International or multilateral assistance is frequently subject to controversy, but provision of special bilateral aid by richer countries to poorer ones has always been a matter for special debate.

The whole issue is back in the news again with the formal closure on July 1 of the US Agency for International Development known as USAID. For many years, the US has been the major world provider of humanitarian and developmental aid. As USAID has now been shut down after 60 years of operation since its creation by President Kennedy, the function of providing aid to other countries has been merged with the US State Department which has taken over the running of aid programmes.

Some six months ago, I wrote in this column about the then new President Trump’s plans to overhaul the US overseas assistance programme as part of his push to shrink the federal government. I also examined briefly what Britain did in the aid field. Now that USAID has been dismantled and actually closed down, I want to revert to this controversial subject today.

Because of long-standing concerns about claims of poor administration and lack of accountability in USAID as well as corruption and waste, Trump made clear his intentions about the agency early in his administration. Already, there have been substantial cuts, and aid funding has been frozen and then heavily cut back. Reportedly, more than eighty per cent of existing programmes have been cancelled and large numbers of staff have been laid off. Self-evidently, this has been to the detriment and inconvenience of many recipients.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that America’s assistance in future will be targeted and limited and will “focus on empowering countries to grow sustainably”. Inevitably, the decision to terminate USAID has created huge uncertainty about new plans to spend foreign aid money already appropriated by the US Congress for the current fiscal year.

The White House’s ruthless action has also attracted a great deal of criticism from bodies like Amnesty International who are assessing the impact of foreign aid cuts in a number of countries; and, most recently, there has been a lengthy study published in Britain’s prestigious and influential medical journal, The Lancet.

The latter suggests that over the past two decades US aid has saved millions of lives and that substantial cutbacks of American assistance, not least addressing HIV/AIDs, malaria and tuberculosis, could reverse decades of progress in global health, particularly in low and middle-income countries.

While claiming that it could also result in an additional 14 million deaths around the world by 2030, this study concludes that such cuts could have consequences comparable to a global pandemic or major armed conflict, leading to a humanitarian crisis. Unsurprisingly, such apocalyptic claims and the alarming figures used seem to be causing widespread and deep concern, though to the layman they appear excessive.

It may be worth noting that before the creation of USAID in 1961 the US Congress had passed the Foreign Assistance Act. Research shows that American foreign assistance was fragmented across various government departments. But, although technically separate from the State Department, USAID’s activities were apparently considered to be part of the official foreign policy of the US government.

Historians say that in Washington there has always been a bipartisan approach to foreign aid and overwhelming Congressional support for it. Reportedly, after the end of the Second World War and the success of the Marshall Plan in helping to rebuild the shattered economies of European countries, President Truman decided in 1949 to capitalise on this by delivering humanitarian and developmental assistance more widely to underdeveloped economies by exporting American skill and funding.

At first, this was concentrated on global health, economic development, democratic governance and education. Gradually, it evolved from capacity - building to helping with a range of basic needs including food security. It was also decided that humanitarian financial assistance should be given to countries suffering from natural disasters.

US foreign assistance is seen as the exercise of so-called soft power, and it is interesting to note that it is a very small fraction of the federal budget. Various studies show that aid is given to people in poorer countries to help them after crises or to lift them out of poverty. Assistance is also given to support security as well as economic and political development. It provides funding for long-term development but, as already noted, also provides emergency help when disasters occur or war breaks out.

In my last article, I mentioned that when, in 2012, the British prime minister of the day, David Cameron, was pressing for his country to commit formally to spending 0.7 per cent of its national income on overseas aid, he spoke of the moral obligation for better-off countries to tackle poverty and child mortality in the world and to help those suffering, particularly for reasons beyond their own control. But all assistance had to be linked to Britain’s foreign policy objectives, since it made no sense to be giving taxpayers’ money to a country with which – for one reason or another – the UK might be in conflict. In 2020, Britain put this into practice by formally bringing aid under the umbrella of foreign affairs through creation of the current joint department of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Through now placing aid under the aegis of the State Department, Trump has acted similarly.

As already noted, Trump’s policy on aid has resulted in immediate severe cutbacks. But, as circumstances change in the future, many will hope that in the longer term the US will not step back permanently from being the world’s largest and most generous donor that it has become since 1945.

Submarine deal up for review

Although there has been little real publicity about it, reports have appeared in the UK media that the 2021 AUKUS agreement is currently under review by the Trump administration.

Even though at the time of its signing the tripartite – US, UK and Australia – AUKUS security pact was described as a defence alliance that was in the best interests of all three partners and of the Indo-Pacific region as a whole, people now say that it is reasonable for any incoming administration to look critically at its predecessor’s recent international deals and, in particular, to look at a major defence project of this sort.

But in Trump’s case this has almost become a compulsion as the White House seeks to ensure that everything aligns with his “America First” policy.

AUKUS is a multi-billion dollar agreement to supply nuclear-powered submarines to Australia that will replace its existing ageing diesel-electric ones, with their shorter range, and to co-operate in building other ones in Australia itself.

While President Trump is seeking to persuade Australia to increase its defence spending, it is said that this is the country’s biggest defence deal in its history. Its purpose is to deter and counter China’s growing presence in the Indo-Pacific region amidst, in particular, rising tensions in the South China Sea.

The deal provides for three to five US nuclear submarines to be sold to Australia in the foreseeable future while such new design vessels are being built in Australia with design and materials and other co-operation from Britain. UK ship builders are due to deliver their first AUKUS-type submarine to the Royal Navy by the late 2030s, and despite delays already, it is estimated that Australia’s first AUKUS submarine built at a shipyard in South Australia should be “in the water” in the early 2040s.

With the Pentagon in the throes of the review, it is significant that US lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, have sent a joint letter to the defence secretary urging the government to recommit to the AUKUS deal on the grounds that it is in the US interest to use it to deter Chinese aggression. Commentators say that, most recently, support for AUKUS in Congress has grown considerably and they note that legislation to enable it to proceed has already been passed.

However, there is said to be scepticism in the Pentagon about the project and its benefits for America. Moreover, the Senate Armed Services Committee has been warned recently that US shipyards are not building sufficient nuclear-powered submarines for the country’s own immediate defence needs, and that, if there turned out to be a shortfall, it is almost certain that there would be no sales to Australia. Meanwhile, there have been suggestions that the UK parliament might also wish to review the AUKUS deal.

Against this background, it was interesting to read recent comments by John Bolton, a former US ambassador to the United Nations and national security advisor to Trump during his first term. He has said that any downsizing – or, ultimately, cancellation – of AUKUS would be catastrophic in sending the wrong message to China.

He has spoken of the short-sighted view of some in Washington who consider the US has insufficient resources and capacity to deal with problems all around the world. That might be true, he said, but the problem of China was a major one that had to be faced up to now. So the country’s existing capacity should be concentrated on China and, as necessary, increased to enable it to do this effectively.

What is now being said is that the shipyards themselves in the US, like the Groton submarine yard in Connecticut, need to increase production.

The Pentagon’s review of AUKUS will now surely be awaited with some concern by all involved. Whatever its recommendation, few would dare to predict the ultimate decision to be made by the president himself.

Spotlight on Tibet

It is a fair bet that not many people follow developments in the remote, mainly-Buddhist country of Tibet. With a population not far short of four million, it is situated between China to its east and India to the south. Historically an independent country, it was annexed by China in 1950 and is now governed as the Tibet Autonomous Region.

Suddenly, it is in the news because of the 90th birthday of the exiled Dalai Lama, who, as the leader of Tibetan Buddhism, is the spiritual figurehead of the country and symbol of its resistance. The celebrations of this significant milestone in the Himalayan town of Dharamshala, which is home to the Tibetan government-in-exile, were reported to be lavish with performances by dance troupes, clanging cymbals and bagpipes. They were said to be the culmination of a week of prayers and thanksgiving for the leader’s long life and his selflessness and compassion in guiding the Tibetan diaspora in their struggle for autonomy and resistance to Chinese domination.

For his part, the Dalai Lama assured his followers that he was in good physical shape and described himself as “a simple Buddhist monk”. It was important, he said, to work for material development but what mattered was to focus on achieving peace of mind through cultivating a good heart and showing compassion to others.

The Dalai Lama also confirmed plans for a suitable person to take over from him in due course. This would be opposed by China which labels him “a separatist” and insists that any successor must adhere to Chinese law and be approved by Beijing which wants Tibet to integrate fully with China.

Tibet’s spiritual leader has been an iconic world figure for so long that his 90th birthday is likely to be inherently newsworthy anyway. But, at the same time, one cannot help thinking that this has also hit the headlines partly because Hollywood star, Richard Gere, was present at, and participated in, the celebrations. Reportedly, he chairs the International Campaign for Tibet and is himself a practising Tibetan Buddhist.

Fame can, indeed, take people down many and various paths.