|
Algeria
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central Afr. Rep.
Chad
Comoros
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo (Kinshasa)
C�te d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
São Tomé
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Western Sahara
Zambia
Zimbabwe
|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
Africa: Congressional Actions Expected
Any links to other sites in this file from 1995 are not clickable,
given the difficulty in maintaining up-to-date links in old files.
However, we hope they may still provide leads for your research.
Africa: Congressional Actions Expected
Date Distributed (ymd): 950430
Peacekeeping, Development Aid:
Key Congressional Actions Expected in May
APIC UPDATE - April 30, 1995
As Congress returns from recess after the Easter vacation,
the Republican majority will be continuing its drive to make
fundamental changes in national priorities, on both domestic
and international issues.
Cuts in the current year's budget (rescissions) voted by the
House and Senate before the recess took $60 million from
funds previously approved for the International Development
Association (the World Bank's soft loan affiliate), $62
million from the African Development Fund (associated with
the African Development Bank), $15 million from
international peacekeeping, and $12.5 million from bilateral
economic assistance. They also mandated an additional $125 million
in additional foreign operations cuts to be specified by the
administration's Office of Management and Budget. The
supplemental bills including these cuts failed to approve
the administration's supplemental request for $672 million
for payment of overdue U.S. peacekeeping obligations.
The proposal by Senator Mitch McConnell to remove $110
million from the bilateral Development Fund for Africa (one-
eighth of the total $802 million) was, however, defeated by
intense lobbying and grass-roots mobilization by a number of
Africa advocacy groups, including the Washington Office on
Africa, the American Committee on Africa, Bread for the
World, Interaction, and others.
Coming up in May:
(1) Both the House and Senate will be considering budget
resolutions for Fiscal Year 1996, which begins in October
1995. The roughly $20 billion international affairs "150"
account, which includes development aid and peacekeeping as
well as operating expenses for the State Department and
other agencies, may be cut drastically, by as much as $2.6
billion to $5 billion. Since many items in the account,
such as operating expenses and funding for Israel and Egypt,
will be protected, a lower "150" limit will put the greatest
pressure on the most vulnerable items: peacekeeping and
development aid for other regions. Groups including
Interaction and Church World Service
are spearheading the effort to keep
cuts to this account under $1.5 billion.
(2) The House of Representatives has passed H.R. 7, which
includes an accounting measure effectively prohibiting most
U.S. support for UN Peacekeeping, by counting bilateral
costs of U.S. operations approved by the UN (such as the
Persian Gulf, the bilateral intervention in Haiti) against
U.S. assessed obligations. The Senate will soon take up a
similar bill (S. 5). Even if, as some Republicans say, there
are loopholes that would still allow some U.S.
contributions, the result would be a further drastic
reduction in UN peacekeeping capacity. The Council for a
Livable World (Tel: 202-543-4100; Fax: 202-543-6297) and the
Washington Office on Africa are two of the
groups actively opposing S.5.
(3) Development assistance will continue under intense
pressure to be cut drastically. With aid to Israel, Egypt,
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union enjoying greater
political protection, Africa will be a particular target.
Senator McConnell and others are expected to continue their
push to eliminate the Development Fund for Africa as an
earmarked account, leaving priorities within bilateral
assistance contingent on strategic significance and short-
term economic prospects for U.S. business. Senator Helms is
pressing a proposal to merge USAID, the African Development
Foundation, and the InterAmerican Foundation into a new
agency which would marginalize sustainable development as a
goal and not fund government-to-government programs at all.
Most Africa advocacy groups in the U.S. stress that they are
not defenders of the USAID status quo. But they argue that
drastic cuts and guidelines specifically excluding the goal
of sustainable development will simply work to further
marginalize Africa, and be used to justify cuts by other
countries and international agencies as well. (Thus the
Canadian International Development Agency has also announced
cuts, aimed particularly at the strong NGO programs of
development education in Canada.) Groups such as
Bread for the World , the Washington
Office on Africa, and African Americans for Aid to Africa
(c/o Washington Office on Africa) have stressed that reform
in the direction of sustainable development depends on
clearly identifying the goals of promoting self-help
development and poverty reduction, and preserving funding
levels for the bilateral Development Fund for Africa at the
1995 figure of $802 million.
The attack on funding for international involvement,
however, builds on extraordinary levels of public ignorance
about the actual sums involved. A new poll on peacekeeping
by the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes, reported by
*The New York Times* today, showed that a majority of 67% of
the U.S. public still express strong support for UN
peacekeeping in general (down from 84% a year ago). But
when the respondents were asked to estimate what percentage
of the U.S. budget goes for international peacekeeping, the
median response was 22% (the actual figure is equivalent to less than
1% of the U.S. defense budget alone). They also thought on average
that the U.S. provides about 40% of UN peacekeeping troops,
ten times the actual percentage. [More details of the poll are expected to
be available soon.]
A poll earlier this year by the same agency (see summary
below) showed parallel results on the issue of foreign aid.
Such perceptions, combined with long-standing stereotypes of
Africa as a hopeless and undifferentiated morass of violence
and poverty, pose formidable obstacles to the many groups
working to counter the drive to further marginalize Africa.
Attachment: Poll Reveals Contradictory Views on AID
A new study of American public attitudes on foreign aid was
recently conducted by the Program on International Policy
Attitudes of the Center for International and Security
Studies of the University of Maryland. It included a poll
of 801 Americans conducted January 12-15 (margin of error
plus or minus 3.5-4%), focus groups, interviews and a review
of other polls. It found that:
1. An overwhelming majority of respondents (80%) embrace
the principle that the United States should give some aid to help
people in foreign countries who are in genuine need. Only 8%
want to eliminate foreign aid entirely.
2. A strong majority (75%) says that the United States is
spending too much on foreign aid. But this attitude is
based on the assumption that the US is spending vastly more
than it is, in fact. Asked to estimate how much of the
federal budget goes to foreign aid, the median estimate of those
responding was 15% -- 15 times actual spending [only about 1% of
the budget]. (Other polls have found even higher estimates).
Asked what an "appropriate" amount would be, the median level
proposed was 5%. Asked how much would be too much, the median
response was 13%, while 3% was seen as "too little" -- still 3 times
present spending.
3. When informed about the actual amount of spending on
foreign aid, the number who felt that the amount was too much
was 18% -- down from the 75% who had previously felt that the
US was spending too much. When informed, a strong majority
(62%) favored either maintaining or increasing foreign aid
spending.
4. The public wants to change the mix of priorities in
foreign aid spending, putting less emphasis on securing US
strategic allies and bases around the world and more
emphasis on helping the poor and needy.
5. Support for spending on poor countries stems partly from
a belief that the world is so interconnected that it is in
the economic interest of the US to promote the development
of Third World countries (63% agree).
6. Strong support also comes from the attitude that the US
has a moral obligation to help nations in need (67% agree),
while an overwhelming majority (77%) rejects the idea that
the US should only give aid when it promotes the US national
interest.
7. A strong majority (67%) supports the principle of giving
aid to help countries move toward democracy, including
former socialist countries, and 80% are unhappy about the
amount of aid that goes to countries that are not democratic
or have poor human rights records.
8. Eighty-three percent believe there is widespread waste
and corruption in foreign aid programs. A strong majority
(58%) would be willing to pay more in taxes if they believed
that more aid would get to the people who really need it.
9. To promote self-reliance, the majority (65%) is willing
to spend more on aid that emphasizes trade and development
and is willing to give poor countries preferential trade
treatment.
The study *Americans and Foreign Aid: A Study of American
Public Attitudes*, was conducted by the Program on
International Policy Attitudes, a program of the Center for
the Study of Policy Attitudes and the University of Maryland
Center for International and Security Studies. An 8-page
summary is available free from the Center for the Study of
Policy Attitudes (CSPA), 11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 610,
Washington, DC 20036. Phone: (202) 232-7500. Fax: (202)
232-1159. Email: [email protected]. Inquire to CSPA for
pricing on the full study.
*******************************************************
This update was prepared by the Africa Policy Information
Center (APIC). APIC's primary objective is to widen the
policy debate in the United States around African issues and
the U.S. role in Africa, by concentrating on providing
accessible policy-relevant information and analysis usable
by a wide range of groups and individuals. APIC is
affiliated with the Washington Office on Africa (WOA),
a not-for-profit church, trade union and civil rights
group supported organization that works with Congress
on Africa-related legislation.
*******************************************************
|
