Bush Administration officials have spoken compassionately about AIDS in Africa, about the tragic conflicts on that continent, and about how important Africa is to the United States. But justice requires more than saying nice words. For governments, it demands policies - and money.

Those of us concerned with justice in and toward Africa recognize that money is not a singular answer to the challenges of just and caring human relationships. Much can be done with very little, and in fact much is accomplished every day in Africa by committed people thoughtfully using limited resources.

Nevertheless, a fundamental faith principle remains: that those with wealth are called to share their abundance with those in need. This is the context in which we view U.S. development aid.

Since the early 1990s there has been a progressive drop in worldwide aid to sub-Saharan Africa. The World Bank reports that overall development assistance to Africa has fallen dramatically. Leading the way in the decrease is the United States, which spends only 0.1 percent of its gross national product (GNP) on development assistance.

Traditionally, the U.S. has been the second largest donor to Africa, after France, in terms of total dollars, but in 1995 it dropped to fourth. (Bread for the World reports that current U.S. AID spending on poverty focused development assistance to Africa is currently about $793 million.)

Although by dollar amount the U.S. remains the second largest donor of worldwide economic aid (after Japan, whose economy is less than half the size of ours), in 1998-99, development aid, as a percentage of the economy, was three times greater in the typical OECD country than in the U.S.

Over the last decade, U.S. development aid has declined, and under the Bush budget, U.S. aid will be only 0.1 percent of the U.S. economy. This is the lowest of the post-World War II era. It will equal only 0.56 percent of total federal expenditures in 2002. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, this is the lowest share of the budget for develop- ment aid than any time on record. Aid under the Bush budget will decline further after 2002.

Members of Congress, who have often expressed hostility to foreign aid, would be surprised by studies showing that most Americans significantly overestimate the actual amount the U.S. spends on it. And intriguingly, a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland reports that 60 percent of Americans support using U.S. foreign aid to ease hunger and spur development in the poorest coun- tries, and 75 percent of the those polled said that they would be willing to contribute $50 a year in taxes to cut hunger in half.

Development aid has been a controversial issue for many years, with debate centering on corruption, ill-conceived projects, control of aid programs, and general effectiveness. Certainly there have been problems, but development assistance continues to address such issues as health and the HIV/AIDS pandemic, education (especially for girls), food security, micro-enterprise lending, child survival, and conflict resolution and peacekeeping. Poverty reduction is the focus, and there is little doubt that aid has helped to improve social indicators in Africa over the last 30 years.

It is worth noting, given the criticism of bilateral aid, that devel- opment aid is not always given on a government-to-government basis. Often funds are directed to NGOs and grassroots organizations. The African Development Foundation (ADF), for example, makes small grants and micro-finance loans to African NGOs, cooperatives, youth groups, women's organizations, and various self-help structures. The ADF is an excellent example of how the U.S. is providing development assistance creatively.

The reckless tax cuts of the Bush Administration dramatically reduce available funds, and will render one need against another; taking money from the child survival line item to pay for spending increases on HIV/AIDS, for example, or as was recently reported, reducing assistance to global warming efforts in Africa and elsewhere in the Global South by $41 million, and shifting those funds to a domestic agenda.

So when we call for spending increases for AIDS or debt relief, we are often dealing with an established total figure, and we end up simply carving up a small pie in a different way. The answer is more funding: significantly more funding.

In 1972, the U.N. approved a resolution calling on all developed nations to spend 0.7 percent of their GNP on development aid. The U.S. contribution of 0.1 percent of GNP falls miserably short of this goal.

The decline in U.S. development spending is unacceptable. Bread for the World has launched a campaign calling for an increase of $1 billion annually for the next 10 years for development aid to Africa. Others in the faith-based advocacy community have called repeatedly for more appropriations for effective development aid. The Washington Office on Africa, for example, is returning to the international 0.7 percent goal. Though the U.S. never committed itself to that goal, it remains an admirable one.

Home to only four percent of the world's population yet consuming more than 25 percent of the world's resources, the U.S. needs to step up and accept its share of responsibility for the 291 million Africans living on less than a dollar a day. We need to keep before Congress and the administration - every Congress and every administration - that we firmly support development aid. As the foreign operations appropriations bill works its way through Congress, now is an excellent time to show our support. It is a point that needs to be made at every opportunity. Our representatives need to be taught that what we are now doing is not enough.

General Assembly Notes

The 213th General Assembly (2001): "Directs the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly to write a letter to the President of the United States, calling upon the United States government to allocate greater resources toward addressing the epidemic and poverty that fans it, as well as prevention and affordable treatment initiatives recommended according to the WHO Massive Effort, and to show flexibility regarding trade agreements and intellectual property rights so that life-saving drugs can be available to all affected populations."

The 208th General Assembly (1996): "Calls to the attention of all Presbyterians the intolerable suffering that characterizes today's world, especially in the poorest developing countries of the south. Widespread hunger, disease, and social unrest persist in tandem with environmental degradation, massive landlessness and unemployment, meager wages, and racial/ethnic/religious conflict. "Development" since World War II has failed to prevent, and has even contributed to, these conditions and has widened the gap between poverty and affluence. The General Assembly asks Presbyterians and all Christians to denounce any reluctance by the United States and all other northern countries to address the causes of impoverishment and suffering in their own midst and in the south."