Foreign Aid

With Mike Johnson as the new Speaker, the Republicans will have to get serious about American foreign policy objectives

What could be more foolish than to blow up half of Europe and the Far East and then give billions to repair the damage? What is more inconsistent than the killing of soldiers and civilians followed by superhuman efforts to save the lives of the survivors?

“We have,” said an exuberant campaign orator in the recent campaign, “the moral leadership of the world. The whole world trusts in our devotion to freedom and expects us to save mankind from totalitarianism.” That is how we see ourselves, at least in our more complacent moods. The world does not see us as we see ourselves.

In a series of articles in the fall of 1946, Christianity and Crisis contributors offered reports based upon their travels, including from Reinhold Niebuhr and John Baillie in Germany.

Militant groups like the Islamic State have long targeted Christian holy sites in the Middle East. According to Sara Savva, the destruction of sacred Christian sites in the region is “a loss for every single Christian around the world” and a “big loss for mankind.”

Christians in Nigeria and Ethiopia face nothing short of genocide. Religious and ethnic carnage have become an all-too-familiar reality in both countries, with no end in sight.

Helping nations in need often serves America’s most important interests while burnishing America’s highest ideals.

The downward trend in foreign aid spending by the US government is not a function of the American people losing interest in foreign aid. After all, it has never been popular. More likely, it’s a function of presidents no longer defending foreign aid, explaining it, or connecting it to the national interest.

Recent passage of the BUILD Act, which aims to “facilitate market-based private sector development and inclusive economic growth in less developed countries,” presents an ideal opportunity to discuss the thorny issue of foreign aid.