US halts most aid, spares Israel and Egypt arms

The United States announced it was freezing most of its international aid programs with a policy change to exempt such recipients as military aid for stalwart allies including, amongst others, Israel and Egypt, in what the administration defined as an exercise of reorientation in America’s priorities in foreign spending towards closer compatibility with its strategic interests.

This shift in policy represents a watershed in U.S. foreign aid, with debate on what might be called a partial explanation for retaining aid for some countries while trying to rein it in for others. Israel and Egypt are exempt because they have long been viewed as vital to U.S. interests in the Middle East, having signed peace treaties with Israel. These countries receive immense military aid every year, with Israel receiving $3.8 billion on a 10-year memorandum of understanding and Egypt receiving $1.3 billion in military aid to help its counterterrorism efforts and maintain regional stability.

The move by the U.S. government underlines its focus on preserving alliances with key partners in unstable regions. Israel is a critical player in the Middle East, with high-level intelligence-sharing and a linchpin for overall U.S. defenses in the region. Egypt has geopolitical significance because of its control of the Suez Canal and efforts to combat extremist groups across North Africa and the Sinai Peninsula.

Although aid for these countries continued, the cutting of these other international aid programs was another movement of fiscal prudence and a rethinking of global commitments. The move attracted the ire of advocacy groups and diplomats who feel cutting off aid to developing nations will lead to humanitarian crises and lesser U.S. influence worldwide.

This decision to focus on military aid, while cutting the other forms of assistance, has not gone unchallenged. Critics have questioned the long-term implications of abandoning humanitarian and economic development aid in less stable parts of the world. The cuts, they warn, may create vacuums that allow hostile powers like China and Russia to extend their influence.

As the U.S. rebalances its foreign aid strategy, it continues to grapple with the hurdle of weighing national security interests against the role of global leadership by humanitarian means. The next few months will show how this shift affects America’s relationships on the world stage and the stability of regions dependent upon U.S. support.