The US gave aid to Russia??? And Ukraine's not on the list? Those aren't the only weird numbers here. But most of all, it would be so interesting to see what the donee countries have spent all that money on.
Well, it does say "received the most foreign aid from the U.S. federal government in 2013." I think the Ukraine crisis started at the end of 2013 (November if I recall correctly), so I guess that would make sense. Relations between Russia and the USA were quite okay under Medvedev, who became president in 2009.
What's not to believe? Read history. The tragedy is not that they will become your enemies, it's what it's meant for people subject to the recipients. Heavy military support to Mubarak, successive Turkish regimes, the house of Saud, Israel, and the most consistently murderous government in Latin America (Colombia) - not to mention Suharto, Mobutu, the Duvaliers and a great many others; heavy direct and proxy attacks against anyone associated with any sort of nationalist project, regardless of political stripe. Nationalist projects, by the way, which are often rather popular: nationalizing oil and gas (Mossadegh, Morales); nationalizing unused banana lands in Guatemala (Arbenz); developing a tourist industry that aimed to keep more money in Grenada (Bishop); attempting to enforce the Geneva Conventions concerning the reunification of Vietnam (Ho). The list could go on.
The secular military dictatorships of Egypt kept the peace with Israel and kept Islamists and theocrats out of power. This is a positive thing for the people of Egypt. The AlSauds do the same. They pretend to be Islamists to appease the crazies in their own country but they are not. Thinking that if only democracy would flourish in a place like Saudi Arabia and magically it would transform into a peaceful, progressive paradise is SO naive. And the Americans have almost NOTHING to do with keeping the AlSauds in power, anyway. But of course ignorant people have to blame the US for EVERYTHING. If they topple one dictator the result is their fault. If they engage with another peacefully whatever that dictator does is their fault. Democracy is not always great. Being popular doesn't make you a good leader. See Trump, Sisi, Khomeini, Hitler, etc. Nationalism is horrible. See WW1, WW2, white nationalism, Armenian genocide, etc etc. Nationalizing legal foreign industries is theft. could go on
On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, there is a well-documented history declassified straight from U.S. intelligence agencies showing that we have on several occasions propped up dictators in order to further U.S. business interests. And "legal foreign industries" have sometimes (though not always) been a continuation of colonial or neo-colonial projects. I'm not sure I'd characterize the nationalization of the Suez Canal or horrible, powerful Chiquita farms to amount to theft.
All that said, I absolutely agree that it's naive to think sending aid of ANY sort to a dictatorship is an endorsement of their actions or necessarily makes those actions our fault. And I absolutely agree that it's naive to think the world would be full of utopian democracies if only those damn Americans left. I've also seen the blaming of the US regardless of outcome like you mentioned.
When I was in Uganda four years ago they told me that Kony wasn't actually there anymore but actually had crossed the border into one of it's more lawless neighbours like Congo, South Sudan, or Central African Republic but they kept telling wealthier countries that he was so they could get more handouts to "deal with him".
Russia is no longer on the list and the Ukraine is. But as @Andbest correctly stated (and everyone else ignored) the aid is to help improve the security of materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons. This is a good thing.
Soo... the US spends years and years (and billions of dollars) tearing apart the Afghan nation and then gives them 4.5 BILLION DOLLARS? Wow. Wouldn't it have been easier to just NOT do any of it? And use our grown up words to TALK to each other instead?
And before that the Mujahideen. Both put there by foreign meddling. Najibullah was before them and, although arguably also put there by foreign meddling, the country looked very different under him - 40% of doctors and 60% of university students were women, for example. But Najibullah was a socialist, so...
It's amazing to see what Afghanistan looked like in the 1970s. They have gone so far backwards in such a short amount of time, it's incredible. They should be a warning for every nation regarding fundamentalism in general.
The US invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taleban and (ostensibly, though Bush said it wasn't a priority) go after bin Laden. They spend billions of dollars there to keep the Taleban from returning to power, to keep future bin Ladens from building more training camps or establishing a power base there, and, hopefully, to improve conditions in the country enough so that neither of those things would happen even without US involvement.
Though you may have a point that, purely from an economic standpoint, there may very well have been better approaches to doing this.
If they didn't "mess around" things would be a whole hell of a lot worse. But of course it's popular amongst the extraordinarily naive to believe otherwise.
I fully support America's aid to Afghanistan, because it definitely has made a difference. That being said though, I think it's obvious now that this foreign aid didn't do anything to stop the Taliban or even help the Afghan army (which folded in less than a month without US support) to take over from us.
I don't think the aid is a waste because it definitely accomplished a lot, but it also made the Afghan government dependent on us while failing to address issues of corruption and dysfunction. And now, much of what has been accomplished could be lost. I guess what I'm trying to say is that foreign aid shouldn't be just about pumping as much money as possible into an economy--it also should have the goal of promoting self-sufficiency and stability, something we miserably failed at.
Maybe Kabul, but at least not officially. On the other hand, anyone but Pakistan would acknowledge that Quetta is 100% taliban territory.
And thanks for the help cedo. I do realise it's "your", but English is not my first language (nor my second or third) and I don't and will not bother to spell and grammar check my posts on the average internet forum.
I would find it laughable if it wasn't so sad, that the USA gives so much to the countries that hate her most. Nearly all the mentioned countries would topple the USA if given the chance. ....... does nobody else find that sad?
It's mostly due to geopolitics, natural resources and corporate interests. 379 millions dollars to the DRC is not much if it helps gain access to their vast reserves of rare minerals.
This is going too far in the other direction. It's a bit of both. There are other large and powerful countries, like China for instance, that don't give a flip about foreign aid at all. And this is at least partially a reflection of different ideological approaches. Large amounts of foreign aid is both a tool for protecting and furthering US interests, AND compatible with American values.
It's a question of label. China just doesn't call it "foreign aid". But they do "help" all over Africa and beyond. For exemple building a road in Madagascar for free with the condition of making it pass by a mineral reserve they also invest in and run. That's more direct.
China really only aids themselves and their own industrial pursuits. Sometimes this has collateral benefits for local economies, but it's much more than a simple difference in labels. There's a difference in approach and mentality.
Foreign aid to these countries is not a present given to the people who love America the most.... it is an important geopolitical tool, as WTF pointed out, a way for the US to get its way with regimes that otherwise might not be so friendly; it's also a means by which the US supports certain governments that are supportive of US interests - often going against the will of the people in that country; of funding certain functions that the US wants carried out but is in effect delegating to these other governments (such as supporting the Afghan military in its efforts to suppress the Taleban); and finally it's an important tool for promoting economic development around the world which also is in the best interests of the United States.
If you are reading this in 2013, I come from the FUTURE! Please tell the government to stop giving aid to Russia and Syria. It will backfire on them. Also, you might want to stock up on some Ebola vaccines.
@Skamps. The aid to Russia is part of a long term program to ensure that nuclear material is secured. Unquestionably, this program was and is a huge positive for world peace.
Some of the uses of American money abroad: economic development, infrastructure (both maintenance and rebuilding), disaster relief, supporting the cost of holding democratic elections, preventing deforestation, training law enforcement to combat drug trafficking, HIV/AIDS prevention, malaria prevention and treatment... that is a lot of things, most of them very important. So, how much of the federal budget is allocated to foreign aid? Less than 1%. The Federal budget is over $4 trillion dollars. BTW - Ebola funding comes from the emergency assistance budget, not foreign aid.
With the exception of a "few" countries, most are Muslim countries. They hate us, we know it but yet we continue to provide them aid. What's wrong with this picture here!?
And besides, what gives you the impression that, say, for instance, Indonesia and India hate us? Just the two of them alone make up nearly 25% of the world's population of Muslims. And how many of the following countries with over 50% Muslim populations do you think consider us mortal enemy infidels?: Malaysia, Turkey, Morocco, Bosnia, Kosovo, Jordan, the Maldives, The Gambia, Senegal, Nigeria, Albania?
It depends on whose point of view you are referring to, the citizens of these countries, or their governments? In some cases the citizens don't hate the US, but their government is hostile. In other cases, the government cooperates, but the citizens hate the US so much so that they can be seen carrying signs saying as much.
Don't really care about the "whats and whys" we are giving aid to so many of our enemies. We shouldn't have to always be the world's caretakers, period. The US actively works against its own citizens and shamelessly promotes its own globalist propaganda while we behave like good little serfs
You don't care about the "whats and whys" if the "why" is that it benefits the US? So... they should stop foreign aid even if they're shooting themselves in the foot by doing so.... just on principle or out of spite? Because fewer than 100% of the people in these countries like us?
Because Israel needs enough money to be placed second on the list...
And where is Somalia, India, Chad, C.A.R, Libya, Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, Angola, Mozambique, West Africa, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, Saharan States, Central Asian States and others?!? Don't they need more money than Israel?!?
Many of the countries you listed may need the cash, but that doesn't mean giving it to them will lead to it being used effectively. Why exactly would we trust the leadership in a state like Venezuela to actually help their citizens with any foreign aid? Far more likely that they just use it to consolidate their power.
Wouldn't it be great if we used this money to help Americans instead of giving it to corrupt governments who will squander it while the people in these countries I don't give a damn about stay poor.
most of the money given to corrupt individuals or entities by the US government goes to Americans. Foreign aid is actually a pretty good use of money by comparison. For example, the $4.6 billion in tax subsidies given to fossil fuel companies, which nets us nothing but the destruction of our planet, and costs us more than the aid to all but one of the countries on this list, or the GOP 2017 tax cut for the rich which in the long term only benefits the obscenely wealthy and will add over one TRILLION dollars to the deficit, and does nothing but accelerate the decline of American economic and political relevance by concentrating more wealth at the top echelons, meanwhile costing us more than the foreign aid the US gives to the entire rest of the world combined. 20x more.
Aid was given to Syria, but not necessarily to the Syrian government. The United States gave aid to the opposition groups like the Free Syrian Army and the Kurdish armies.
probably a combination of humanitarian aid, some of which did flow through Damascus and some of which did not, and military and financial aid given to the peshmerga and others.
The fact that Afghanistan receives such a big amount of aid and hasn't lifted itself even a little bit is very ironic. It's like they throw them in the trashcan.
Why do all these complainers think we are just "giving" aid away for nothing? We are getting something for it, whether you like those countries or not.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if foreign aid ceased for 3 years. I guess the largest argument against doing that, is China/India/Russia would step in.
It's hard to swallow sending billions of dollars to worthless areas of the world, or which work against US interests.
I'm not sure if "embarrassing" is the right word to use, when pointing to 3/4 of these countries... Afg, Iraq, Isr, S. Sud, Syr, Nig, Pak, Yemen... It sure isn't right.
At least trade for oil/mineral/natural resource contracts. The last 50-100 years has shown charity/bribery causes more problems than it solves. 20 years of Afghanistan showed that, yet nothing changes.
All that said, I absolutely agree that it's naive to think sending aid of ANY sort to a dictatorship is an endorsement of their actions or necessarily makes those actions our fault. And I absolutely agree that it's naive to think the world would be full of utopian democracies if only those damn Americans left. I've also seen the blaming of the US regardless of outcome like you mentioned.
Though you may have a point that, purely from an economic standpoint, there may very well have been better approaches to doing this.
I don't think the aid is a waste because it definitely accomplished a lot, but it also made the Afghan government dependent on us while failing to address issues of corruption and dysfunction. And now, much of what has been accomplished could be lost. I guess what I'm trying to say is that foreign aid shouldn't be just about pumping as much money as possible into an economy--it also should have the goal of promoting self-sufficiency and stability, something we miserably failed at.
And thanks for the help cedo. I do realise it's "your", but English is not my first language (nor my second or third) and I don't and will not bother to spell and grammar check my posts on the average internet forum.
Sadly, that comment aged very poorly :(
What about Somalia???
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/02/10/383875581/guess-how-much-of-uncle-sams-money-goes-to-foreign-aid-guess-again
And where is Somalia, India, Chad, C.A.R, Libya, Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, Angola, Mozambique, West Africa, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, Saharan States, Central Asian States and others?!? Don't they need more money than Israel?!?
wait, what?
It's hard to swallow sending billions of dollars to worthless areas of the world, or which work against US interests.
I'm not sure if "embarrassing" is the right word to use, when pointing to 3/4 of these countries... Afg, Iraq, Isr, S. Sud, Syr, Nig, Pak, Yemen... It sure isn't right.
At least trade for oil/mineral/natural resource contracts. The last 50-100 years has shown charity/bribery causes more problems than it solves. 20 years of Afghanistan showed that, yet nothing changes.
Just a list of corruption.