Liberals have howled at what they consider the unconscionable razing of USAID and the end to limitless American foreign assistance. The Editor-in-Chief of The Economist in an interview with Elon Musk, the leader of the charge against America's behemoth bureaucracy, asked him if he realized that by closing USAID, he has the blood of millions of children on his hands?
Musk, characteristically cool, confident, and without anger, said no, he did not. The charge was spurious and ignorant, politically motivated, superficial and inflammatory. Channeling Ronald Reagan, Musk said, 'USAID is not the solution. It is the problem'.
Anyone who has worked for or with USAID knows that American foreign assistance has been a total, dismal failure. It has been transparently and overtly political in its choices of 'investment', overlooking fraudulent, corrupt, and hopelessly criminal regimes in exchange for political support, opposition to American enemies, and access to raw materials. Given this nod to dictators, autocrats, and their oppressive policies, it is no surprise that the Presidents-for-Life up and down the African continent have taken the money, offered thanks and a willingness to reform, and filled Swiss and offshore bank accounts with unearned dollars.
As part of this intellectually and morally corrupt pas de deux, African governments did nothing to facilitate the development projects included in international loans and grants. Without government support, these projects rarely got off the ground, and if they did, they foundered and died within a year.
The donors themselves - USAID and European development agencies - were complicit in this failure to implement projects funded by them. American projects were hopelessly optimistic in their projections, mired in political cant, and overseen by either rank amateurs, or progressive-minded inclusivists for whom Africa could do no wrong.
In one infamous project where a USAID-sponsored non-profit agency got a supplemental grant from a private foundation to 'save newborn lives'. While the funds could easily have been invested in wide-coverage tetanus vaccination campaigns which would have dramatically reduced the disease immediately, the agency refused such a 'top-down, siloed' approach and preferred a more participatory, community based one which would focus on maternal intimacy, warming, and love. Needless to say, deaths from tetanus remained at their high levels.
Because of a politically-motivated campaign for exclusive breastfeeding, mothers who chose to work outside the home, but could only do so if they relied on bottle feeding, were refused inclusion in the campaign. The American women who had made exclusive breastfeeding a progressive cause celebre denied women of promise and enterprise the information necessary to properly bottle feed their infants.
AIDS prevention campaigns which refused because of 'cultural sensitivity' to recognize the dangerously promiscuous behavior of both African men and women and come down hard on the serial and multiple sexual partnerships lost the opportunity to inject the key component in prevention - moral responsibility.
When George Bush instituted PEPFAR, a program which aimed at the rapid production and distribution of anti-retroviral drugs which could dramatically reduce mortality from AIDS, there was initial resistance from the anti-top-down advocates; but when Bush insisted, said that traditional behavior change campaigns were not working, the drugs went international and AIDS mortality dropped significantly.
'By closing down USAID [and PEPFAR]', the Economist editor went on, you were consigning millions of people to unnecessary suffering and death'; but Musk replied that it was African governments' responsibility to rationalize their profligate spending, stop the corruption which robbed the people of billions in financial resources, and negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for favorable arrangements; and up to private foundations and non-profit agencies to take up the slack.
Continuing to pour money into corrupt regimes, whatever the short term benefits, only perpetuates the corruption.
The Scandinavian donors, hoping to promote in Africa the same 'democratic socialism' they had in their own countries, poured hundreds of millions of foreign exchange into Tanzania where President Julius Nyerere and his socialist nationalism party promised universal reform and rapid development. Of course nothing of the like happened, and Tanzania remained poor, undeveloped, and dependent on foreign aid.
'Pull the plug', said a development economist of the Rand Corporation. 'It is time cut off these dependent, corrupt, manipulative African 'leaders' completely from foreign assistance and force them to borrow on international capital markets. Let the World Bank return to its original role of lender of last resort.'
The Bank played an important development role in the past as this specialized lender. Governments went to Chase, Dresdner, Citibank and others for loans, and if refused but having put together a reasonable and creditable proposal, the World Bank would step in.
Once Robert McNamara took over the Bank presidency in hopes of restoring his credibility after a disastrous tour as Secretary of Defense prosecuting the failed American military adventure in Vietnam, the Bank hemorrhaged money. 'Poverty reduction' was the refrain, and the Bank began down the same failed road as USAID.
The Chinese have gone one step farther. Forget 'development' and simply conclude favorable bilateral contracts. Guarantee us oil at a fixed, below-market rate, and we will rebuild your transportation infrastructure, no strings attached.
'Development' - the traditional 'cooperative, community-based, participatory, inclusive programs in which the means are more important than the ends - is finished, and Elon Musk knows it.
The illegal immigration crisis has two damaging effects - first and foremost it is causing disruption and social chaos in those European countries which, seduced by the progressive notion of 'inclusivity' let in all comers across their borders. These migrants, by and large Muslim have taken the charity of their recipient countries and given nothing in return. France in particular is home to nests of radical Islamists who adamantly refuse integration and assimilation. Finally conservative leaders throughout Europe have said basta! and are likely to win the next elections.
Refusing illegal immigration has a second benefit, forcing corrupt and inefficient governments to address the needs of those citizens who flee and those who would like to. Popular revolt is likely and welcome.
Only those who have lost their jobs at USAID are shedding tears. The rest of the country, thanks to the exposes of Musk, Rand, the Trump Administration, conservative journals and thinktanks, is finally seeing the phenomenal waste of dollars and resources because of in intellectually corrupt and practically inefficient program.
Millions of deaths? Hardly. A reform of foreign assistance according to conservative principles will be an important step in forcing recalcitrant, entrenched autocrats to react or to incite their governed to revolt. In either case, the demise of international aid can only be a long term benefit.

