April 24, 1997
By Bryan T. Johnson
In the battle over whether to cut funding for America's
foreign-aid program -- and its main dispenser of funds, the Agency
for International Development (AID) -- the Clinton administration
always insists cuts would be a mistake. Foreign aid, the White
House claims, helps the United States gain influence with countries
around the world and builds to gaining international support for
U.S. foreign policy.
But if that's true, why do most countries receiving U.S. foreign
aid vote against the United States most of the time?
During the 1996 session of the United Nations, 68 percent of
countries that receive foreign aid voted against the United State a
majority of the time. The United States' top 10 foreign-aid
recipients will receive more than $6 billion from the United States
this year. Despite this support, six of them cast their U.N.
ballots against the United States in more than half of the votes
For example, India, the sixth largest recipient of U.S. aid,
will receive more than $154 million in 1997. Yet, last year it
voted against the United States 76 percent of the time. Egypt, the
second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid at nearly $2.1
billion, cast its U.N. ballot against the United States 61 percent
of the time.
Other examples of just how little respect U.S. foreign aid earns
from other nations:
U.N. votes give a good indication of a member government's
foreign policy views. And despite its many problems, the United
Nations continues to be a forum in which the United States seeks
international support and cooperation on vital U.S. interests.
There are many reasons for a country to vote with or against the
United States in the United Nations. But when we are dispensing,
out of the goodness of our hearts, literally billions of dollars
every year, is it too much to expect the nations we help to help us
It's not. Why are we sending out all this money when it is
abundantly clear that U.S. foreign aid does not win friends where
it counts: supporting U.S. foreign policy initiatives? Maybe if we
cut them off, we'll start getting some respect.
* * *
Note: Bryan T. Johnson is a former international trade and
economics policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, a
Washington-based public policy research institute.
ED042497a: U.S. Not Getting It's Money's Worth
Bryan T. Johnson
Read More >>
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 200,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2013, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973