Stop Aiding War
The assumption that humanitarian and developing assistance provided to conflict regions in the middle of war is somehow all about altruism, is widely challenged in today's world. War regions have long been the most vulnerable to fraud, corruption, and misuse. The government is pressured now more than before to find more effective, safe and controlled measures for delivering any kind of financial or material aid to conflict regions. As hard critics would have it, U.S. should end all foreign aid assistance to any conflict zones, at least until the conflict resolves. That would be a significant policy which would result in billions of dollars rediverted to more essential programs. The total U.S. spends on foreign aid annually is $100 billion and cutting out and aid to conflict regions would save 20% of that. With the current strain on the economy and the national debt, introducing new legislation to save $20 billion a year would ensure much needed funds to help tackle the healthcare and social services costs, infrastructure, and homelessness needs nationwide. Many of the economic and social issues are getting overlooked, primarily because of lack of funding.
Stoica 2
Although U.S. has a long history of providing much needed foreign aid for disaster relief, dating back to 1812, its fiscal structures has changed with time and once an altruistic and honorable cause has shifted into a multi layered and multi headed bureaucratic labyrinth of special assistance programs. There are now thousands of NGOs connected with U.S. government foreign aid and there are serious concerns about accountability and transparency in the system. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has looked at aid delivered by USAID to conflict-affected countries and it was constituted that there were tens of billions of dollars directed through NGOs to conflict affected countries. A staggering figure when taken in account is that there is a string of challenges to deliver the entirety of that to the actual source of the need. Positively, foreign aid has done much good for the world until now. The U.S. has obligated and continues to donate more aid than any other nation. Because of this and the Marshall Plan (CFR) much of western Europe was rebuilt after WWII. The CFR article on "A Brief History of U.S. Foreign Aid" also provides other data about the aid to countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam to combat communism. It also discusses the many disease outbreaks were fought along the decades and much aid was given to conflict zones like Afghanistan.
In retrospect, providing aid has and will always be one of the most altruistic causes any individual or group may venture into. There is no denying that much of the
Stoica 3
underdeveloped world is in very justified need of resources, but the overarching challenge is and has always been the process of delivering the aid and getting it to its intended recipient. The argument is that conflict zones provided much riskier and dangerous situations for aid to be delivered. More recently the world has witnessed the beginning of multiple wars, and it is public record that the U.S. is providing much foreign aid to the combatant zones, although we don't understand where and what the aid has gone to. Interesting and compelling data has tracked that when significant foreign aid is delivered into certain combatant regions, it shows that the violence and military fatalities there actually increase. At the same time, the researchers didn't find strong evidence that this concentrated aid helps to protect civilians. The expected decrease in civilian deaths just didn't clearly show up in the data. Overall, this means that instead of calming things down, heavily concentrated aid can sometimes make humanitarian situation worse in those hotspots.
Foreign aid means many ways of supporting other nations. It can be financial, military aid such as weapons, equipment, logistical or training that directly strengthens one side of the conflict. Support can be in the form of intelligence where U.S. would share important information about enemy combatant movements and battle strategies. Even humanitarian aid has a crucial role to play in violent regions, where if stolen by armed groups it can be held for ransom or leverage. Foreign aid has not only been provided to impoverished regions but extremely wealthy ones as well. U.S. ally Israel has been the recipient of large amounts of aid being given even though the nation is wealthy and
Stoica 4
developed enough to take care of itself. Matthews, Lipton explores the direct relationship between the nations long standing political and financial motivations. More polished politicians that are pro-foreign aid would argue that helping our allies during war strengthens our national security. Others use aid to gain influence or to project power. Economically, providing foreign aid is like trading. Overall providing foreign aid in battle zones can fuel or shape conflicts in major ways, at home and abroad. Moreover, foreign aid behaves differently in other nations. A scientific study shows Chinese foreign aid goals aim at reducing violence, making conflict less attractive compared to working in a formal economy. This matters because there is actual hope that peacekeeping strategies along with humanitarian aid and economic incentives are key to sustaining lives and peace altogether. One attractive feature of the Chinese foreign aid programs is that they aim at directing their support toward infrastructure and development directly, providing competitive market capacity. This means that jobs and pay become an incentive to keeping peace in conflicted regions, given the right motivations of course. One key difference to note between the U.S. and China is the number of NGOs. The U.S. has significantly more NGOs, but China has seen rapid growth the past few years and many more humanitarian programs are beginning to sprout, leaving the altruistic future of their foreign aid in balance. Is it possible that if too many NGOs exist in a certain nation, the level of corruption and misuse increases sharply or is the correlation unfounded. That's what we are here to challenge. NGO simply stands for Non-Governmental Organization. Their main objectives
Stoica 5
are to be nonprofit, independent, have a purpose, and do good in society. Sometimes objectives can get skewed even in altruistic causes. There have been some situations where investigators concluded that misuse of funds, diverting aid to personal use, mismanagement and overall exploitation have been major problems in Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Congo and other middle eastern regions, to name a few. Even one of the most renown NGO in the world is not exempt from potential fraud. The American Red Cross has been alleged to be responsible for poor accountability of disaster relief funds. Only a small fraction of the intended resources reached their destination in Haiti in the aftermath of a hurricane's destruction. A recent Transparency International brief dives in deep in pointing out the many flaws of delivering aid to any nation. This report surveys how corruption risks and hazards affect humanitarian aid provided to conflict regions, laying out specific vulnerabilities from aid diversion tactics to extortion by armed militia groups and unethical misappropriation of resources. The brief also analyzes various prospects of delivering aid in conflict zones. These are documented cases, expert interviews and cross-agency analysis that stand as trusted sources. The matter is clear. There are definitively key issues revolving around providing foreign aid. There are some mitigating factors suggested such as satellite tracking, and third-party monitoring, which can be appealing but also costly. In a perfect world you wouldn't need to take such costly measures to protect the help you are trying to provide. Nonetheless the world is not perfect. Providing aid in the modern era has evolved to just more than sending a care package with clothes and toothpaste to war-torn regions.
Stoica 6
In the long run providing aid has turned into a fiscal cash cow to many unregulated and disconnected government NGOs.
The verdict is clear and evident. U.S. should stop all military aid immediately to countries currently in conflict. Supporting this policy would save money and keep the U.S. out of more foreign wars. Long term the policy can be refined where countries suffering from humanitarian standpoints can receive non-military resources to provide much needed relief, such as infrastructure relief and development equipment. Once policy restrains the outflow of foreign financial help there are more pressing and pertinent national cases here at home that can benefit from immediate surplus of funds. Public Relief and Emergency Response, disease outbreaks, homelessness and housing emergencies, food shortages, public safety and crime prevention, infrastructures failures, and education emergencies are just a few programs that could benefit extremely from much needed financial support. The economic outlook of our nation does not appear to be strong with the national debt rising away toward $40 trillion. While it isn't possible to outright cut all foreign aid funding, some strategized key policies can be implemented to call for immediate action for humanitarian agencies to track, monitor, and evaluate their anti-fraud measures as part of their commitment to help. This can be measured by combining technology, independent oversight, and data-driven KPIs, beneficiary reporting,
Stoica 7
and continuous evaluation. making fraud prevention a core, ongoing commitment rather than an afterthought.
Long term foreign aid overview indicates that stopping aid to nations in conflict will result in much greater efficiency of foreign aid funds distributed. The direct budgetary savings would be roughly $20 billion per year, which is a significant amount to divert to much more needed relief funds here at home. To be able to tackle national problems policy changes has to be speedy and direct, so that the emergency funds should get to their communities. Transparency and accountability must take the most primary role of any organization providing aid. New policies should also encourage cooperation between federal, state and local departments as well as NGOs. Funds saved from new policies on foreign aid should go toward prevention and long-term planning. Reforming U.S. policy on foreign aid to combatant zones would have significant benefits for the country and the intended regions as well. Instead of fueling conflict abroad, U.S. would redirect its resources inward to improve fiscal responsibilities, security, and protect self-interest for its own citizens.
Works Cited
Assistance to a Terrorist Organization Affiliated with Al Qaida. Press Release, 19 Nov. 2024, oig.usaid.gov/node/7283.
The assumption that humanitarian and developing assistance provided to conflict regions in the middle of war is somehow all about altruism, is widely challenged in today's world. War regions have long been the most vulnerable to fraud, corruption, and misuse. The government is pressured now more than before to find more effective, safe and controlled measures for delivering any kind of financial or material aid to conflict regions. As hard critics would have it, U.S. should end all foreign aid assistance to any conflict zones, at least until the conflict resolves. That would be a significant policy which would result in billions of dollars rediverted to more essential programs. The total U.S. spends on foreign aid annually is $100 billion and cutting out and aid to conflict regions would save 20% of that. With the current strain on the economy and the national debt, introducing new legislation to save $20 billion a year would ensure much needed funds to help tackle the healthcare and social services costs, infrastructure, and homelessness needs nationwide. Many of the economic and social issues are getting overlooked, primarily because of lack of funding.
Stoica 2
Although U.S. has a long history of providing much needed foreign aid for disaster relief, dating back to 1812, its fiscal structures has changed with time and once an altruistic and honorable cause has shifted into a multi layered and multi headed bureaucratic labyrinth of special assistance programs. There are now thousands of NGOs connected with U.S. government foreign aid and there are serious concerns about accountability and transparency in the system. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has looked at aid delivered by USAID to conflict-affected countries and it was constituted that there were tens of billions of dollars directed through NGOs to conflict affected countries. A staggering figure when taken in account is that there is a string of challenges to deliver the entirety of that to the actual source of the need. Positively, foreign aid has done much good for the world until now. The U.S. has obligated and continues to donate more aid than any other nation. Because of this and the Marshall Plan (CFR) much of western Europe was rebuilt after WWII. The CFR article on "A Brief History of U.S. Foreign Aid" also provides other data about the aid to countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam to combat communism. It also discusses the many disease outbreaks were fought along the decades and much aid was given to conflict zones like Afghanistan.
In retrospect, providing aid has and will always be one of the most altruistic causes any individual or group may venture into. There is no denying that much of the
Stoica 3
underdeveloped world is in very justified need of resources, but the overarching challenge is and has always been the process of delivering the aid and getting it to its intended recipient. The argument is that conflict zones provided much riskier and dangerous situations for aid to be delivered. More recently the world has witnessed the beginning of multiple wars, and it is public record that the U.S. is providing much foreign aid to the combatant zones, although we don't understand where and what the aid has gone to. Interesting and compelling data has tracked that when significant foreign aid is delivered into certain combatant regions, it shows that the violence and military fatalities there actually increase. At the same time, the researchers didn't find strong evidence that this concentrated aid helps to protect civilians. The expected decrease in civilian deaths just didn't clearly show up in the data. Overall, this means that instead of calming things down, heavily concentrated aid can sometimes make humanitarian situation worse in those hotspots.
Foreign aid means many ways of supporting other nations. It can be financial, military aid such as weapons, equipment, logistical or training that directly strengthens one side of the conflict. Support can be in the form of intelligence where U.S. would share important information about enemy combatant movements and battle strategies. Even humanitarian aid has a crucial role to play in violent regions, where if stolen by armed groups it can be held for ransom or leverage. Foreign aid has not only been provided to impoverished regions but extremely wealthy ones as well. U.S. ally Israel has been the recipient of large amounts of aid being given even though the nation is wealthy and
Stoica 4
developed enough to take care of itself. Matthews, Lipton explores the direct relationship between the nations long standing political and financial motivations. More polished politicians that are pro-foreign aid would argue that helping our allies during war strengthens our national security. Others use aid to gain influence or to project power. Economically, providing foreign aid is like trading. Overall providing foreign aid in battle zones can fuel or shape conflicts in major ways, at home and abroad. Moreover, foreign aid behaves differently in other nations. A scientific study shows Chinese foreign aid goals aim at reducing violence, making conflict less attractive compared to working in a formal economy. This matters because there is actual hope that peacekeeping strategies along with humanitarian aid and economic incentives are key to sustaining lives and peace altogether. One attractive feature of the Chinese foreign aid programs is that they aim at directing their support toward infrastructure and development directly, providing competitive market capacity. This means that jobs and pay become an incentive to keeping peace in conflicted regions, given the right motivations of course. One key difference to note between the U.S. and China is the number of NGOs. The U.S. has significantly more NGOs, but China has seen rapid growth the past few years and many more humanitarian programs are beginning to sprout, leaving the altruistic future of their foreign aid in balance. Is it possible that if too many NGOs exist in a certain nation, the level of corruption and misuse increases sharply or is the correlation unfounded. That's what we are here to challenge. NGO simply stands for Non-Governmental Organization. Their main objectives
Stoica 5
are to be nonprofit, independent, have a purpose, and do good in society. Sometimes objectives can get skewed even in altruistic causes. There have been some situations where investigators concluded that misuse of funds, diverting aid to personal use, mismanagement and overall exploitation have been major problems in Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Congo and other middle eastern regions, to name a few. Even one of the most renown NGO in the world is not exempt from potential fraud. The American Red Cross has been alleged to be responsible for poor accountability of disaster relief funds. Only a small fraction of the intended resources reached their destination in Haiti in the aftermath of a hurricane's destruction. A recent Transparency International brief dives in deep in pointing out the many flaws of delivering aid to any nation. This report surveys how corruption risks and hazards affect humanitarian aid provided to conflict regions, laying out specific vulnerabilities from aid diversion tactics to extortion by armed militia groups and unethical misappropriation of resources. The brief also analyzes various prospects of delivering aid in conflict zones. These are documented cases, expert interviews and cross-agency analysis that stand as trusted sources. The matter is clear. There are definitively key issues revolving around providing foreign aid. There are some mitigating factors suggested such as satellite tracking, and third-party monitoring, which can be appealing but also costly. In a perfect world you wouldn't need to take such costly measures to protect the help you are trying to provide. Nonetheless the world is not perfect. Providing aid in the modern era has evolved to just more than sending a care package with clothes and toothpaste to war-torn regions.
Stoica 6
In the long run providing aid has turned into a fiscal cash cow to many unregulated and disconnected government NGOs.
The verdict is clear and evident. U.S. should stop all military aid immediately to countries currently in conflict. Supporting this policy would save money and keep the U.S. out of more foreign wars. Long term the policy can be refined where countries suffering from humanitarian standpoints can receive non-military resources to provide much needed relief, such as infrastructure relief and development equipment. Once policy restrains the outflow of foreign financial help there are more pressing and pertinent national cases here at home that can benefit from immediate surplus of funds. Public Relief and Emergency Response, disease outbreaks, homelessness and housing emergencies, food shortages, public safety and crime prevention, infrastructures failures, and education emergencies are just a few programs that could benefit extremely from much needed financial support. The economic outlook of our nation does not appear to be strong with the national debt rising away toward $40 trillion. While it isn't possible to outright cut all foreign aid funding, some strategized key policies can be implemented to call for immediate action for humanitarian agencies to track, monitor, and evaluate their anti-fraud measures as part of their commitment to help. This can be measured by combining technology, independent oversight, and data-driven KPIs, beneficiary reporting,
Stoica 7
and continuous evaluation. making fraud prevention a core, ongoing commitment rather than an afterthought.
Long term foreign aid overview indicates that stopping aid to nations in conflict will result in much greater efficiency of foreign aid funds distributed. The direct budgetary savings would be roughly $20 billion per year, which is a significant amount to divert to much more needed relief funds here at home. To be able to tackle national problems policy changes has to be speedy and direct, so that the emergency funds should get to their communities. Transparency and accountability must take the most primary role of any organization providing aid. New policies should also encourage cooperation between federal, state and local departments as well as NGOs. Funds saved from new policies on foreign aid should go toward prevention and long-term planning. Reforming U.S. policy on foreign aid to combatant zones would have significant benefits for the country and the intended regions as well. Instead of fueling conflict abroad, U.S. would redirect its resources inward to improve fiscal responsibilities, security, and protect self-interest for its own citizens.
Works Cited
Assistance to a Terrorist Organization Affiliated with Al Qaida. Press Release, 19 Nov. 2024, oig.usaid.gov/node/7283.
