Another story much in the news is President Trump’s announcement of his plan to cut U. S. aid to Central American countries. NBC News reports:
The Trump administration said Saturday that it intends to end foreign assistance programs for Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, a move that Democrats called “reckless†and “counterproductive†in addressing the problems that cause people to flee to the U.S.
A State Department spokesperson said that “at the Secretary’s instruction, we are carrying out the President’s direction and ending FY 2017 and FY 2018 foreign assistance programs for the Northern Triangle,†a term that refers to the three countries.
The spokesperson said “we will be engaging Congress as part of this process,” which could mean it needs Congress’ approval to end funding.
The aid affects nearly $500 million in 2018 funds and millions more left over from the previous fiscal year. The money was destined for Central America but had not been spent yet, the Washington Post reported
That’s something I with which I simultaneously agree and disagree. I think we should actually increase our aid to the “Northern Triangle” but that aid should take a form completely different than it does now. Most of our foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador does nothing for the people of those countries. It is snatched by the countries’ elites as quickly as they can get their mitts on it. And for goodness sake we shouldn’t fund their militaries. The militaries function primarily as a means of repressing the people and imposing authoritarian governments. We should be encouraging those countries to eliminate their militaries entirely. One of the reasons that Costa Rica is so stable is that it eliminated its military 70 years ago.
U. S. aid should be in the form of micro-loans to individuals or, possibly, small municipalities. If the State Department is incapable of administering that in a fair and non-corrupt manner, we should be giving grants to NGOs that can to do it.
Aid is certainly the engineer’s, and correct, solution. But as you point out the devil is in the execution. (Consider a perfect sphere traveling through an ideal gas with no friction or heat losses. Uh, right. )
I don’t know if NGOs will work. But I do know that money talks. Starve them for awhile so they know you are serious. Then cut the elites in on the vig, but get some behavior for it.
You know, a physical barrier, dare I say a wall, would be a ham fisted but effective solution. How are “smart†measures, NGOs and controlling cash in corrupt countries from thousands of miles away more effective?
PS – I’ve tuned out Dems. The vast majority have zero moral compass these days.
Barriers make sense in urban areas where that couple of seconds of delay matter. In unpopulated areas they dont help that much. Better off having more border patrol or tech to help border patrol.
I dont think stopping money going there will make much difference. The bad guys there are not going to suddenly behave beaus there is less US money. Dont think money going there matters that much either. Maybe if you could accomplish some micro loans without them being stolen, but doubt it.
Steve
Barriers, personnel and tech are not severally exclusive. And a barrier doesn’t have to worry about catch and release.