.S. should ensure that foreign is being used responsibly is that
nations receiving aid can militarize and oppress their citizens. The best of examples of this are
within South America, in Mexico and Cambodia. The U.S. supplied Mexico with 1.4 billion

VanBuren 4
dollars as part of the Merida Initiative to eliminate organized crime. Mexico was able to kill or
capture leaders of organized crime syndicates, but didnt to a very good of containing the unorganized crime that came as a result. Four years after the beginning of the Merida Initiative,
there had been no significant improvements to Mexicos public security. The killing or capturing
of Mexicos organized crime leaders simply lead to more less-generalized unorganized crime
that was more difficult to control(Whitman). It isnt even just the small-time criminals coming
out of the woodwork that are making Mexico more dangerous. A new report from the Human
Rights Watch says Mexicos military misconduct and homicide rates rose between 2007 and
2010, years that overlap those where the U.S. gave aid to Mexico to eliminate the
crime(Whitman). The homicide rate grew by over 260 percent, while "the government counted
nearly 35,000 deaths related to organized crime from December 2006 to the end of 2010, with
number of killings increasing dramatically with each passing year", the report said(Whitman).
So, while Mexico was able to violently eliminate organized crime, the chaos that ensued in the
criminal world, that Mexico was not able to contain, created a huge spike in homicides. This is
an example where foreign aid is ineffective. In Mexico however, the issue is more than wasted
U.S. dollars. The foreign aid indirectly led to an increase in homicides, making Mexico a more
dangerous place for an average citizen to live. The foreign aid in this case is more than
ineffective, it is harmful. So the U.S. should withdraw that portion of foreign aid to Mexico, so
that the country is a safer place to live in.
The second example of military violence and misconduct in Colombia, one of the more
dangerous, violent and murderous countries in the World. In an anti-drug initiative known as
Plan Colombia, the U.S. donated 8.5 billion dollars to Colombia to train 70,000 military and
police personnel (Whitman). The plan was actually effective. The murder rates in Colombia went

VanBuren 5
down a third. Along with that positive statistic is that the country also saw an "enormous
escalation of extrajudicial executions by the army that happened with large amounts of U.S.
support and assistance"(Haugaard qtd. in Tupy). (Lisa Haugaard is the co-author of a report
entitled A Cautionary Tale: Plan Colombia's Lessons for Mexico and Beyond.) So while
murder rates went down, unjust executions of sometimes innocent people rose. This is an
example of aid that can not be taken back or cut. The officers are trained, and the money is spent.
Whether the U.S. should intervene, hold Colombia accountable, or simply learn their lesson and
try better next time, something needs to be done so that the donations made by the United States
do not lead directly or indirectly to the murders of innocent people.
When advocates of foreign aid argue in favor of it, they usually paint a picture of a world
where the U.S. eliminates of all of its foreign aid entirely. It is hard to imagine a world -- let
alone aspire to one -- in which the United States eliminated all economic aid(Rubin). They also
claim that the aid is a miniscule percentage of the United States entire budget, an overall small
price to pay to help struggling and suffering people. Such aid represents about 1.4 percent of the
total budget(Rubin). Its not as if there is no middle ground. The U.S. does not have to eliminate
aid entirely to make sure it is being used safely and responsibly, and foreign aids issue is not
about the money spent, its about the money, knowledge, training or any other kind of assistance
that is misused to do more harm than good to the people that the aid is supposed to benefit- the
seemingly, powerless, innocent civilian. The U.S. should clearly not eliminate foreign aid
entirely, but instead be more careful about who it is sent to, and then hold the party receiving the
aid accountable for their actions.
In conclusion, as a major power, the U.S. has the responsibility to do what they can to
help people in need. The U.S. should, however, cut aid to nations who are are not using, or do

VanBuren 6
not need it, and nations who do more harm than good with their aid. Money saved could be used
to help the less fortunate within the United States, or the aid could simply be sent to another
region of the world that can appropriately use the aid. By monitoring the effectiveness and use of
monetary aid, as well as ensuring that those with the power to control the aid are not misusing it,
the United States foreign aid program would be much better at doing what is set out to do in the
first place- enforce the law, feed and provide for those in need, save lives, and make the world a
better place to live in.

VanBuren 7

Works Cited
Hasan, Mehdi. "Aid Finances a Lavish Lifestyle"." New Statesman. 25 Jun. 2012: 28. SIRS
Issues Researcher. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
Rubin, Jennifer. "Cut All Foreign Aid? That Would Be 'Dumb' and Dangerous." Washington
Post- Blogs. 16 Oct. 2014: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher.Web. 14 Dec. 2014.
Thakur, Ramesh. "Poor Nations Often Do Better Without Aid." Australian (Canberra). 14 Feb.
2012: 9. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
Tupy, Marian L. "Foreign Aid Isn't the Answer." Wall Street Journal. 31 Mar. 2011: 17. SIRS
Issues Researcher. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
Whitman, Elizabeth. "Colombia: Perils and Lessons of U.S. Aid." Global Information Network.
14 Nov. 2011: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
Eilperin, Juliet, and Katie Zezima. "Billions of Dollars in Aid Pledged for Africa." Washington
Post. 06 Aug. 2014: A.4. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 17 Dec. 2014.