February 15, 2011
Categories:
Foreign aid groups respond to proposed budget
By Catherine Cheney
Proposed changes to the 2011 fiscal year budget are bringing outcries from international aid organizations opposed to foreign assistance spending cuts. But along with this criticism comes scattered praise for President Obama's 2012 budget, as well as a conversation on the future of aid efficacy.
A World Vision press release – focusing on slashed funds for U.S. food aid, disaster assistance, and global health programs – warned that that Congress is proposing “disproportionately large cuts targeting America’s humanitarian assistance budget jeopardize the success of global development initiatives and undermine both U.S. global security and leadership.”
Robert Zachritz, the U.S. government relations director for Christian humanitarian group, said that while the organization recognizes the need to make spending adjustments, cuts to the 2011 budget “should not fall disproportionately on the poorest of the poor.”
ONE, an organization focused on fighting poverty, specifically criticized cuts in contributions to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis. The group stated: “We strongly encourage the House to restore funding to programs designed to save lives, help the poorest, and help stabilize areas of great strategic and national security interest to the United States."
Sheila Nix, executive director of ONE, added: “As Congress faces the tough job of restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington, we strongly urge Members to not turn their backs on the world’s most vulnerable.”
As these groups lobby lawmakers on the importance of international development and humanitarian assistance, other organizations, including Save the Children and Oxfam International are facing forward, pointing to the positives in the new 2012 budget.
They applauded steps toward greater accountability in foreign assistance.
Save the Children praised the proposed budget more broadly for recognizing the “important role that aid to poorer countries plays in advancing U.S. national security." More specifically, the group was glad to see investment in the Global Health Initiative and the Early Learning Challenge Fund.
“When times are tough, some say we should cut back on overseas initiatives and focus instead at home,” said Charles MacCormack, president of the organization. “In fact, when the United States invests in helping vulnerable children in poor countries grow up healthy and educated, it’s helping build a better and more secure world for American children as well.”
Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America, an organization focused on fighting global poverty, said the 2012 budget proposal reflects the administration’s “resolve in fighting global poverty.” He added that the budget reflects the White House's commitment to reforming foreign aid “so that it can more efficiently manage our global aid dollars.”
But Oxfam also provided constructive criticism of the proposal, stating in its press release that the scale of the U.S. response is “still outpaced by the scale of the problem,” with “poverty focused aid” accounting for less than one percent of the budget.
This Oxfam response came five days after the organization released a report on the “worrying trend” of politicized and militarized aid – titled “Whose Aid is it Anyway?”
The report argued that national security and foreign policy interests are increasingly embedded into aid. It outlined the consequences of blending defense, diplomacy, and development: blurred lines between aid and military efforts, and an emphasis on short-term interests over long-term interests.
“When the military tries to get involved in the development world, people don’t understand,” said Shannon Scribner, humanitarian policy manager at Oxfam America. "It would be like NGOs trying to build convoys or security parameters.”
Looking ahead to what the budget means for the future of aid, Gregory Adams, director of aid effectiveness for Oxfam America, said he thinks the concerns raised in the report are being addressed, to some extent.
“Money is still given to countries important to our political agenda, who either don't have the biggest numbers of poor people, or who have failed to show their commitment to helping their people get out of poverty,” he said. “But in this budget request, we're seeing some changes; the focus is more on long-term investment meant to produce measurable, broad-based economic growth.”
