By Tom Fowdy
For the past week, a lot has been written about the abrupt shutdown of the "US International Development Agency" better known as "USAID." The Trump administration, possibly influenced by Elon Musk, sees the agency as a colossal waste of US taxpayer dollars and believes is being "ripped off" by the program. Critics contend that the agency is not purely for humanitarian aid, but is also a foreign policy arm dedicated to advancing American influence and foreign policy goals, which has been also linked to many journalist and media organizations overseas. This led to a firestorm on social media about the topic, by both its detractors and supporters, the latter who worry that its demise will reduce "research" on critical topics such as China.
I am going to take a 3rd, original position here. Those either celebrating or bemoaning the abolition of USAID do not understand the policy goals behind it, which fits into both their boxes accordingly but not in the way they think it does. The design of the Trump administration, and especially the ultra-hawkish Marco Rubio State Department, in doing this is not a "we don't want to give our money to other countries" isolationist rant that decries foreign interference and surrenders to American goals. Instead, this is an inter-bureaucratic battle for power and centralization over resources.
It is easy to get lost in the sometimes misleading language of Trumpism, but we do know one of its fundamental objectives is the centralization of its authority and power, against the bogeyman it markets as "the deep state" a conspiracy implied term that vents resentment against the American establishment and those who seek to resist Trump's policy goals and agenda. We forget that primarily, the Trump administration is fighting a domestic battle as opposed to purely a foreign policy struggle. The President has many enemies, enemies who have in his perspective, waged aggressive legal persecution against him and vitriolic smear campaigns. US politics is the nastiest it has ever, ever been, and the domestic stakes and therefore higher than ever for any new administration to try and change the status quo in its favor to prevent its opponents from reversing it when they get in power.
So why, USAID? US aid is not as much seen as a supplement to US foreign policy goals, but an obstruction of it. It gives out a lot of money, but we must admit by nature of its design it is based on ethical principles rather than Realpolitik, that is it may help people and countries regardless of whether it is the US national interest to do so. For such a hardline realist administration such as Trump, this is contrary to their ethos, they don't believe in unconditionally giving money out on the basis of ethical principles. Instead, countries must serve American interests exclusively or they cannot receive reciprocal benefits. Those who work for US aid may be motivated by moral causes, such as for example giving humanitarian aid to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, but the White House does not see it that way.
In this case, US foreign aid is not being truly abolished with the closure of USAID but rather, as noted above, it is part of a power restructuring that will end it as a separate institution and put the distribution of foreign aid under the State Department, and therefore the White House directly. It is designed to cull an unhelpful bureaucracy. In this case, foreign aid and foreign policy are being more adequately merged again. What does this mean? It means countries will not receive help and support unless they submit to advancing American goals and preferences. "Say, African nation, do you want to receive aid? Please cut out China and then we can talk" is going to be the outcome here and how things are operated from hereafter. The Trump administration is aggressively unilateralist in how it demands concessions in its favor and thus seeks to advance American interests arbitrarily. I have to concede this is an effective manner of foreign policy dealing, why? Because China does exactly the same. When Beijing distributes aid, it is again from a centralized apparatus, there's no discussion to be had unless Chinese interests and goals are acknowledged. In this case, while the ethical element of USAID will be hurtful on a humanitarian level, its critics and defenders need to see the broader agenda at play here.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | The disintegration of International law
Opinion | Trump's 'US first' Doctrine over Latin America
Opinion | A more pragmatic Trump, or speaking too soon
Opinion | The first days of Trump's foreign policy
Comment