Foreign aid: The right choice

By: Michel Gabaudan

March 3, 2011 04:41 AM EST

Southern Sudanese refugees in the Ugandan capital city of Kampala. | AP Photo Close

America has a choice to make. As the Senate begins debate on the budget for the
remainder of fiscal 2011, senators will have to decide what this country’s international
priorities are.
Throughout U.S. history, successive Republican and Democratic administrations and
Congress have understood that foreign humanitarian assistance is vital to safeguarding
both U.S. interests and our national ideals.
Sadly, the House version of this budget reflects a devastating retreat of U.S. global
leadership and influence. If the House’s drastic cuts to lifesaving aid are enacted, the U.S.
would be shamefully abandoning the world’s most vulnerable people.
Much of the critical food, water, shelter and medicine for people displaced by war and
persecution is funded through the Migration and Refugee Assistance and International
Disaster Assistance accounts. Migration and Refugee Assistance also funds the
resettlement of refugees in the United States, while IDA funds allow Washington to
respond to natural disasters.
These two accounts represent less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the entire federal
budget. So it is hard to understand why they have been targeted for such large cuts. The
2011 budget passed by the House would slash the Migration and Refugee Assistance
account by more than 40 percent. The International Disaster Assistance account would be
cut to less than half.
Make no mistake: This money saves lives. Here are a few examples of the effect that U.S.
support has had in real terms for real people.
In Iraq, more than half the 1.5 million people now displaced internally are in desperate
need of shelter. The most vulnerable include about 500,000 people who live as squatters
in slum areas.
But with funding through the U.S. Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, the
basic humanitarian conditions have improved in these settlements. Washington also has
played a crucial role in promoting long-term solutions, like allocating land to people and
constructing new housing complexes. Abandoning these projects now would be a moral
and strategic blunder.
When the devastating magnitude 7 earthquake hit Haiti last January, in a matter of
seconds, hundreds of thousands of people were crushed by fallen buildings. A million
were instantly made homeless. The United States reacted immediately, through the
USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, to minimize the suffering and help the
Haitian people begin to rebuild their lives.
Just last month, Sudanese-Americans across the United States joined their countrymen
and women in a historic vote that will see the creation of a new nation. Those Sudanese-
Americans know firsthand the role that the United States played in helping them resettle
here. Now, they watch as U.S. support helps their friends and family back home begin the
process of building a new country.
For example, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance gave $4 million to help other
agencies establish contingency plans around the referendum. These funds proved
invaluable when 200,000 people returned to South Sudan, excited by the possibility of
determining the future of their country. As convoys made their way south, tens of
thousands of people ended up stranded in cities or along the road. This funding allowed
agencies to provide those people with food, health care and other basic necessities.
If senators can restore humanitarian funding to at least fiscal 2010 levels, that would allow
the U.S. government to continue providing critical assistance to victims of war, persecution
and natural disasters.
These small pots of money reap tremendous rewards for displaced people around the
world. Such investment should be an obvious choice to make.

Michel Gabaudan is president of Refugees International, an advocacy group that receives

no funding from the U.S. government or the United Nations.

© 2011 Capitol News Company, LLC