By Bob Unruh
President Trump was elected in large part on his promise to get better “deals” for American taxpayers, to review costly international agreements and determine what is best for the nation.
He has raised the idea of cutting foreign aid where it does little or no good, reducing the burden on American taxpayers.
After all, the U.S. in 2015 handed over more than $8 billion to 47 sub-Saharan countries, and USAID runs 27 regional and bilateral missions in Africa. Over the decades, since President John F. Kennedy pledged to help “peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery,” the aid to the continent has been massive, in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
This is at a time when an estimated one-fourth of the continent’s annual productivity is lost to corruption.
Al Mariam, a professor of political science at Cal State-San Bernardino, made a case earlier this year for cutting aid to Africa.
“Political correctness aside, the best way America can help Africa is by letting Africa help itself, and by making sure the culture of panhandling on the continent is permanently ended.”
“The Trump administration should provide aid to African regimes only if they meet stringent conditions of accountability and transparency,” he said.
The concept of letting Africa be responsible its own affairs now has earned the ringing endorsement of an unexpected source: the head of an African nation.
“We do not want to remain the beggars of the world, we do not want to be dependent on charity,” Ghana’s president, Nana Akufo-Addo, said recently, according to Reuters.
The president, who was elected not quite a year ago, said during a visit to London that foreign aid is both Click to see the original article