(2) The House of Representatives has passed H.R. 7, which
includes an accounting measure effectively prohibiting most
U.S. support for UN Peacekeeping, by counting bilateral
costs of U.S. operations approved by the UN (such as the
Persian Gulf, the bilateral intervention in Haiti) against
U.S. assessed obligations. The Senate will soon take up a
similar bill (S. 5). Even if, as some Republicans say, there
are loopholes that would still allow some U.S.
contributions, the result would be a further drastic
reduction in UN peacekeeping capacity. The Council for a
Livable World (Tel: 202-543-4100; Fax: 202-543-6297) and the
Washington Office on Africa
(3) Development assistance will continue under intense
pressure to be cut drastically. With aid to Israel, Egypt,
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union enjoying greater
political protection, Africa will be a particular target.
Senator McConnell and others are expected to continue their
push to eliminate the Development Fund for Africa as an
earmarked account, leaving priorities within bilateral
assistance contingent on strategic significance and short-
term economic prospects for U.S. business. Senator Helms is
pressing a proposal to merge USAID, the African Development
Foundation, and the InterAmerican Foundation into a new
agency which would marginalize sustainable development as a
goal and not fund government-to-government programs at all.
Most Africa advocacy groups in the U.S. stress that they are
not defenders of the USAID status quo. But they argue that
drastic cuts and guidelines specifically excluding the goal
of sustainable development will simply work to further
marginalize Africa, and be used to justify cuts by other
countries and international agencies as well. (Thus the
Canadian International Development Agency has also announced
cuts, aimed particularly at the strong NGO programs of
development education in Canada.) Groups such as
Bread for the World
The attack on funding for international involvement,
however, builds on extraordinary levels of public ignorance
about the actual sums involved. A new poll on peacekeeping
by the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes, reported by
*The New York Times* today, showed that a majority of 67% of
the U.S. public still express strong support for UN
peacekeeping in general (down from 84% a year ago). But
when the respondents were asked to estimate what percentage
of the U.S. budget goes for international peacekeeping, the
median response was 22% (the actual figure is equivalent to less than
1% of the U.S. defense budget alone). They also thought on average
that the U.S. provides about 40% of UN peacekeeping troops,
ten times the actual percentage. [More details of the poll are
expected to be available soon.]
A poll earlier this year by the same agency (see summary
below) showed parallel results on the issue of foreign aid.
Such perceptions, combined with long-standing stereotypes of
Africa as a hopeless and undifferentiated morass of violence
and poverty, pose formidable obstacles to the many groups
working to counter the drive to further marginalize Africa.
Attachment: Poll Reveals Contradictory Views on AID
A new study of American public attitudes on foreign aid was
recently conducted by the Program on International Policy
Attitudes of the Center for International and Security
Studies of the University of Maryland. It included a poll
of 801 Americans conducted January 12-15 (margin of error
plus or minus 3.5-4%), focus groups, interviews and a review
of other polls. It found that:
1. An overwhelming majority of respondents (80%) embrace
the principle that the United States should give some aid to help
people in foreign countries who are in genuine need. Only 8%
want to eliminate foreign aid entirely.
2. A strong majority (75%) says that the United States is
spending too much on foreign aid. But this attitude is
based on the assumption that the US is spending vastly more
than it is, in fact. Asked to estimate how much of the
federal budget goes to foreign aid, the median estimate of those
responding was 15% -- 15 times actual spending [only about 1% of
the budget]. (Other polls have found even higher estimates).
Asked what an "appropriate" amount would be, the median level
proposed was 5%. Asked how much would be too much, the median
response was 13%, while 3% was seen as "too little" -- still 3 times
present spending.
3. When informed about the actual amount of spending on
foreign aid, the number who felt that the amount was too much
was 18% -- down from the 75% who had previously felt that the
US was spending too much. When informed, a strong majority
(62%) favored either maintaining or increasing foreign aid
spending.
4. The public wants to change the mix of priorities in
foreign aid spending, putting less emphasis on securing US
strategic allies and bases around the world and more
emphasis on helping the poor and needy.
5. Support for spending on poor countries stems partly from
a belief that the world is so interconnected that it is in
the economic interest of the US to promote the development
of Third World countries (63% agree).
6. Strong support also comes from the attitude that the US
has a moral obligation to help nations in need (67% agree),
while an overwhelming majority (77%) rejects the idea that
the US should only give aid when it promotes the US national
interest.
7. A strong majority (67%) supports the principle of giving
aid to help countries move toward democracy, including
former socialist countries, and 80% are unhappy about the
amount of aid that goes to countries that are not democratic
or have poor human rights records.
8. Eighty-three percent believe there is widespread waste
and corruption in foreign aid programs. A strong majority
(58%) would be willing to pay more in taxes if they believed
that more aid would get to the people who really need it.
9. To promote self-reliance, the majority (65%) is willing
to spend more on aid that emphasizes trade and development
and is willing to give poor countries preferential trade
treatment.
The study *Americans and Foreign Aid: A Study of American
Public Attitudes*, was conducted by the Program on
International Policy Attitudes, a program of the Center for
the Study of Policy Attitudes and the University of Maryland
Center for International and Security Studies. An 8-page
summary is available free from the Center for the Study of
Policy Attitudes (CSPA), 11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 610,
Washington, DC 20036. Phone: (202) 232-7500. Fax: (202)
232-1159. Email: cspa@vita.org. Inquire to CSPA for
pricing on the full study.
Editor: Ali B. Ali-Dinar
Message-Id: [199504302018.NAA22662@igc3.igc.apc.org]
From: "Washington Office on Africa" [woa@igc.apc.org]
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 16:08:15 +0000
Subject Peacekeeping, Development Aid: Congressional Ac tion
Previous
Menu
Home
Page
What's
New
Search
Country
Specific