China: Outlaw US Empire Owns USAID Fiasco 100%

China though its semi-official mouthpiece Global Times has seen it necessary to publish this editorial, “No need to bring China into USAID closing controversy” because:

What began as a US domestic issue has, as has often been the case in the past, turned into an opportunity to blame China when internal conflicts and disputes within Washington reach a stalemate. As anticipated, multiple US media outlets and certain politicians have collectively directed their narratives toward China, claiming that closing USAID would "hand a win to Beijing," provide China with a golden opportunity to fill the US "power vacuum," and even serve as a "great gift" to China, among other things.

That’s most of the opening paragraph of what IMO is a very educational piece of writing which is what caught my attention and provides an interlude in discussions about the Trump-Putin call and related events. Before further discussion, let’s read it first:

Recently, the US political circle has witnessed a "Game of Thrones" unfold over the fate of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), with both parties trading accusations and engaging in heated debates. What began as a US domestic issue has, as has often been the case in the past, turned into an opportunity to blame China when internal conflicts and disputes within Washington reach a stalemate. As anticipated, multiple US media outlets and certain politicians have collectively directed their narratives toward China, claiming that closing USAID would "hand a win to Beijing," provide China with a golden opportunity to fill the US "power vacuum," and even serve as a "great gift" to China, among other things.

In essence, these arguments remain political rhetoric rooted in US partisan battles, primarily aimed at gaining political leverage, criticizing and blocking the Donald Trump administration's decisions. In recent years, the "China threat" narrative has become a convenient tool for both US parties to attack their political opponents. If one side wants to stop the other from doing something, they argue that it would benefit China and lead to failure in the competition with China. According to this script, regardless of whether one supports the continuation or the closing of USAID, there's always a way to bring China into the issue: supporting its continuation can be portrayed as a tool to counter China and compete for international influence while supporting its closure can be depicted as wasting money abroad and undermining the ability to compete with China in terms of national power. In short, for these US politicians, no matter the issue, they can always find a way to link it to the "China threat" narrative.

Claiming that closing USAID is a "gift" to China reflects an outdated logic. However, this rhetoric exposes the deep-rooted hegemonic mind-set and arrogance of certain individuals in the US. They view developing countries as "blanks to be filled," reflecting a disrespectful attitude that treats these nations as mere pawns. Seeing foreign aid as an "engine of geopolitical influence abroad" reveals the reality that US assistance often comes with political conditions. Moreover, when defending USAID, these individuals are particularly familiar with how to "counter China's influence" in recipient countries. All of this has laid bare the true mind-set of the US to the international community and serves as a wake-up call for many countries.

Whether or not USAID adjusts its global strategic layout has nothing to do with China. China has never participated, nor will it ever participate, in the internal political games of other countries, and we have no interest in how the US distributes its foreign aid or to whom it is given. [Taiwan?!?] As a responsible major country, China conducts itself with integrity and openness on the international stage, treating other nations with sincerity, fairness, and selflessness. We are committed to forging a new type of international relations based on cooperation and mutual benefit—a path that rejects the traditional geopolitical mind-set of "spheres of influence" and transcends the historical trap of zero-sum competition. China's foreign aid focuses on improving the well-being of local populations, adhering to a policy of no political strings attached, and respecting the right of recipient countries to independently choose their development paths and models. We will never use aid as a tool to interfere in other countries' internal affairs or to seek political privileges. This approach is widely recognized and respected internationally, and voices that attempt to interpret China's global vision through a narrow lens will find no resonance on the global stage.

American politicians who indulge in the fantasy that "if USAID is closed, the world will fall to China" should take a look at reality: when the US turned a deaf ear to calls for "immediate lifting of sanctions on Syria" in the wake of the devastating earthquake, China's first batch of emergency aid had already arrived in the disaster area; when the US announced to withdraw from the World Health Organization, China continued to send medical teams to Africa and donate vaccines. From the TAZARA Railway to the China-Laos Railway, from hybrid rice to the "200 wells" project in Rwanda, facts have proven that China's principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits have a longer-lasting vitality. Whether USAID exists or not does not affect the fact that China is becoming increasingly popular. What Washington should recognize is not whether "more or less money is given," but rather the understanding that influence comes from respect rather than coercion, and from win-win cooperation rather than zero-sum competition.

Assistance is not a competition. Foreign aid from various countries does not operate on a zero-sum basis, nor is it a matter of one side winning while the other losing. In 2023, the global humanitarian funding gap approached $35 billion, with some humanitarian crises receiving severely inadequate funding. A report released by the United Nations last year also indicated that the development financing gap is estimated to reach $4.2 trillion annually. UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed warned that without international cooperation, the world will not be able to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. In this context, it is even more necessary for the international community, especially major powers, to work together to contribute more to global sustainable development.

The fate of USAID ultimately concerns the US itself; merely bringing China into the issue will not solve America's own problems. From the recent performances of some individuals in the US, the world has gained a clearer understanding: The "vacuum" that truly needs to be filled is not geopolitical maneuvering, but rather the responsibilities and commitments in global governance. [My Emphasis]

The error made over Taiwan is rather major. As many studies have shown, monetary aid often goes to entities within the donating nation than to the nation being aided. Add to that the very negative effects of IMF and World Bank loans and aid amounts become negligible—food aid often goes to nations who don’t or aren’t allowed to grow their own food because of IMF and/or World Bank conditions for dollar-based loans. And why dollars? So, the afflicted nations can buy US grown foodstuffs.

Another important point revealed in the essay is China’s position on the Spheres of Influence principle upon which the post-war Yalta system was built. Many are now suggesting that a Yalta 2.0 Conference be held and intimating that a new international balance of power can be attained using that concept. Spheres of influence imply that some nations are more equal than others which is contrary to the principle espoused in the UN Charter that all nations regardless of size have equal weight. Clearly, China’s striving for a win-win global harmony that will ensure the principle of indivisible security will be honored which is at the center of China’s Global Security Initiative and is also central to what Russia seeks as the main principle of its Eurasian Security Pact that allows for the cessation of the undeclared war between the Outlaw US Empire/NATO and Russia where the former have used Ukraine as its proxy.

China is a very mature nation and has evolved a very mature philosophy for proper governance and the same IMO can be said for Russia. The editorial’s closing sentence merited emphasis because that’s the sort of maturity that must be displayed by the planet’s leading nations as well as all others. Far too much in the way of scarce resources are squandered on conflicts while billions of people remain outside the realm of a comfortable living situation free from want and fear. We now see the Outlaw US Empire demanding that the aid it gave to Ukraine to fight its war against Russia is now being called some sort of loan that was never put onto paper and signed and is now to be repaid. That’s the sort of immaturity that must be eliminated along with all forms of hegemony if the world is ever to attain peace and have security. In my recent revisiting of The Arrogance of Power, I cited a short section where Senator Fulbright explains why he USAID agency and policy were negatives that needed to be altered if they were to do good. What he described was how China and Russia now go about providing aid: Ask if aid is needed and what is wished for then letting the receiving nation do as much of the work as possible, with the only oversight being related to eliminating corruption throughout the aid process.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!