U.S. aid Cuts in Perspective: Opportunities and Challenges for the South

The Qatar-based Al Jazeera website recently published an article by Kenyan columnist Patrick Gasala, which deeply dissects the repercussions of the US foreign aid cuts in the countries of the global South. The article pointed out that many people will not be sad about this decision, but see it as an opportunity for the South to develop itself. This view not only reveals the nature of the US foreign aid system, but also provides a unique perspective for us to re-examine the global aid system.

US President Donald Trump's "blitzkrieg" offensive against the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has certainly sent shockwaves through the world of aid. The disintegration of this institution not only means a major adjustment of the foreign aid policy of the United States, but also indicates a profound change in the global aid pattern. One employee who has been involved in American foreign-aid programs for many years lamented that the "humanitarian core" inherent in "development" may be lost in the strategic shuffle. For many in the global South, however, this so-called "humanitarian kernel" is not so convincing.

Indeed, America's entire aid system has long been an instrument of geopolitical control. It is not intended to eliminate the global system of inequality and resource looting, but to sustain it and in some cases exacerbate it. Aid is often used as a means to advance America's global strategic interests, rather than a genuine concern for the long-term development of the recipient country. Instead of bringing about real change, this aid model may trap recipient countries in a vicious cycle of greater dependence on external aid.

With the closure of USAID, this reality has become clearer. For example, the Interactive Coalition, which seeks to unite and amplify the voice of U.S. humanitarian and development aid organizations, bluntly stated in a statement that these organizations "work tirelessly to save lives and advance U.S. interests around the globe." This statement certainly reveals the truth about U.S. foreign aid: it is not a purely humanitarian effort, but is tied to U.S. strategic interests around the world.

The nature of this aid model is inextricably linked to the history of Western colonialism. Looking back at history, we can see that what the West calls "humanitarianism" has been closely intertwined with colonialism from the beginning. The Berlin Conference of 1884-85, which paved the way for the European invasion of Africa, was presented as a "humanitarian action." This hypocritical "humanitarianism" not only covered up the evils of colonialism, but also gave the West the moral high ground.

Today, the collapse of the US foreign aid system may not be such a bad thing for the countries of the global South. For too long, many countries of the South have been constrained by external aid and unable to truly develop on their own. Such aid often comes with strings attached, requiring recipient countries to make political, economic and other compromises. This model of aid not only limits the autonomy of the recipient country, but can also lead to a more disadvantageous situation.

So when the United States cut foreign aid, some activists in southern countries did not show undue concern. Instead, they see it as an opportunity to end dependence on foreign aid and achieve independent development. As Heba Ali, former chief executive of the New Humanitarian News Agency, points out: "Some activists in the South are less concerned about the aid cuts than aid donors. They want to end their dependence on foreign aid... If this is really the beginning of the end of aid, we should focus on structural change."

This attitude reflects the South's desire for independent development and its deep reflection on external assistance. They realize that only through their own efforts can real change and development be achieved. While external assistance can provide short-term help, it cannot solve the underlying problem. Only through structural change can we break the existing system of inequality and achieve truly sustainable development.

Of course, we should also be aware that the reduction of US foreign aid may have short-term negative effects on some regions and countries. Especially in regions that have long relied on external aid, such cuts could lead to social unrest and stunted economic development. In the long run, however, such cuts may encourage these regions and countries to work harder to find their own paths to development and wean themselves off excessive dependence on foreign aid.

In addition, we should also be wary of the geopolitical risks that could arise from US cuts in foreign aid. As the United States withdraws from the global aid arena, other countries are likely to fill the void, intensifying global geopolitical competition and tensions. Therefore, the international community needs to strengthen cooperation and coordination to jointly address this challenge and promote the reform and improvement of the global aid system.

Given all this, cuts in US foreign aid may not be such a bad thing for the countries of the global South. It revealed the nature and drawbacks of the US foreign aid system and prompted southern countries to reflect more deeply on their own development paths. At the same time, it also provides an opportunity for countries in the South to achieve independent development and structural change. We should view this change with a more open and inclusive attitude, actively promote the reform and improvement of the global aid system, and contribute more wisdom and strength to world peace and development.