The editors of the Washington Post consider the dire plight of Afghanistan:
The situation there is dire: Aid agencies say 3.7 million children and 1.2 million pregnant and breastfeeding women are suffering from malnutrition. Children are experiencing “wasting” — slowly dying from hunger — because of a lack of therapeutic feeding.
concluding:
Donor fatigue with seemingly endless conflicts is undeniable. The U.N. badly needs reforms to streamline burdensome bureaucracy and wasteful spending.
Americans don’t want their tax dollars feeding terrorists. Careful controls must be imposed to ensure that food aid goes to women and children, not military-age males. But Americans are generous, and the crisis calls for compassion.
The world’s richest nation should not let the poorest people on earth die of hunger.
The editors are correct that these humanitarian disasters demand a response. The more important question is who should bear the burden? Responsibility should fall first on those governments whose policies have materially contributed to the crises. That responsibility includes the United States but it does not end there.
Between 2002 and 2021 the U. S. provided considerable humanitarian aid to Afghanistan—at least $7 billion. When military aid, reconstruction aid, and humanitarian aid are combined the U. S. provided a substantial portion of the country’s GDP during that period. When the Taliban reassumed control in 2021 the GDP fell correspondingly.
During the twenty years in which Western governments financed much of Afghanistan’s economy, widespread famine was largely averted. Once the Taliban regained power, foreign assistance collapsed, the economy contracted sharply, and predictable humanitarian disaster followed.
In the editorial the editors also note 13 other “hot spots” around the world with serious humanitarian calamities. Of the thirteen, the overwhelming majority involve armed Islamist movements, governments that have supported them, or conflicts in which such movements play a major role. The remaining countries are Myanmar, Haiti, and Madagascar.
I have a modest proposal. The U. S. should provide humanitarian assistance to Madagascar. Haiti presents a specific problem. Humanitarian aid cannot be delivered effectively while heavily armed criminal gangs dominate large portions of the country. The first humanitarian imperative is restoring sufficient security that food and medical assistance can actually reach civilians. If the United States chooses to assist Haiti, helping the Haitian government reestablish order should come before large-scale relief efforts.
China already supports Myanmar. The Chinese government should provide additional humanitarian aid to Myanmar to counter the bad results the government they have supported has produced.
Saudi Arabia has long provided ideological and financial support for radical madrassas and, at times, insurgent movements throughout the region that is the area primarily in crisis including Afghanistan. The Saudis should provide humanitarian assistance for the people in the countries presently roiled by the activities of radicals and insurgents.
Americans have demonstrated extraordinary generosity for decades. The question is not whether humanitarian aid should be provided. It is whether the burden should continue to fall primarily on the American taxpayer while governments whose policies have contributed to these crises escape comparable responsibility.






