	Overview: U.S. Policy Priorities in Africa and the FY2012 Aid Request

The Obama Administration has requested $7.8 billion in bilateral foreign assistance for Africa in FY2012, which is designed to meet a number of objectives (see Figure 1 ). The wide range of U.S. policy objectives with regard to Africa reflects the continent's size and diversity. The design of U.S. aid to Africa therefore represents a challenge to U.S. policy makers in terms of balancing priorities and achieving strategic focus. Given the inability of many African countries to meet basic development and governance criteria—as a region, Africa is not on track to meet the U.N. Millennium Development Goals —policy makers often debate whether poor performance on the part of recipient governments justifies terminating or continuing aid. President Obama's Administration and recent Congresses have provided strong support for global health assistance, building on the sharp increase in U.S. global health commitments initiated by the Administration of former President George W. Bush. The FY2012 Request by the Numbers

The proposed FY2012 budget represents an increase of roughly 10% compared to FY2010 enacted levels for Africa ($7.1 billion; actual aid reached $8.1 billion with emergency humanitarian aid included), albeit at a more restrained growth rate than in previous years. (FY2011 enacted levels by region and program area are not yet available.) The proposed increases are concentrated in the areas of health, governance, and agriculture. Recent Trends and the Debate Over Foreign Aid

U.S. bilateral aid to African countries, adjusted for inflation, more than quadrupled over the past decade, from $1.4 billion in FY2002 to $8.1 billion in FY2010. The biggest increases occurred under the Bush Administration and were largely due to growth in global health spending—particularly focused on HIV/AIDS—with more moderate increases in economic and development aid and some security assistance programs ( Figure 2 ). Analysts, development practitioners, and aid advocates have also long debated the value and design of aid programs in Africa. Some further alleged that humanitarian aid in Africa had served to prolong conflicts and had empowered undemocratic regimes and rebel groups. Aid advocates countered that aid should be better designed or scaled up, not terminated, in order to achieve desired objectives, and that aid to Africa is a humanitarian imperative and in the U.S. national interest. Methods and metrics for evaluating aid's effectiveness and impact are also a topic of debate. Selected Issues for Congress

Congress authorizes, appropriates funding for, and oversees U.S. foreign assistance programs. Africa and the President's Global Foreign Assistance Initiatives

Over three-quarters of the Administration's FY2012 bilateral aid request for African countries (not including MCC funding) would be allocated toward implementing three presidential global foreign aid initiatives focused on health, food security, and mitigation of the impacts of global climate change. Africa bears the brunt of the world's global health challenges, accounting for close to 24% of the global "burden" of disease (as calculated by the World Health Organization) and grappling with some of the world's highest rates of malnutrition, infant mortality, and poor maternal and child health. These efforts have been underpinned by humanitarian concerns, but they have also been motivated by concerns over the potential security threats posed by emergent infectious diseases and epidemics.
Sub-Saharan Africa, the world's poorest region, receives over a quarter of all U.S. bilateral foreign assistance. Aid to Africa more than quadrupled over the past decade, primarily due to sizable increases in global health spending during the Bush Administration and more measured increases in development, economic, and security assistance. The Obama Administration's FY2012 bilateral Africa aid budget request, at $7.8 billion, represents an increase of roughly 10% compared to FY2010, albeit at a more restrained growth rate than in previous years (see "The FY2012 Request by the Numbers"). FY2011 enacted levels are not yet available by region. The proposed increases are concentrated in the areas of health, governance, and agriculture.
Significant aid increases since 2001 reflect, in part, changing perceptions of Africa's importance to U.S. national interests and security. They also reflect strong bipartisan support for global health assistance, which has dominated U.S. aid to Africa in recent years. Africa bears the brunt of the world's global health challenges, notably with regard to HIV/AIDS and malaria, and African governments generally lack sufficient capacity to confront the burden of disease on their own. U.S. health efforts in Africa, as elsewhere, have been underpinned by humanitarian concerns, but they have also been motivated by concerns over potential threats to global security. Nearly 70% of proposed FY2012 bilateral aid for African countries (not including Millennium Challenge Corporation funding) would go toward implementing President Obama's Global Health Initiative, which incorporates significant HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tropical disease programs initiated during the Bush Administration. (See "Africa and the President's Global Foreign Assistance Initiatives.")
The Obama Administration has identified a number of other policy objectives in Africa, including food security, democracy, economic growth, conflict prevention and mitigation, and addressing transnational threats. This range of objectives reflects the continent's size and diversity. It also challenges policy makers to balance foreign aid priorities and achieve strategic focus. While health programs represent the bulk of U.S. bilateral spending, other types of assistance, such as democracy promotion and security cooperation, may be more powerful in defining U.S. bilateral relations with African countries and in achieving U.S. diplomatic leverage. Given the inability of many African countries to meet basic development and governance criteria, policy makers often debate whether poor performance justifies terminating or, rather, continuing aid.
Analysts, practitioners, and aid advocates have long debated the value and design of aid programs in Africa. Critics allege that aid has done little to improve socioeconomic outcomes in Africa, and that in some cases it may serve to prolong conflicts or empower undemocratic regimes or rebel groups. Aid advocates counter that programs should be reformed or scaled up, not terminated, and that seeking to improve the welfare of impoverished populations abroad is both a humanitarian imperative and in the U.S. national interest. The methods and metrics for evaluating the effectiveness and impact of aid programs are also a topic of debate.
Congress authorizes, appropriates funding for, and oversees aid programs in Africa. U.S. assistance is also subject to a number of legislative restrictions imposed by Congress, including some which directly or indirectly pertain to African countries. (See "Selected Issues for Congress.")