VIEWSrnDown the RatholernWliere Foreign Aid Goesrnby Doug BandowrnLast vciir, President Clinton, who has rarely found a conflictrnthat lie did not want to join, complained to the Veterans ofrnForeign Wars that Congress was cntting foreign aid, “the veryrnprograms designed to keep onr soldiers out of war in the firstrnplace.” He threatened to veto die foreign-assistance appropriationrnhills passed by the House and Senate, which had reducedrnhis request bv hvo billion dollars. Naturally, Congress capitulated,rnthrowing more good money after bad. What is a few billionrnamong friends for programs which have consistently failed?rn1 he pattern is likely to be repeated this vear. The administrationrnhas proposed spending $22.8 billion next year on internationalrnaffairs, including the cost of manning the State Department,rnsubsidizing the United Nations, and fundingrninternational conferences and commissions. Roughly $12.2rnbillion is slated for “international assistance programs.”rnWlierc does it all go? ‘I’here is three billion dollars for “internationalrndevelopment assistance,” which falls under the U.S.rnAgency for hitcrnational Development (USAIL^). More thanrnone billion dollars is for general aid; separate funds have beenrnestablished to aid .Africa, respond to disasters, and combat disease.rnAnother $1.5 billion is for the former Soviet bloc. All ofrnthis mone’ is supposed to encourage economic growth, democraticrndeelopnient, environmental protection, population reduction,rnand a variety of other worthv ends, hi addition, USAIDrnco.sts about $500 million to run.rnSmall amounts of money go to such agencies as the PeacernCorps and the hiter-American Foimdahon. But the adminis-rnDoiig Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute andrna nationally syndicated columnist. He is the author and editorrnoj several books, including Perpetuating PoverU’: I’he WorldrnBank, the IMF, and die Developing World.rntration also wants to spend $3.1 billion on the African DevelopmentrnP’oundation in order to “generate new jobs, protectrnAfrica’s environment, and strengthen basic democratic valuesrnand civil society.”rn’I’he potpourri of multilateral aid institutions —the WorldrnBank; the International Monetary Fund; regional banks forrnAfrica, Asia, Europe, Lahn America, and North America; andrnmore—will consume another $2.1 billion. Finally, more thanrn$800 million is slated for Food for Peace, which subsidizes foreignrnagricultural shipments (and U.S. farmers) in the name ofrnfeeding the world.rnSeeurih’ assistance, largely administered by the Pentagon, accountsrnfor almost seven billion dollars. About $4.3 billion goesrnto subsidize l).S. anus .sales abroad; another $420 million is slatedrnto support peacekeeping operations and promote nonproliferahon.rnThere is also $2.3 billion doled out by USAID for thernEconomic Support Fund, which is essentially a cash transfer tornthose governments which happen to be on Washington’s annualrngift list. Israel is a prime recipient.rnSince World War II, die United States has contributed (inrncurrent dollars) more than one trillion dollars in bilateral andrnmultilateral assistance to other countries. Other nations and internationalrnaid agencies have provided hundreds of billions ofrndollars more.rnWliat do they have to show for all of this effort? Althoughrnsome individual development projects have worked and humanitarianrnaid can help alleviate the effects of crises, there is litdernevidence that American cash transfers have done nineli tornadvance growdi or stability throughout the developing world.rnMost obviously, Hiere is no evidence that abundant “aid” hasrnhelped move poor Third World states into the industrial age.rnEven USAID has been forced to admit that “much of the inlUNErn2000/13rnrnrn