{"id":15353,"date":"2025-02-18T15:26:49","date_gmt":"2025-02-18T15:26:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/qiraatafrican.com\/en\/?p=15353"},"modified":"2025-02-18T15:26:49","modified_gmt":"2025-02-18T15:26:49","slug":"will-usaid-cutbacks-threaten-africas-development-and-stability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/qiraatafrican.com\/en\/15353\/will-usaid-cutbacks-threaten-africas-development-and-stability\/","title":{"rendered":"Will USAID Cutbacks Threaten Africa\u2019s Development and Stability?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Globalization as one of the most important new global agenda vigorously pursued by the west under the leadership of the USA refers to economic, social, political, and cultural integration of the whole world into a universal or global village through instantaneous communication enabled by emerging high information technology such as computer (internet). It is also the compression of time and space aspects of social relations across which shields all the NGA (New Global Agenda), but, as a barometer for measuring their hybridization of ideas, techniques and civilizations across all countries of the world. Bailey, Saleh. “New Global Agenda and the Role of United States of America in World Politics, Mar. 2006, pp. 111. Nevertheless, beyond the unsettled rivalries of states, and the decaying foundations of regional stability, new global challenges are straining the capacities of governments <\/a>to create workable international rules of the road. Looking back over the past seven decades of American primacy<\/a>, we can see certain patterns in the role of soft power, ethics and foreign policy. All presidents expressed formal goals and values that were attractive to Americans. After all, that is how they got elected. All proclaimed a goal of preserving American primacy. While that goal was attractive to the American public, its morality depended on how it was implemented. Imperial swagger and hubris did not pass the test, but provision of global public goods by the largest state had important moral consequences as well as generating soft power.<\/p>\n

The intention that U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is to serve as the \u2018frontline\u2019 in the US interventionist projects has been a persistent trope throughout the course of the agency\u2019s existence. Even though the nature of threats has changed\u2014communism during the Cold War<\/a>, poverty, and instability in the 1990s, to terrorism and \u2018fragile states\u2019 in the post-September 11th era\u2014the agency has, over time, remained responsible for neutralizing and dispelling perceived threats in their place of origin. Historically, U.S. foreign aid<\/a> has been driven by realist theories of its own national interests, with the starting point and ultimate goal being the maximization of national interests. During the cold war, the main goal of U.S. foreign aid was to stop the spread of communism and to consolidate U.S. hegemony. After the 9\/11 attack, the goal of U.S. foreign aid shifted to global anti-terrorism to ensure the national security.<\/p>\n

The George W. Bush Administration, for instance, oversaw the establishment of a new foreign aid agency and a global HIV\/AIDS (Human immunodeficiency \/Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) assistance program, and the Obama Administration<\/a> launched global programs to address climate change, food insecurity, and global health. Furthermore, in the case of USAID., money has gone toward humanitarian aid, development assistance<\/a> and direct budget support in Ukraine, peace-building in Somalia, disease surveillance in Cambodia, vaccination programs in Nigeria, HIV prevention in Uganda and maternal health assistance in Zambia. The agency has also helped to contain major outbreaks of Ebola and funded conservation and environmental programs. Unfortunately,\u00a0 USAID’s funding has been frozen for 90 days by the Trump administration<\/a>. The US President Donald Trump ordered the closure of USAID, leaving many countries, especially in Africa in limbo and thousands who benefit from the humanitarian agency\u2019s work shocked. What are the impacts of USAID in Africa; it\u2019s inefficiencies on the continent and how are Africa countries using this gap as a catalyst for development and stability? This article examines these change in detail.<\/p>\n

USAID’s African Endeavors: Triumphs and Trials Revealed<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), USAID <\/a>works with its partners to improve access to and delivery of health services, to support more accountable and democratic institutions, to start businesses and foster an environment attractive to private investment, and to stave off conflict and strengthen communities. In Fiscal Year 2019, USAID and the U.S. Department of State provided $8.3 billion of assistance to 47 countries and 8 regional programs in sub-Saharan Africa. Last year, Ethiopia <\/a>is the largest USAID beneficiary in Africa, receiving $1.20 billion in aid. The Democratic Republic of Congo follows closely with the same amount of $1.20 billion. Meanwhile, South Sudan ranks third, benefiting from $795.41 million in assistance.<\/p>\n