I testify on behalf of the U.S. Catholic Conference (USCC), the public policy agency of the Catholic bishops of the United States, and Catholic Relief Services (CRS), the development and relief agency of the bishops presently working in over eighty countries throughout the world.

I come before this subcommittee today to address the topic of U.S. foreign assistance and development policy. At the General Meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in November 1996, the bishops voted to address both President Clinton and the Congress on the steady decline in the 1990s of the U.S. foreign aid budget. The bishops are concerned that this pattern of declining U.S. involvement in aid to the world's poor fails to meet even minimal moral obligations of a country of our stature and resources. In addressing this vital issue of the role of foreign aid in the 1990s, I seek to share two of our own resources with the committee: the perspective on international relations and foreign aid found in Catholic social teaching, and the experience of CRS in its half-century of service to the poor beyond our shores.

In my testimony I will address three themes: (1) a moral vision about international society; (2) a perspective on the choices U.S. policy faces on foreign aid; and (3) specific comments on foreign aid policy.

I. The World of the 1990s: Framing a Moral Argument

All analysts of international relations agree that in the 1990s the world is passing through a fundamental moment of change and realignment. The last comparable period was fifty years ago as the world emerged from a global war and struggled to put in place institutions which would prevent a third global conflict in this century. The consequence of the policies put in place in the 1940s has been the creation of the first truly global international order. A convergence of factors over the last fifty years -- decolonization, the rise of modern means of transportation and communication, the emergence of economic and financial ties in a global market -- has transformed the fabric of world politics. Today in the 1990s, as we struggle to understand and respond to both the end of the Cold War and the process of socio-economic globalization, we are writing another chapter in a story begun five decades ago.

It was also in the 1940s, in the midst of World War II, that Pope Pius XII (1939 - 1958) grasped the depth and degree of change sweeping the world and recognized the need to address the moral structure of international relations required if states and individuals are to understand and assume their appropriate roles in a world order profoundly different from the past. In a process inaugurated by Pius XII but continued by every pope through John Paul II, Catholic social teaching has sought to develop ideas, principles and values which can provide moral direction to the political, military and economic forces shaping the post-war world. The moral vision thus developed has three characteristics: (a) while rooted in a religious community, it is shaped by concepts and principles which can be used in a pluralistic society; (b) it is a form of a "realist" moral vision in the sense that it takes seriously the dominant features of world politics: the lack of a center of political authority and a fragile legal structure; but, (c) it is not confined to a "realist" answer in addressing the needs of a world divided by politics and ideology, but increasingly united by transnational linkages and institutions. Rather, it is based on the conviction that moral values and principles must guide the political order, particularly at the level of international relations.

This moral teaching invites states and citizens to recognize three fundamental moral principles. First is the human dignity inherent in each person, a value which is the basis for a complex fabric of human rights and duties that creates responsibilities and relationships across national borders (Pius XII). Second is the existence of an international common good, a set of shared interests, values and obligations which sovereign states can recognize and should pursue despite differing political systems (John XXIII). Third is a bond of solidarity -- both an attitude toward others and a sense of duty -- which makes it impossible to consign part of the human community to a status beyond our care and compassion when they are faced with threats to their life and dignity (John Paul II).

These three principles -- human rights, common good and solidarity -- are the foundation of the work which the bishops of the United States, through the United States Catholic Conference and Catholic Relief Services, seek to do in the world; we are an institutional expression of a church which teaches and is committed to these ideas. But we believe the scope of these truths extends beyond religious communities and organizations. We are convinced that, precisely because the still developing status of the international community leaves an increasingly interdependent world in the hands of interdependent states, a vision of how we are related to each other and responsible for each other is an essential requirement for a peaceful world.

In 1967, Pope Paul VI said that "development is the new name for peace." That phrase causes debate among students of international affairs, but it expresses a profound truth, however complex its implementation. The truth is that peace and stability, elusive but necessary objectives in the world, cannot be built upon a world marked by radical inequality and injustice. There are undoubtedly multiple sources of conflict in the world, but none more troubling than an international order where everyone knows the benefits which science, technology and economy can provide, yet only a fraction of the globe has any real prospect of experiencing these benefits. The threat from that kind of world (dis)order is not only to our hope for peace but to our human decency.

What do these ideas of human dignity, common good and solidarity say to the U.S. role in the 1990s? The argument of this testimony is that sustainable human development, grounded in a conception of human dignity, structured by an understanding of human rights and accepted by citizens and states as an obligation of the international community, should be a principal objective of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. foreign assistance program is the primary way for the United States to express its commitment to this obligation. Hence, I seek to make the case that this program deserves not only consistent support but a more central role in U.S. foreign policy. That role can only be created by clear policy choices. It is to those choices that I now turn.

II. The United States in the World: Options for Foreign Aid

The U.S. foreign aid program was conceived and initiated in the context of the Cold War. The program always had a double objective: to respond to poverty, hunger and disaster and to be an instrument of U.S. policy in the struggle against communism. These objectives coexisted in a fragile alliance which guaranteed funding for foreign aid, but often corrupted its first goal of meeting human needs. Few doubted that there had to be a foreign aid component to a successful policy of countering communism, and most doubted that such a program could primarily be a humanitarian policy.

The collapse of the Cold War swept away the foundation and framework in which U.S. foreign policy (including foreign aid) was conceived and conducted. The new setting of world politics in the 1990s opens new possibilities for foreign aid, yet it also presents substantial challenges to sustaining a commitment to any foreign aid program.

On the one hand, there now exists the possibility of establishing a truly moral rationale for U.S. foreign assistance, one directed by clear purpose and sufficient means to meet basic human needs among the world's poorest people. Such a program would not only clarify U.S. purpose; according to recent polling data it is also the only basis on which to regain public support for foreign aid. Once the idea of such aid is clearly stated as direct assistance to people in dire need, U.S. public opinion solidly supports it. In one recent study conducted by the University of Maryland and the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes, 80% of Americans polled said they support foreign aid directed toward "those in the world who are in great need."¹

Such public support is critical because the Cold War rationale -- that we need a foreign aid program to ward off threats to basic U.S. interests -- has now been substantially eroded. That erosion is the product of new forces at work in the international system. The Cold War system had the artificially imposed character of a unified arena of competition in which the two superpowers engaged in multiple forms of conflict across the globe. The end of that competition has produced a much more fragmented pattern in world politics, which in turn poses quite different challenges and choices for U.S. foreign policy.

Some U.S. policy choices are not in doubt; they concern issues which remain demonstrably linked to U.S. national interests. These issues cut across two broad dimensions of world politics: first, what might be called "great power politics;" second, foreign economic policy. The major powers of the post Cold War era (China, Europe, Russia, Japan and the United States) will clearly attend to the issues which either unite or divide them. These include the future of Russia and China, the role of a uniting Europe, the future role of NATO, the problem of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and relationships with the United Nations. In addition, the G-7 states will continue to pursue the ever growing agenda of international economic issues which are now so central a part of foreign policy. While there are multiple policy decisions to be made in these two areas, there is no doubt that the choice to engage them is a foregone conclusion.

The choice which remains quite open, however, is whether there will be a sustained, coherent, generous and just policy of the United States to engage countries which fall outside great power politics and beyond the pale of the economic interests of the advanced industrial democracies. More specifically, will there be a sustained interest in and engagement with those nations which represent the poorest 25% of the global population? In the Cold War era, some resources were guaranteed for these nations because they fitted into the overarching framework of East-West competition. Today that "strategic location" is gone, but the United States' direct moral obligation to help rebuild societies where it had interests during the Cold War remains.

There are a substantial number of states and people today who can neither threaten us in any classical sense of that term nor demand our attention -- yet the human conditions of their existence lay claim to our conscience. The clearest example of this phenomenon is found in the poorest of the African states, and -- to some degree -- the African continent as a whole. Clearly I do not want to describe Africa only in terms of massive problems. Such a view, too common today, overlooks the complex reality, within states and in the continent, containing also success stories of people struggling against overwhelming odds to guarantee a future for their children. In spite of this fact, however, it is dramatically clear that Africa is a continent where human life and dignity is mortally threatened each day. The threats are multiple -- some are military, some political -- but the economic devastation is pervasive, cutting across governments of different orientations, intensifying civil conflict and stunting any effective strategy development. Except for South Africa, the African states which have been most visibly in the media in the 1990s have been "the failed states" of Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi and now the collapsing colossus of Zaire. These failed states pose no direct security threat to the United States, and they contain few attractive economic possibilities at this time. Hence, responding to their needs will require a clear choice on the part of the United States. We will be neither compelled nor constrained to expend time, treasure or talent on their behalf.

Only a conscious choice, supported by both moral and empirical reasons, will sustain a long-term U.S. commitment to foreign aid as part of a broader commitment to human development. Hence, in the 1990s foreign aid should not be debated simply as a line item in the budget. Such an approach will consign it, over time, to death by diminishment. The fundamental foreign aid question of the 1990s resembles the Marshall Plan debate of the 1940s. It is a question about the U.S. conception of its role in the world. The U.S. role will be shaped by multiple factors, but a capacity for moral vision, expressed in an effective commitment to the poorest members of the global community, should be a visible part of the U.S. understanding of its role in the world. From this fundamental vision, policies and programs will follow. To ask the foreign aid question in terms less expansive than this is to do us all a disservice. It is not a foregone conclusion that the United States will support and sustain a well conceived, carefully developed, coherently structured and generously motivated foreign aid program. But we should neither forsake the program nor simply extend its marginal existence without a serious public debate about its political significance for U.S. foreign policy and its moral significance for our conception of a common humanity -- a humanity we share with those beyond our shores and beyond a narrow definition of what constitutes U.S. interests.

Such a broad-ranging public discussion is properly located in the first instance with the President, as it was fifty years ago. The future of a vigorous foreign aid program resides fundamentally with presidential commitment to a specific form of U.S. leadership in the world. It also resides, as it did in the 1940s, with the Congress. The congressional leadership supporting both NATO and the Marshall Plan is today remembered as having made a lasting contribution to the stability and peace of the world.

The choices of the 1990s are not the same as those of the 1940s. While a strong foreign assistance program is certainly still in the U.S. national interest, the foreign aid choice today no longer is seen having the same imperative role for U.S. policy as was obvious in the 1940s. To some degree, however, this means that the kind of vision needed to sustain a policy choice today is more demanding. When persons or states are not compelled to act, the reasons and motivations for their choices are more clearly tested and displayed.

Finally, a choice to sustain a generous foreign aid program rests with the American public. Clearly the impression is abroad that foreign aid has few friends among policy elites or the electorate. But a hasty impression may overlook the documented fact that a reservoir of public support does exist for a foreign aid program with three characteristics: it meets the needs of the poor, it works, and it is a shared effort with other countries. Our experience as a church and in CRS, where we must depend in part every year for our work in the poorest countries on the voluntary contributions of American Catholics, convinces us that an approach can be made to the American public for a more expansive foreign aid program. In coming before this subcommittee, we call for a morally grounded conception of U.S. capabilities and duties in the world today, and we promise the support of our religious leadership to sustain a renewed effort for the foreign aid program.

III. Foreign Aid and Human Development: Concepts and Choice for the 1990s

The perspective of this testimony is that the U.S. foreign aid program now stands at a juncture similar to its founding moment in the 1940s. Then as now, a basic systematic change in world affairs presents new opportunities and challenges; the Marshall Plan's response to the post-war world is recognized as a moment of creative genius and political courage. The quite different challenges of the post Cold War world invite us to a choice rooted in comparable vision and courage.

A. The Nature of Development: The process of development is a multi-dimensional reality. The concept of development found in recent Catholic teaching, in the encyclicals of Paul VI and John Paul II, emphasizes the moral character of development. This view roots the idea of development in its subject, the human person, possessed of rights and duties and in need of a social system which protects rights and facilitates the fulfillment of duties in society. Placing development policy within a moral framework leads to the distinction between economic development and human development. The economic dimensions of development policy are a means to a broader end; human development addresses the spiritual, material and social needs of the person. Catholic social teaching supports economic development and sees it contributing to, but not substituting for, human development. Economic growth, therefore, is one element of successful development strategy. Its primary objective should be poverty reduction within the context of an equitable growth strategy.

In Catholic teaching, the fundamental criteria for evaluating development policy are the dignity of each person and the principle of the option for the poor. Within a strategy directed toward the dignity, rights and duties of all, there should be a specific priority given to the basic needs of the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of the population. The option for the poor should shape policy choices of nations to be assisted, as well as development policies within countries. With this framework in mind, the bishops continue to seek a refocusing of attention and resources away from military and trade objectives and toward the goal of eliminating poverty and promoting human development. Specifically, foreign assistance should be redirected away from military and export promotion assistance and toward humanitarian and development assistance.

Around the world, as in our own country, women and children are disproportionately and increasingly the victims of poverty. Solving the problem of poverty among women and children is essential to the elimination of poverty in the world, and reduction in foreign aid will have the greatest detrimental impact on women and children. It is not only important to focus development programs on women and children, but policies and programs should empower women to improve the quality of their lives and those of their children. At the same time we need to listen to the concerns of women; they should be involved in the decision making processes.

While some have invoked concern for women as a basis for giving priority to population control efforts, we hold that the contrary is true: developed nations' efforts to control population in poorer nations ought not substitute for real solutions to the problems of the poor. As the U.S. bishops said in 1966, "it is the positive role of government to help bring about those conditions of family freedom which will relieve spouses from . . . material and physical pressures to limit family size."

B. The Elements of Development Policy: Foreign assistance must be seen as part of a broader policy of measures to reduce poverty and assist growth and development. Several concerns should work together: (1) the protection and promotion of human rights; (2) securing peace processes and supporting democratic transitions; (3) trade policy; (4) a comprehensive strategy of debt relief; (5) U.S. participation in multilateral development institutions; (6) U.S. bilateral assistance; and (7) support for the United Nations. It is the coherent integration of these elements which yields effective development. U.S. policy should reflect a commitment in principle and allocation of resources to these dimensions of human development.

1. Human Rights: A strong consistent human rights policy should be the foundation of U.S. development policy. The protection and promotion of human rights (political-civil and socio-economic) is one of the fundamental elements of a moral conception of development policy. For this reason, U.S. foreign military aid should be conditioned on human rights criteria, and governments demonstrably involved in gross and systematic patterns of human rights violations should not be recipients of such aid. At the same time, the United States must maintain its ability to reach the poorest of the poor in special circumstances through humanitarian and development assistance programs even in countries where there is no effective government or where governments do not meet human rights criteria.

It is necessary to distinguish two kinds of criteria as a condition for foreign assistance, namely, human rights and democratization. The United States should pursue both in its foreign aid policy, but it should not forsake the people of some of the very poorest countries which are still years away from meeting standards of democratization. Countries receiving U.S. foreign assistance should uphold internationally recognized human rights norms. Criteria which hold countries to standards of democratization set a higher goal; it is an altogether desirable goal, perhaps the best guarantee that human rights will be observed. But, I suggest, the democratization standards must be implemented with great prudence. If aid is conditioned on standards that are set too high or too early, they could have a perverse effect on the lives of the poorest populations in the world. I say this because it seems likely that some countries are capable of enforcing basic human rights policy and the rule of law but may be years away from the more complex task of creating democratic institutions.

Human rights policy should respect the most basic human rights, especially the right to live, throughout the spectrum of human life. The USCC and CRS therefore favor reinstatement of the "Mexico City" policy barring population assistance to organizations which perform abortion as a method of family planning. The United States should also refuse to be part of any effort to repeal other nations' laws protecting human life at its most vulnerable stage.

2. Peace and Democracy: Support for democratization is tied in several key countries to support for a multidimensional effort to move from war to peace. In view of the current impasse in the Middle East peace process, the need to sustain U.S. credibility, and the importance of building trust between the parties, it is vitally important that development aid to the Palestinians be allocated and released. Likewise, in Central America and Southern Africa, peace processes have been impaired by a lack of funding and insufficient political will. To succeed, these efforts demand the U.S. financial support and diplomatic assistance they were promised.

3. Trade: In the U.S. policy debate some contrast trade vs. aid as alternative strategies for responding to the problems of poverty and injustice in developing countries. This testimony advocates a correlative conception of trade and aid. The significance of trade policy and assuring market access for developing countries is critical. But it is clear that while expanding trade is a highly relevant possibility for some countries, others, particularly the poorer countries of Africa, Latin America, and Asia, will find very marginal improvement, or even decline, in the immediate future. Export promotion assistance mainly benefits upper-middle income countries and corporations whose primary interest is not human development. Trade policy should be crafted to assist the poorest countries to develop in a way economically most beneficial to them. A just international trading system should create economic benefits that enhance the life and dignity of all people. Trade agreements must respect the rights of workers and protect the environment, particularly in countries with few legal protections for either. Development policy without a substantial component of fostering trade is defective; development policy without aid as an essential element fails to address the needs of some of the most vulnerable populations in the world today. In the short term, some of today's poorest countries will need the support of aid before they can compete successfully in the world of trade. 4. Debt Relief: Foreign assistance without attention to debt relief simply gives with one hand and takes with the other. The burden of external debt for many developing countries is an obstacle preventing progress toward development goals. In many of the poorest countries of the world, particularly in Africa and Latin America, the debt burden forces governments to use scarce financial resources, including external aid, on debt repayments rather than on critical investments in health, nutrition, or education. Many indebted countries have already paid back the principal on their outstanding loans but are unable to pay the interest which grows larger over time. The international financial institutions and bilateral creditors have recognized the need for debt relief but have not yet committed sufficient financial resources to finance it. We urge the international financial institutions, particularly the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, to expand eligibility for debt relief to the full range of heavily indebted poor countries, to provide more substantial debt relief than currently projected, and to shorten the time frame for debt relief. We urge the United States to use its leadership within the international financial institutions to convince other governments to do the same. I would also like to emphasize our support for lenders holding governments accountable to investing in their people through education, health, nutrition, and other programs that support human development, but we do not favor conditions that force radical restructuring of economies in ways that cause short or long-term harm to the poor. Still less should debt relief or other foreign assistance be conditioned on programs of population control.

5. Multilateral Assistance: Assistance provided through multilateral institutions has a double benefit. On the one hand, it facilitates burden-sharing for development. On the other hand, it enhances the role of those institutions which are essential for an interdependent world. Multilateralism is no threat to the United States. As a world leader, we are obligated both morally and practically to participate in multilateral institutions. The fabric of global interdependence must be given structure, purpose and methods for enhanced cooperation. Interstate policies alone are not adequate to the challenge of development today. In particular we wish to support full funding for U.S. commitments, including payment of its arrears, to the International Development Association (IDA). As the loan fund of the World Bank designated for the poorest countries of the world, IDA provides essential funding for rural health facilities, primary schools, sanitation and transportation systems, and other programs integral to human development. IDA meets two crucial objectives of development policy: it is directed to the poorest populations and it facilitates an international covenant of collaboration in support of the poor. We urge you to support the full scheduled payment of $800 million for IDA-11 and $234.5 million overdue from IDA-10, a total of $1.035 billion. We also urge congressional support for continued U.S. leadership role in the multilateral institutions.

6. Bilateral Assistance: We support full funding of the President's request for bilateral assistance. The cuts in both multilateral and bilateral assistance over the last four years have been crippling. Without U.S. foreign assistance many organizations, including CRS, would have to change the scope and content of their programs drastically. Indeed cuts in the U.S. foreign aid budget of the 1990s have already substantially affected CRS's work. Reductions in the PL 480 Title II food assistance programs have had a direct effect on our service to the poor. From orphanages in West Africa to Mother Teresa's work in India and Ethiopia, CRS has had to discontinue programs and other activities in support of mothers and children. The President's request this year should be seen as a first step back toward a U.S. policy of assistance which corresponds to our position of leadership in the world. The experiencexperience CRS has had with both the Child Survival Program and Microenterprise Initiatives leads us to support full funding for these programs. USAID is funding only one of every four applications for child survival grants, turning down agencies with proven track records in places such as Kenya and Tanzania. We request that $40 million be set aside in fiscal year 1998 and $60 million in fiscal year 1999 for the child survival programs of citizen-supported private voluntary organizations. In both program areas, CRS is prepared to expand collaboration if more funds -- beyond those requested -- can be appropriated. Our hope is that both programs will grow in the future.

Migration and Refugee Assistance: Similarly we wish to highlight and support the need for generous support to migration and refugee programs. The USCC Office of Migration and Refugee Services (USCC/MRS) can attest to the critical needs of refugees in an age when internal conflict, generating huge flows of refugees and internally displaced persons, has become the most visible example of war in the world. The series of failed and failing states since the end of the Cold War have resulted in recurring complex emergencies that have sharply challenged the ability of the international community to respond. The cost in treasure has been immense and in human suffering even greater. Further, the international community has yet to learn how to deal effectively with such emergencies. Far better to deal first with their root causes, but once the emergency is upon us, we must learn how better to ameliorate its cost and suffering. As ever, U.S. leadership is critical to this effort and without adequate resources, effective leadership will be severely hampered. Like CRS, Migration and Refugees Services is both funded from church resources and yet enormously expanded in its outreach by collaborative engagement with U.S. Government programs. Of first importance in this respect is the admission and resettlement of refugees to the United States. USCC/MRS is the largest of the private agencies assisting in the domestic resettlement of refugees in the United States. In recent years, refugee admissions have dropped sharply from 130,000 in Fiscal Year 1992 to about 75,000 this year. Many, including concerned members of Congress, believe that these numbers have fallen too low, especially in light of ongoing requirements to complete the Indochinese refugee program and growing needs for the resettlement of Bosnian refugees. We believe that admission numbers should be restored to pre-1995 levels of 100,000-110,000 persons. We recognize that refugee admission numbers are set by the President in consultation with the judiciary committees but urge that adequate funds be available to fund needed admissions. We urge that you allocate at least $700 million for Migration and Refugee Assistance and $100 million for Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance.

7. U.S. Support for the United Nations: The President's request to the Congress for funds adequate to address both present U.S. commitments and unfulfilled U.S. debts deserves support. Recent polling data indicate that the U.S. public supports foreign aid only if the U.S. bears a "fair share" with others.² Such burdensharing, however, requires institutions which can facilitate and implement a shared policy vision. This is one reason why U.S. policy should support the role of the United Nations. From a broader perspective, Catholic teaching has endorsed an expansive role for the United Nations since its inception. Three times in the last twenty years, Popes have come to the United Nations to attest in person to the essential moral and political role this institution plays in an increasingly interdependent world still governed by independent states. It is both possible and necessary to affirm the indispensable role the United Nations plays as well as call for reform of how it plays that role. The Holy See has differed with UN policy in specific instances, but never eroded its fundamental support for this institution. Our hope is that U.S. policy can strike a similar balance. Specifically, this testimony supports: (1) payment of U.S. arrears to the United Nations; (2) support for UN peacekeeping activities; (3) support for funding international organizations and programs, and in particular, increasing the contribution to the United Nations Development Program to $100 million and the International Fund for Agricultural Development to $20 million; and (4) cessation of funding for the UN Fund for Population Activities so long as it supports China's coercive family planning and abortion programs.

In closing, I wish to mention the USCC's and CRS's appreciation for the positive comments often heard in congressional debate about the role of faith-based organizations in directly meeting the needs of the poor. As a church committed to the ideas outlined in this testimony, we will always be involved in relief and development efforts. But I can assure you today that the legislation you are considering makes a dramatic difference in how we and other citizen-supported private voluntary organizations function in a world of expanding human needs and declining budgets.

The President's request for a higher level of foreign assistance than we have seen in several years gives us hope that a new discussion of the U.S. role in the world might begin on this fiftieth anniversary of the Marshall Plan. Only the combined effort of a creative foreign policy and renewed public support for it will be sufficient to reverse the damaging decline foreign aid has suffered in the 1990s. The Catholic Church in the United States was privileged to be part of the post-war reconstruction of Europe; we wish now to be part of a wider effort to shape a development process in the service of the human community and in response to basic American values.

¹ Steven Kull, Americans and Foreign Aid: A Study of American Public Attitudes (Washington: Program on International Policy Attitudes and College Park, Maryland: Center for International Security Studies at Maryland, 1995), p. 3.

² Steven Kull and I.M. Destler, An Emerging Consensus: A Study of American Public Attitudes On America's Role in the World (College Park Maryland: Center for International Security Studies at Maryland, 1996) pp. 3-7.

ATTACHMENT:

Letter to President Clinton from Bishop Anthony M. Pilla

For media inquiries, e-mail us at commdept@usccb.org
Department of Communications | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.