Comment by somenameforme
1 day ago
China was already 'winning' in Africa before the cuts. [1] I think one big reason for this is that USAID was often used much more like a hard power weapon than a soft power one. We'd create a dependency and then threaten to withdraw funding whenever we wanted something. And we did this endlessly. But that mindset also drove the actions of USAID. So for instance they claimed to be about creating independent and self sustaining systems, but the outcomes they achieved were nothing like that.
Drugs to Africa are a good example. Why in the world was USAID buying massive quantities of commercialized pills and then sending them to Africa instead of establishing local pharmaceutical manufacturing? Drugs are very cheap to produce and this would provide a great deal of independence for these African countries, eventually even enabling the US to no longer have to support these countries. But I think that was the problem. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life, give a man a fish each day and he is dependent upon you for life.
By contrast China has already established multiple domestic pharmaceutical production facilities in Africa. And they also did it at basically no cost to the state since they are all (AFAIK at least) private joint ventures. So not only are African countries increasingly able to produce their own drugs, but it also helps grow their economies, create a demand for local expertise, and also ends up with some money getting sent back to China. And again, I think this all comes down to motive and perverse incentives. China's, as usual, playing the long-game whereas we're, as usual, focused on what we can get next quarter.
[1] - https://www.theafricareport.com/427434/poll-us-lags-behind-c...
It definitely seems like it would have been better to reform USAID to do exactly as you say, make it more of a long term positive institution, versus shutting it down entirely.
Worth reminding us that regardless of our opinion on it, the shutdown was likely unconstitutional according to a federal judge. USAID was set up and funds appropriated by congress.
The problem here I think this is like saying the government just shouldn't let itself be influenced by private capital. In an ideal world that's obviously true. But in practical terms, it's impossible and no sort of law, regulation, or group is going to change that. Government foreign assistance exists in large part to create leverage over other countries. USAID was dropping $60billion+ at its peak in collaboration with the Department of State and Department of Defense. There were major expected returns from their actions, and not in the sense of impoverished people with AIDS thinking more highly of the US.
As for the legal battles around it - yeah some judge said it would be likely unconstitutional and ordered an injunction halting its shutdown. 10 days later that injunction was overturned when an appeals court found the government appeal likely to succeed on merit. The legal wrangling continues, but judicial activism is very much a thing and so one-off judgements mean basically nothing now a days, which is precisely another demonstration of why Machiavellianism is so stupid.