Aid to Countries with Dependent US Relations....

Bush has promised the government of Georgia $1.07 billion in U.S. aid over the next year. If that aid were administered like the recent U.S. stimulus package, each Georgian family would receive a check for about $980. And just in time for the Christmas shopping season.

U.S. Soldier on Shore Leave from Delivering Aid to Georgia Purchasing a Souvenir

The bill that passed Congress appears to have appropriated a more modest amount - about $365 million (this figure does not include the $55 million in emergency relief that Georgia received from around the world in August or the value of the goods delivered by U.S. armed forces in Operation Assured Delivery). But, with the Europeans pitching in and the IMF pledging $750 million in financing, Georgia is set to get a wildly disproportionate share of foreign assistance.

In 1992, in inflation adjusted dollars, the United States provided about $117 million in foreign aid to Russia (not counting loans or other support from international institutions). In a country of 148 million people, that comes out to about $.75 a person - at a time when the Russian economy was in free-fall. In a typical year immediately after the fall of Communist Party rule, Russia received a United States handout that equaled about .00095% of its GDP. Others argue that western aid to Russia - including efforts of the IMF - totaled much more in those first post-Communist years - but I have yet to find conclusive evidence that the United States made a meaningful effort to support Russia in the 1990's. The Congressional Research Service reports that total U.S. aid to Russia from FY 1992 to 2006 amounted to $14.9 billion - and most of that was earmarked for "security-related" programs instead of for democracy, infrastructure or supporting a functioning market economy.

In contrast, the Bush-proposed U.S. giveaway to Georgia would have been equivalent to about one-tenth of the Georgian economy (as measured by GDP) - or one-third of the entire government budget.

Let's compare the Georgian sweepstakes to United States efforts in Afghanistan - the consensus choice for the main "front line on the war on terror" - a place where key U.S. interests are undoubtedly at stake.

As Senator Biden remarked in the Vice Presidential debate, U.S. humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Afghanistan has not come anywhere close to getting the job done: "we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country." Since the overthrow of the Taliban regime in 2001, the United States has dispersed a mere $5 billion in aid to Afghanistan. In a country of about 32 million people (or little less than eight times the size of Georgia), that aid translates into about $22 a person per year since October of 2001.


I don't mean to belittle the hardships of the Georgian people or to suggest that the small country is in some way not deserving of foreign assistance. But before we invest American taxpayer money, shouldn't there be some open debate about our priorities? If this is about poking our collective finger in Putin's eye, couldn't we have found a less expensive way to jab?

Or shouldn't we at least make sure that it is in fact a democracy we are supporting?

Besides, this pledge of aid to the Republic of Georgia is not occurring when America is otherwise flush with extra cash. Our own economy is sputtering under the weight of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

You have to go further back into the archives of world politics to find much traction for the idea of launching a new Marshall plan to reconstruct Russia and the other former Soviet Republics after the end of the Cold War. Imagine what standing we would have throughout that part of the world (and not just with select former Soviet Republics) if we had taken that course, as opposed to offering bungled economic advice and limited resources in the midst of Russia's epic transformation from a planned economy. There is no doubt the time for that kind of investment has passed - but surely we can learn something from the missed opportunity.

Regular people all over the former Soviet Union were hungry for change, were open to western ideas that had been suppressed as anathema under the Communist dictatorship, were excited about the possibilities that would come with real political reform.

The Scorpions song "Winds of Change" was immensely popular in Russia in the early 1990's - symbolic of the hope of a better future after the fall of the Soviet Union (performed here in 1991 in Russian and English):


Now, many of those same people who embraced the winds of change - only to suffer through the economic calamity that Russia experienced through most of the 1990's - now see America and the west as intent on weakening and isolating Russia. Needless to say, this narrative is reinforced by propaganda on Putin-friendly mass media.

But why do we continue to make the Kremlin's job of pushing a chauvinistic version of Russian nationalism so easy?