Aid and the Heart

“The Democratic Republic of Congo, where millions are displaced and at risk of malnutrition, relies for almost 70 per cent of its aid on the US”, writes Adam Tooze* in the Financial Times.

Much of this aid is now being withdrawn.

The US Agency for International Development, USAID, was the first and most visible victim of cuts to US government spending by the Trump-Musk duo. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of humanitarian programs funded by USAID are at substantial risk of shutting down, with disastrous outcomes for some of the most vulnerable populations - not just in Congo, but across the world. Echoing Adam Tooze’s concern, Jeffrey Sachs was quoted by the same newspaper as saying,

“What’s the point of choosing between malaria control and education of children? For heaven’s sake, these are both easily financed if anybody in authority in the US, UK, EU or the rest really gave a damn. Alas, they don’t.”

The key word in this passage is ‘authority’, the authority of governments - democratically elected governments. This authority emanates from the mandate of its people, and must represent their will. Donald Trump has chosen to interpret this will as - among other things - spending American tax dollars on Americans, and not on foreigners. From what I read, his core supporters welcome the disbanding of foreign aid. Here’s a representative comment to Adam Tooze’s piece:

“Maybe go set up an account with GOFUNDME (a crowd-funding site) for those concerned with fattening the purse of African dictators.”

Another reader said, more directly, “if you are so concerned with overseas aid, donate your own money to it.”

‘Own money’ is always best. Other People’s Money is subject to huge cost over-runs, misallocation, or outright corruption. This is as true of government infrastructure as it is of foreign aid. But the key difference is that most governments have an implicit, and widely accepted, mandate to build-out domestic infrastructure, so public concerns are chiefly around the efficiency of that spending. But if there is no mandate for foreign aid, such spending is entirely illegitimate - for any ‘authority’ is derived from the will of the people.

Besides democratic legitimacy, I invoke the nature of compassion. Aid for the less fortunate should come from compassion, which resides in the heart of the individual. Government aid, in contrast, is funded by taxation, extracted at a mass scale, and underpinned by the power of the state, by its legal monopoly over violence. If you find this statement a little far-fetched, ask yourself how much income tax you would pay the government if you had a choice.

My mother used to describe herself as a full-time beggar, as she spent a quarter of a century garnering donations to fund some twenty-five pre-schools she ran in slum settlements across Delhi. Quite aside from the work these collections supported, she saw the act of seeking donations as its own noble task:

“When I ask people for money, I get them to open their hearts; for a few minutes, to contemplate the lives of other humans.”

For the first few years of her work, my mother received substantial support from the Delhi government. Inevitably, funds were delayed, because budgets had not finished their obstacle race through the multi-tiered bureaucracy, or because a key official had been transferred out, with no replacement in sight. When arrears piled up to a year’s worth of funding, she scrambled for private funds and vowed never to seek government help again.

International funding is even more tenuous, as US-funded programs across the world are now experiencing. Over the last decade, Indian charities - NGOs we call them - have seen global funding choked off by our own government, which has revoked thousands of licences* that entitled them to receive foreign contributions.

These Indian programs are the victims of our government’s push towards Atmanirbharta; global aid from the West has always been shaped by the shifting sands of their own geopolitical strategy. After World War II, global aid, largely from the US, went into the reconstruction of Europe, especially Germany. Then, as the cold war set in, funds were spent on combating communism. This century, aid has been dedicated to combating poverty, and supporting the rights of the world’s poorest people.

Government funding will always be subject to political shifts. Which is exactly how it should be, as the government of the day must seek to represent the current mood of its people. The Trumpian imperative to shut down US foreign aid has been brutal in its implementation; adequate notice should have been given, to allow programs to rationalise their work, and garner resources from elsewhere. Overnight, millions of extremely vulnerable people have been rendered even more vulnerable.

But this only underlines the point that governments are not humane. I believe that compassion is a beautiful human attribute. Those who possess it in measure large enough to run programs for the vulnerable should also reach out and engender it in others, multiply the compassion in the world.

In the heart of humans, not in the cold, shifting calculus of politics, lies succour for the weak.

*Adam Tooze:

https://www.ft.com/content/25190d08-d156-48f5-b0bd-d7a4be17c11e#comments-anchor

* FCRA - Foreign Contributions Regulation Act:

https://www.business-standard.com/finance/personal-finance/why-20-701-ngos-lost-their-fcra-licences-since-1976-cause-impact-decoded-124041200227_1.html