The recent U.S.A.I.D. cuts have impacted various projects in Vietnam and imperiled U.S.-Vietnam relations. A major project is an attempt to clean up soil contaminated with the deadly herbicide Agent Orange, which the U.S. military used on forests and water bodies during the Vietnam War. For instance, the Bien Hoa Air base has 500,000 cubic meters of contaminated soil, which can cause cancer and birth defects. Other projects include removing unexploded munitions and landmines, a rehabilitation program for war veterans, and a museum exhibit about the U.S.’s effort to help the country heal after the war. Funding for the base’s cleanup was halted, then restarted, and its future now remains uncertain. This comes close to the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War, when U.S.-Vietnam relations have been strengthening to counter China’s growing power and influence.
But a relationship that has taken 35 years to build up is now in jeopardy. Beyond helping hundreds of thousands of people around the world, U.S.A.I.D. is also a critical program to maintain positive bonds between the U.S. and the countries that it helps. Vietnam War veteran Chuck Searcy told AP News that the agency’s shutdown “is just another example of what a lot of critics want to remind us of: You can’t depend on the Americans. It is not a good message.”
Development aid is a cornerstone of promoting U.S. interests in global affairs. A Brookings article summarizes this by saying that, “[d]iplomacy, development, and defense are the three-legged stool upon which the U.S. national security strategy rests.” The article says that the current discussion of merging U.S.A.I.D. into the State Department would weaken the aid program’s effectiveness. While both institutions have similar objectives, the State Department and diplomacy are more focused on short-term goals and relationships with other countries that advantage U.S. foreign policy objectives. Development is focused on broader social, political, and economic goals that work on long-term projects and well-being. This often involves creating personal relationships with people and communities throughout the country rather than just diplomats and political representatives. Combining these two “legs” undermines the fundamental objective of development of aid, which is to be less immediate and less transactional than diplomacy.
An example of what is at stake comes through China’s influence in Southeast Asia. As U.S.A.I.D. pulls back from Southeast Asia, China is stepping up to become the major influence in the region. Its projects include the one trillion dollar Belt and Road Initiative, the Peace Ark medical assistance, and loans for energy and transport projects such as the East Coast Rail Link in Malaysia and Jakarta-Bandung railroad in Indonesia. China has also been investing in “soft aid” like promoting digital technology and public health. According to Aljazeera, surveys done in Southeast Asia show that about 60% of respondents thought China was the most powerful country in the region, but over half were also distrustful of it. But one thing that makes U.S.A.I.D. unique is that it includes social projects like promoting democracy and diversity. Additionally, China is also facing slowing growth at home, which could translate to rolling back on some aid projects.
The clearest solution for this would be to re-implement U.S.A.I.D. in the form that it was before it was shut down, not as part of the State Department. U.S.A.I.D. makes up only about one percent of the government’s budgets, but the payoffs are enormous in terms of the people it helps. The money helps with the World Food Program, the U.N. Children’s Fund, and the P.E.P.F.A.R. fund which helps save millions of people who have HIV/AIDS. It also supports local N.G.O.s and grassroots organizations fighting for women’s rights, democracy, and more. The security benefits it has for the U.S. are numerous, such as exerting soft power and creating positive relationships. The abrupt ending of the program makes the U.S. seem untrustworthy and unreliable, threatening decades of relationships that have been built up. Overall, if the current administration’s goal is to cut down on government spending, this does not seem like the logical place to start. The agency hardly seems like wasteful spending and it will not have a huge impact on the government’s budget deficit.
Additionally, while the executive branch can make recommendations, Congress should be the one reviewing the institution and making the final decision on the future of the program. According to Brookings article, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 prohibits restructuring or reorganizing U.S.A.I.D. without approval from the head of the organization. An executive order shutting down the agency seems to violate this condition, especially since Congress is the institution in charge of government spending. This move counters the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution, and Congress and the courts should step up to make sure power is not being overstepped.
Finally, the Trump administration needs to be clear about their foreign policy objectives. Recent actions such as being outspoken against close allies like the E.U., pulling back diplomatic and development projects like U.S.A.I.D., and hiking up tariffs with close trading partners like Mexico and Canada does not seem to benefit the American people in any way. It is contrary to the “America First” foreign policy objective since most of these actions will end up hurting Americans. The administration should be clear to citizens about what their goals are and how recent actions will contribute to achieving those goals.
Overall, in the interest of saving lives and protecting U.S. national security interests and diplomatic relationships, it is imperative that U.S.A.I.D. is protected. It is critical to doing important work around the world and helping the U.S. in the long term. The program is a good way to promote camaraderie and peaceful relations in the global system.
