The United States is not alone in budgeting large sums for foreign development assistance. During the 1992 Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro, it was proposed that the developed nations should commit 0.7 per cent of their gross national product to overseas assistance
The freshly minted US department of government efficiency (DOGE), led by billionaire Elon Musk, began examining the American government’s expenditures promptly after President Donald Trump was sworn in on January 20. The revelations began tumbling out, especially on the Musk-controlled social media platform X, formerly Twitter. Distorted facts and exaggerated figures have been critical to Mr Trump’s politics. The attack on the US Agency for International Development (USAID) followed this trend.
There was an uproar in India when President Trump, speaking in Miami, brought focus on the alleged $21 million funding for enhancing voter turnout in India. He provocatively questioned whether some previous US government was “trying to get somebody else elected”. The BJP could not resist promptly using it to target the Opposition, especially the Congress Party. A national newspaper the following day exposed flaws in the charge, after examining the USAID data. They concluded that the sum perhaps had gone to Bangladesh, and not India. In any case, the said sum amounting to around Rs 182 crores or less, depending on the dollar-rupee rate, would be a drop in the ocean of Indian electoral spending, declared and undeclared.
The United States is not alone in budgeting large sums for foreign development assistance. During the 1992 Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro, it was proposed that the developed nations should commit 0.7 per cent of their gross national product to overseas assistance. In 2011, the US only touched 0.20 per cent. The pre-Trump figures showed that the USAID outlay was $41 billion out of the total government budget of $6 trillion, or 0.014 per cent. Thus, the DOGE may end up harming America’s image abroad out of proportion to the amounts that it may actually save by curtailing USAID drastically.
The USAID programme began in November 1961, inspired by the global vision of President John F. Kennedy. The US already had foreign development assistance programmes, employing almost 6,400 personnel. But President Kennedy told the US Congress, when recommending the bill, that the 1960s would be the Decade of Development. But no nation runs a charity without clear strategic objectives. The US aimed to globally expand democracy and free markets in an era of decolonisation and the Cold War. The US wanted to expand not only its influence but also to spread its model of democratic governance across the world, as a counter to the then Soviet Union’s Communist model.
The objectives of USAID were thus quite diverse. It covered disaster relief, poverty alleviation, technical cooperation, socio economic development, health and family welfare, education, democracy, environment and “bilateral interests”. The last element would cover support for civil society organisations monitoring governmental performance. This foray into the civil affairs of any nation even involved working alongside military personnel, if the United States military had already intervened there. Two cases in point would be Afghanistan and Iraq. In both, despite the expenditure of trillions of dollars, transition to a liberal democratic structure has failed.
India’s external affairs ministry may call Mr Trump’s remarks “deeply disturbing” and others loudly protest against foreign interference in the Indian elections, but the nexus between USAID funds and voters getting significantly influenced is missing. In particular, the involvement of Opposition parties in such an episode is even less likely. There have been occasional charges in the past of the CIA working in tandem with USAID. But actual US success in manipulating elections in even small countries has been rare. In a country of India’s size, it would be even more difficult if not impossible. But from the time of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi the “foreign hand” theory has been employed by governments to taint their opponents and garner public support.
The planned reduction of USAID employees from 10,000 to 294 would globally cripple development assistance. For instance, 20 million HIV patients, including 50,000 children, may lose treatment. In addition, clinical trials involving HIV, malaria, cholera, cervical cancer and tuberculosis would get interrupted, if not abandoned. The bulk of USAID funds have gone to sub-Saharan Africa and Europe & Eurasia. Allegations exist of a US role in the change of government in Bangladesh.
This indicates American priorities in South Asia. India’s BJP government being a US-friendly one negates the argument about any US attempt to change it.
India’s foreign assistance programme began in 1964, despite itself being an aid recipient for decades after Independence in 1947. In fact, aid to Nepal was given even as early as the 1950s. The Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) was at its core. It covered various areas of training for foreign civil and defence personnel. In 2012, India established the Development Partnership Administration (DPA), in the ministry of external affairs, on the lines of USAID.
This clubbed together the existing mechanisms of foreign aid to thereafter cover lines of credit, grants-in-aid for development projects, capacity building, humanitarian assistance and cultural and heritage partnership. Even India would calibrate its aid depending on a country’s strategic importance, including the need to isolate it from Chinese or Pakistani influence. Indian public sector companies like Rail India Technical and Economic Service (RITES) have used training and aid abroad to open doors for future business opportunities.
The present brouhaha raises a number of questions. Firstly, knowing President Trump’s propensity for fact-free allegations and misconstrued data, the Indian government should have been careful before fuelling a domestic political controversy. Secondly, the USAID agenda has always included a pro-democracy sub-theme. Thus, even if it financed some civil society groups to advance that, of which so far there is little proof, how is the Opposition involved? Considering that the Union government has been targeting civil society groups and withdrawing the permission of many to use foreign funds, why were the USAID funds not detected?
Reports have appeared that Starlink, owned by Elon Musk, the DOGE supremo, faced an inquiry by USAID. The freezing of all foreign aid will face legal challenges, which may linger for months. However, the pain inflicted on the hungry and ailing in low-income nations, especially in southern Africa, will be immediate. So too would be the damage to America’s global reputation and influence. It can allow China to exploit the vacuum and gain influence. India too needs to activate its DPA to ensure that the space vacated by the United States is not cornered by China.
Targeting India’s Opposition parties, based on the Trumpian disinformation, is thus a wild goose chase.
