Foreign Assistance for the Middle East in 2012
Last week, the Project on Middle East Democracy released its report on the federal budget and foreign assistance appropriations for FY2012. Subtitled “Democracy, Governance, and Human Rights in the Middle East,” it has both praise and criticism for US foreign assistance plans.
Praise is due for the various forms of foreign assistance and direct funding promised, which demonstrate “a clear commitment to supporting the political transitions in the Middle East and North Africa.” Aid for almost every state in the region was preserved, which is a substantial commitment considering that international affairs elsewhere in the world were gutted by more than $7 billion due to budget constraints.
The report also praises the allocation of $160m for a new regional response fund for MENA states, deeming it “an unusual but appropriate step that should allow needed flexibility to react to further developments in Syria, Libya, Yemen, or elsewhere.” The response fund indicates that the region’s volatility has important implications for American national security.
Despite these allocations, the dysfunctional US Congress has been unable to carry out the budget appropriations process on a reasonable and useful timeline. POMED condemns these delays for “interfering with the planning and execution of foreign affairs spending to a degree that undermines US national security and national interests.”
Also of note: despite the fact that the Arab Spring has spurred discussion of whether our foreign assistance strategy should shift its focus in the region from military to economic aid, the disparity between the two is still quite significant — see graph on p. 14.
Last week, markups of the bill fell under sharp criticism:
Rep. Howard Berman discussed the negative implications of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s markup last week of H.R.2583... Rep. Berman argued that the over 100 amendments added by GOP Congressmen sent a negative signal to the international community. He criticized his GOP counterparts for throwing “a series of tantrums” and failing to consider the consequences of the legislation.
While the bill has no chance of becoming law, the HFAC markup nevertheless has real and negative impacts on U.S. influence internationally, since outside observers assume the debate has real implications. He said, “It was a waste of time, but people around the world in other countries and other governments don’t know that it’s a total waste of time and will never become law and they think this is where U.S. policy is heading and they are going to react.” Rep. Berman concluded, “So even the act of doing this hurt American interests, because it creates anger and hostility and makes all the things we need to do more difficult.”
To see a breakdown of funding by state and more information on the major organizations charged with delivering aid, see POMED’s full report.
