Foreign Aid Equals Political Bribery

To oppose the dismantling of USAID and foreign aid in general, defenders of this statist agency and of foreign-aid programs are engaging in predictable conduct. They are pointing out all the people who will supposedly die or suffer if USAID programs and foreign aid are terminated. It’s a variation of what they say whenever someone objects to welfare-state programs here in the United States — that the objector clearly hates the “poor, needy, and disadvantaged.” The strategy, of course, is intended to silence anyone who might dare object to USAID and foreign aid.

USAID has long been a front for the CIA to engage in its dark-side activities in foreign countries. Thus, the CIA has obviously devised an ingenious scheme to maintain the continuation of such activities: Encase the activities in programs that ostensibly help the “poor, needy, and disadvantaged.” Safely ensconced within these “help-the-poor” programs, the CIA is able to continue its dark-side activities without interference or interruption.

Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

But there is another aspect to foreign aid that we should keep in mind — political bribery. Foreign aid is essentially a welfare payment for foreign regimes to induce them to align themselves with the interests of the U.S. government. Like with other welfare programs, foreign aid comes with a string: Do as we say or we will terminate your dole.

Foreign aid to a regime can entail millions of dollars per year. Such money can fund the Swiss bank account not only of a foreign ruler but also of many of his minions, especially high-ranking military officials who help him remain in power.

Obviously, a foreign regime can become dependent on the continuation of its U.S. foreign-aid dole. But don’t forget the string: The U.S. government is not using U.S. taxpayer money in this way simply out of love for foreign regimes. It wants something in return — obedience to the orders of U.S. officials and deference to the authority of the U.S. government.

What happens if a foreign regime decides to not follow some particular order of U.S. officials? U.S. officials will threaten the regime with a cutoff of its foreign-aid dole.

For example, President Trump has announced his latest imperialist adventure — the U.S. takeover of Gaza. The plan calls for the removal of all Palestinians from Gaza and their relocation to Jordan and Egypt (not to the United States, of course).

What happens if Jordan and Egypt say no? Trump is threatening them with a cutoff of U.S. foreign aid. What matters is not the damage and suffering to the “poor, needy, and disadvantaged” that would supposedly ensue with a cutoff of such funds. What matters is obedience to the orders of U.S. officials and deference to the authority of the U.S. government.

Jordan and Egypt would not be the first countries that have experienced this phenomenon. In 1990, the U.S. government was engineering a resolution through the United Nations that would serve as a build-up to the Persian Gulf War. According to the Wikipedia page on the resolution — UN Security Council Resolution 678, “States were offered economic incentives for ‘yes’ votes, and those who initially opposed the resolution were discouraged from voting ‘no’ by the threat of economic sanctions, particularly from the United States.”

Yemen decided to vote against the resolution. The result of such recalcitrance was never in doubt. Wikipedia: “The US, World Bank and International Monetary Fund halted aid programs to Yemen, and Saudi Arabia expelled Yemeni workers. Ignoring the supposed plight of the “poor, needy, and disadvantaged,” and not mincing words, U.S. officials told Yemeni officials that it would be “the most expensive vote you ever cast.”

Among the best things America could ever do is dismantle USAID completely and bring an end to the political bribery of foreign aid entirely. Charity, both home and abroad, belongs only in the private sector, not the governmental sector.