战略与国际研究中心-Africa-Notes_-US-Aid-to-Africa_-Who-Gets-What,-When,-and-How_6页_1mb

U.S. Aid to Africa: Who Gets What, When, and How

Core Content

This document provides an in-depth analysis of U.S. aid to sub-Saharan Africa in the early 1980s, focusing on the structure, allocation, and political dynamics of both multilateral and bilateral assistance programs. It highlights the complexity of U.S. foreign aid policies and the interplay between different governmental agencies and political actors in shaping these policies.

Categories of Aid

The U.S. provides aid to Africa through two main categories:

1. Multilateral Aid

   • Contributions to the World Bank and International Development Association (IDA), which offer loans to developing countries at near-commercial and soft terms respectively.
   • Support for the African Development Bank (ADB) and its African Development Fund (ADF), which provide hard and soft loans for specific projects.
   • Smaller contributions to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and other UN agencies like FAO and WHO.

2. Bilateral Aid

   • Economic Assistance: Includes:
     • Development Assistance (DA): Loans and grants for specific projects (e.g., health, agriculture, infrastructure).
     • Economic Support Fund (ESF): Flexible, fast-dispersing support for budget and balance of payments.
     • Food for Peace: Food aid for balance of payments, feeding programs, and emergency relief.
     • Peace Corps: Placement of volunteers for local development and education.
   • Military Assistance: Includes:
     • Military Assistance Program (MAP): Grants for purchasing U.S. military equipment.
     • Foreign Military Sales (FMS): Credits for military purchases.
     • International Military Education and Training (IMET): Short courses for foreign military personnel at U.S. facilities.

Policy Guidelines and Criteria

• Aid is used to serve multiple objectives: security, political support, humanitarian relief, and long-term development.
• The Reagan administration emphasized aid to "proven friends"—governments supportive of U.S. foreign policy and receptive to American influence.
• There is a growing focus on the private sector in development, though this shift is not always reflected in actual projects.
• Aid is often directed to countries that can effectively use it or are willing to implement economic reforms.

Turf Problems and Interagency Conflicts

• The Department of State prioritizes political and crisis-oriented aid decisions.
• AID (Agency for International Development) focuses on long-term development and often resists political manipulation of aid.
• The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) typically recommends cuts to foreign aid, which are often partially restored by the administration.
• There is ongoing debate over the budgetary control of aid programs, with proposals like the Carlucci Commission's MDSA (Mutual Development and Security Administration) aiming to centralize aid under the Department of State.
• Congressional committees, particularly the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, play a key role in the appropriations process, which is often more influential than the authorization process.

The Annual Aid Process

• The process is a long and complex negotiation involving multiple agencies and stakeholders.
• The Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science, and Technology is the only official who reviews all foreign assistance programs in one place.
• Continuing resolutions are often used to bypass the need for a full vote on aid bills, allowing for funding without political backlash.
• The administration frequently requests supplemental appropriations, extending the negotiation period and altering the political landscape.

Favored Countries and Reasons

• Sudan is the largest recipient of U.S. aid in sub-Saharan Africa in 1984, receiving $240 million. It is seen as strategically important due to its Red Sea coastline, security threats, and financial distress.
• Kenya and Somalia also receive significant aid, with $112 million and $110 million respectively. These are linked to strategic access to port facilities in the Indian Ocean.
• Zimbabwe receives $40 million in 1984, a drop from previous years, due to its UN actions that opposed U.S. interests.
• Zaire receives $39 million, with a focus on strategic location and historical ties to U.S. interests, despite its corrupt governance and lack of development effectiveness.

Anomalies in Aid Allocation

• IDA funding has been sharply reduced due to U.S. insistence, reflecting the Reagan administration's skepticism of multilateral institutions.
• ESF has grown significantly, by 140% from 1981 to 1985, while DA and Food for Peace have seen less change.
• Congressional politics influence aid levels, with liberals and conservatives often in conflict over funding priorities.
• The Congressional Black Caucus has played a role in supporting specific aid programs in Africa.

Conclusion

U.S. aid to Africa is shaped by a mix of strategic, political, and economic considerations, with the bureaucratic and institutional conflicts between agencies like the State Department and AID complicating the process. The political dynamics in Congress, including the influence of special interest groups and committee structures, further add to the complexity and inconsistency of aid allocation. Despite these challenges, aid remains a key tool in U.S. foreign policy, particularly in maintaining diplomatic leverage and strategic interests in the region.