U.S. foreign aid cut

Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell's proposal to deeply slash aid to Africa, add restrictions to Russian assistance, cut levels elsewhere except in Europe and the Middle East, tuck the Peace Corps under the State Department and abolish the Agency for International Development had the predictable, explosive effect at the State Department.

That's understandable. But as disturbing as the changes seem to be, there is at least one small consolation for Aid officials. Compared with the way many Republicans in the new GOP-controlled Congress feel about foreign aid, Sen. McConnell, who will chair the influential foreign-aid appropriations subcommittee, may be something of a moderate. At least he isn't out to kill the whole idea.

Make no mistake, the McConnell bill sharply alters the shape of the system. Programs designed to slow population growth and fight malnutrition, illiteracy and poverty in some of the poorer nations will give way to a new charter narrowly focused on American economic and security interests.

"Most poor countries are still poor" despite years of U.S. aid; so what's the point? says McConnell. Under his bill, countries with free-market policies and open trading systems would get first dibs on American aid. Former Soviet republics other than Russia would receive earmark protection previously accorded Israel and Egypt.

The Clinton administration says it has pursued policies promoting growth, stability, the well-being of emerging democracies and the flow of U.S. exports is increasing efficiency and effectiveness over that of preceding Republican administrations.

There is some truth to that. But the administration and McConnell are far apart in their approaches to foreign-aid reforms. For the senator from Kentucky, making Africa the big loser, cutting already sharply curtailed spending by 20 percent and protecting the more politically potent Middle East and Eastern Europe aid flows is the way to advance U.S. interests.

This is a central point of difference. It is also where the debate should be joined.

For people who believe this bountiful country has a responsibility at least to join with other better-off nations and help those in extreme deprivation, McConnell's approach is the wrong response.

That isn't to say Aid's basic assumptions should not be challenged. The Clinton administration must prove convincingly that foreign aid works -- that it serves our national interests and those of recipient nations. Refuting the assumptions in McConnell bill provides that opportunity.

-- The Washington Post