THE FOREIGN AID AND FOREIGN HAND PROBLEM

President Trump's disruption of USAID seems to be ideological, not out of economic compulsion. Conversely, there is a fear its dismantling may result in the US losing its soft power

- SUGATA SRINIVASARAJU

HE United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, recently sparked a turbulent debate in India. Political parties tried to use the statements emanating from Washington DC against one another, especially the contradictory or quixotic ones of President Donald Trump.

The pitch was particularly high because a part of the aid had allegedly been given to ensure voter turnout, implying that the US had tried to interfere in our elections. However, since the answers to the question about who benefited from the aid, whether it was really meant to influence polls or given for such a purpose at all, were terribly hazy, the genie was put back into the bottle. Perhaps it will be pulled out by one political party or the other at a later point when it allows for a flat narrative with a clear target.

Whatever the chatter in India, at the core of the debate is the Trump regime's attempted dismantling of USAID, which it finds rather unproductive. Amidst intense review, nearly all foreign aid has been put on a three-month freeze. Independently gathered data shows India is not the biggest beneficiary of USAID philanthropy. Also, the money channeled through USAID to countries across the globe is not so humongous as to bankrupt the US.

Therefore, Trump's disruption is more ideological and not out of economic compulsions. It is another thing that the attack on USAID by the Trump regime may have 'dehumanized' the US in the eyes of the world and a large section of its citizenry because USAID was always meant to create a humanitarian halo for the US. There is also this fear, not unfounded, that the US may lose its soft power and strategic advantage (to countries like China) if USAID is indeed dismantled or dwarfed.