Why freezing international aid weakens the US

___________________

OPINION

By Dennis Onyango

There are millions of people worldwide who have been plunged into uncertainty since January 20^th this year. Those are the people directly affected by the abrupt freeze on the US aid, the largest in terms of amounts, decided by Donald Trump immediately after he took the Oval Office.

The Republican believes, according to the executive order that instantly blocked thousands of food and health programs, that these “are not aligned with American norms and values.” Trump still remarked that these programs serve to destabilise peace by promoting ideals in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.

Such wild assertions from a world leader raise doubt. It is obvious that funding aids treatment for over 21 plus million African patients, food aid for war-torn countries like DRC and Sudan and demining operations in several countries, among a range of programs, wholly contribute to welfare and stability.

In some cases, such as development aid programs in Central America, the consequences of such a freeze for countries plagued by various forms of social violence (like Haiti) could even escalate what Trump wants to curb: immigration.

It is clear that the freezing is only “officially in force” for three months, the time needed for a program–by–program review, which no expert in the field considers possible in such a short time. The chaos caused by the executive order forced Marco Rubio, US secretary of state, to issue emergency exceptions for Egypt and Israel, adding to the confusion the fear of retaliation from the new US administration, which is keeping many of its players silent, is probably not allowing the full extent of the disaster to be gauged.

While it has become popular for some to gawk at President Trump’s willingness to mindlessly slash federal spending, conducting a detailed review of this international aid instead of uniformly freezing it would have been an organised, far better policy. There was already an outcry following a similar action targeting federal funds voted by the American citizens. The executive order was immediately blocked by a federal judge, and it proved to be the first serious lurch of his regime, which was forced to backtrack.

In the case of International Aid, other factors must be taken into consideration in addition to the narrow vision of squandering taxpayers’ money. The more than $70b allocated by Congress, three-quarters of which is devoted to humanitarian aid, health and development, is a pillar of the US’s soft power in the face of China, which has been conducting active infrastructure diplomacy in many countries for decades. Beijing is definitely taking note of these retreats by Washington, just as it is attentive to unease created by the US president’s untimely leading with his chin vis-a-vis his cronies.

Though gesticulating is one thing, wielding a chainsaw is quite another, but doing both simultaneously is inadvisable when one’s aim is to defend the interests of one’s country.

The writer is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya