ACE

Author: Austin Litchford

  • Pros and Cons of the Feed the Future Program 

    Pros and Cons of the Feed the Future Program 

    Introduction 

    For several decades, the United States has led the global fight to eradicate world hunger. Since the early twentieth century, food aid has served as a component of U.S. foreign policy. From President Truman’s Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe after World War II to President Obama’s Feed the Future program to help developing countries generate agricultural sustainability, the United States has continuously provided international food assistance. This assistance costs an estimated $4 billion per year.

    Background 

    The Feed the Future program is an United States’ initiative to combat world hunger. Led by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and created by the Obama Administration in 2010 in response to the 2007-2008 global food crisis, the initiative “works hand-in-hand with partner countries to develop their agriculture sectors, resilience, nutrition, and break the vicious cycle of poverty and hunger.” Feed the Future partners with various companies, organizations, governments, and individuals to help farmers obtain and maintain higher productivity levels and seeks partner countries committed to investing in their food security and nutrition. The program originally targeted 19 countries, however; as of 2022, the program has expanded to 27 countries. The program claims it is successful in its goals; however, critics have pointed to the lack of monitoring and a lack of cooperation with local farmers.

    The Success of the Program

    According to Feed the Future’s measurements, the program succeeded in achieving its goals. As of 2020, the Feed the Future program lifted 23.4 million people out of poverty, prevented 3.4 million children from stunting, reduced hunger in 5.2 million families, and, between 2011 and 2021, the program generated $17.9 billion in agricultural sales to help farmers. The program also succeeded in non-food-related areas, especially in the field of female economic empowerment. So far, the program has given 2.6 million more women access to credit, unlocked over $630 million in loans for women, given 3.3 million more women reasonable workloads, and has helped 3.7 million more women have input in farming decisions. Hunger can significantly impact health outcomes. According to the National Library of Medicine, chronic undernutrition “retards linear growth,” otherwise known as stunting. “Inadequate nutrition over a short period of time” results in wasting, or the condition of being underweight.

    The program also produced positive results when examining outcomes in individual countries. A 2020 report from Feed the Future recorded their progress between 2010 and 2020 in Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Zambia, Rwanda, and Tajikistan. The report found that since the implementation of Feed the Future:

    • Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Zambia, and Rwanda experienced poverty reduction,
    • Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Zambia experienced a decline in hunger, 
    • and Ethiopia, Zambia, and Tajikistan reduced child stunting.

    A 2019 study from Stanford found that the Feed the Future program gave positive results for children under five years old in Sub-Saharan Africa compared to countries without this program. The study found that these countries benefited from the program with a 3.9% comparative decline in child stunting, a 1.1% decline in wasting, and a 2.1% greater decline in underweight children compared to countries without the Feed the Future program. These decreases translate to “around two million fewer stunted and underweight children aged less than five years and around a half million fewer children with wasting.” However, another article from Stanford suggests that the original study did not use a control group, nor did they account for any bias. Therefore, according to the article, it is possible that the Feed the Future program did not solely achieve these results. 

    Monitoring and Inclusion in Feed the Future

    The Stanford article suggests one documented issue with the Feed the Future program: its lack of monitoring. In May 2023, The Government Accountability Office (GAO) sent a letter with recommendations for the Feed the Future program. The letter stated that the program lacks adequate monitoring of its programs and is limited in its ability to use performance data to assess the initiative because they have not set wide-performance goals. The GAO recommended that the Feed the Future program implement wide-performance goals to “determine how the results of Feed the Future’s projects contribute to this overarching goal.” According to the GAO, the Feed the Future program has failed to implement its recommendations as of 2023.
    Another documented issue with the program is the program’s lack of collaboration with local farmers. Researchers have found that the program is restrictive in what it allows farmers to grow. If farmers in the partner countries want to switch from the provided crops, they will not receive any help or guidance from the program. Additionally, the program focuses more on value chain development and small shareholder farms. The focus on value chain development and small shareholder farms leaves out the local landless farmers and those in acute poverty. Researchers recommend that the program target more of the marginalized groups who are at more risk of food insecurity.

  • Pros and Cons of US Aid to Afghanistan

    Pros and Cons of US Aid to Afghanistan

    Providing Aid Since 2002

    After the attacks against the United States on September 11th, 2001, the U.S. launched a “war on terror,” a global counterterrorism campaign to combat al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as well as to topple the Taliban government in Afghanistan. The United States invaded Afghanistan as a part of this campaign. In 2002, after the surrender of the Taliban, President George W. Bush called for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and compared his plan to rebuild the country to that of the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild Europe after World War II. Since 2002, the United States has been the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and has provided billions of dollars in reconstruction, security assistance, civilian assistance, and humanitarian aid to the country.

    The U.S. Withdraws, The Taliban Takeover 

    In August 2021, the United States withdrew its last remaining troops from Afghanistan, ending the 20-year-long war in the country. Shortly after, the Taliban seized control of the Afghan government. Since their takeover of the government, there have been numerous reports of the Taliban violating the civil and human rights of the Afghan people. In response, the U.S. has changed its approach in Afghanistan to focus on providing humanitarian aid rather than reconstruction. 

    Since August 2021, the U.S. has provided more than $1.1 billion in assistance to meet the basic needs of the Afghan people and to prevent an economic collapse. However, the current Taliban control of Afghanistan raises the question: Should the United States continue to provide aid to Afghanistan with the risk of funding the Taliban?

    Arguments for Continuing Aid: Afghanistan is a Country In Need 

    In Afghanistan, a humanitarian crisis looms over the country. As of 2021, 42% of the population faces acute food shortages, and there is a risk of an economic collapse as the prices of food rise. One analysis by the World Bank found that the price of goods had increased by 42% between 2021 and 2022. The World Bank further states that Afghanistan will need continued international support to fund basic services, support faster economic growth, and consolidate and sustain any potential reduction in violence following a political settlement with the Taliban.

    There are moral arguments that the United States should continue to provide aid. In a statement, the United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, called upon countries to provide funding for the people of Afghanistan. Calling it their “darkest hour of need.” In terms of the United States, Afghans For A Better Tomorrow, an activist group, claims the United States has a moral obligation to continue to provide aid to Afghanistan after its 20-year war and due to its “messy and irresponsible” withdrawal from the country that has put millions of lives at stake. 

    Arguments Against Continuing Aid: Mismanagement

    According to research and reports, previous aid and reconstruction projects by the United States in Afghanistan lacked collaboration between agencies and had insufficient monitoring, with U.S. agencies rarely coordinating their efforts in the country. Many U.S. officials believed the solution to the insecurity in Afghanistan was pouring more resources into Afghan institutions. However, the lack of progress with the increased resources made it clear that fundamental problems in Afghanistan would not be solved by changing resource levels. According to a SIGAR report, a combination of these issues led to billions of dollars wasted on projects in Afghanistan. Many believe that sending taxpayer dollars without oversight or quantifiable results is irresponsible, and that these aid projects must be accountable to taxpayers as part of the social contract.

    Furthermore, there is no guarantee the Taliban is not diverting the aid money. Since the takeover by the Taliban, the U.S. can not guarantee that the Taliban is not misappropriating the aid money provided to the country. John Sopko, the Special Inspector for Afghanistan Reconstruction, testified, “Nor can I assure you that the Taliban are not diverting the money we are sending for the intended recipients, which are the poor Afghan people.” In fact, there are accusations that the Taliban has already diverted aid money to itself and has begun using it as another revenue stream. This also has moral implications for the U.S., as the Taliban government has significantly rolled back protections for women in the country, as well as committed numerous human rights violations. Foreign aid is a main form of income for the country, and indirectly funding the regime, intentionally or not, may empower the Taliban to continue its violent crackdown.

    The situation in Afghanistan has put the United States in a challenging situation. The United States must decide whether to continue providing aid to Afghanistan, which might increase the likelihood of financial loss and unintentional funding of the Taliban, or to stop such assistance, which could result in a serious humanitarian crisis in the nation.

  • Austin Litchford, Virginia Tech

    Austin Litchford, Virginia Tech

    Austin Litchford is a graduate student at Virginia Tech studying public and international affairs. He also graduated Magna Cum Laude with his bachelor’s in political science with a focus on national security from Virginia Tech. Through his undergraduate studies, Austin developed an interest in international relations and developed specific interests in human rights, conflict resolution and diplomacy, and nuclear non-proliferation. Throughout his academic career, he has completed numerous projects in these areas, such as a research project determining whether the Iranian government is committing structural violence toward women through the enforcement of their hijab law, another project discussing how Iran’s facial recognition surveillance system to enforce their hijab law could lead to more violence against women due to their previous enforcement of the law, and a research project into possible solutions to reinstate the Iran nuclear deal. In his free time, Austin is an avid hiker who loves to hike the nature trails around his hometown in Virginia. 

    LinkedIn