The “Aid Mentality” That Starts the Downfall of Everything

When U.S. President Donald Trump dismantled USAID (the United States Agency for International Development) shortly after taking office in 2025, much of the world responded with a long sigh. It is not difficult to see why. Since its establishment in 1961, the agency had provided assistance to more than 130 countries around the world, supporting sectors such as education, healthcare, environmental protection, democratic governance, and many others.

Trump’s decision to shut down the agency was actually quite understandable. One reason is that the United States has accumulated an enormous national debt, partly because successive administrations spent considerable resources supporting development efforts in countries around the world. When USAID was first established, some recipient nations were facing severe hardships caused by natural disasters, political conflicts, and other crises that had left their populations struggling.

However, several countries that received USAID assistance were, in reality, doing reasonably well when the funding first arrived. They were not wealthy nations, but neither were they suffering from famine or major wars. Countries across Asia such as Indonesia, India, China, Bangladesh, and the Philippines are examples, as shown in this chart. Sadly, the standard of living in many of these recipient countries remained largely unchanged from the time USAID first transferred funds until the assistance was eventually discontinued.

If you click the link I provided above, you will see a world map displaying each country and the amount of aid it received from the United States. The darker the shade of blue, the more aid that country received. What I do not know is how the United States monitored and evaluated the effectiveness of the assistance it distributed. Did recipient countries actually improve their circumstances? Did they become more prosperous, healthier, better educated, and more democratic after receiving American aid?

If not, why was there no form of shock therapy to encourage recipient countries to improve their own situations? More troubling still, why would a major power such as the United States not have a system to evaluate whether the money it spent was truly benefiting the countries it chose to support?

Illustration: Ngliyep Beach, South Malang. 

Obligated to Give, Obligated to Receive

Before humanity entered the modern era, when people increasingly relied on themselves to solve life’s problems, asking for help was considered perfectly natural among followers of Siberian Indigenous Beliefs, both in the past and today. When they went hunting in the forest or fishing at sea, favorable natural conditions were essential for obtaining what they sought: animals or fish to serve as dinner for their families.

Nature is inherently unpredictable. For that reason, Tengrism, one branch of the Siberian Indigenous traditions, developed guidelines that prepared its followers to face whatever nature might bring. Living simply and helping preserve the surrounding environment were among the basic principles they were expected to follow, not because doing so would bring miracles or magically transform their lives.

The logic is straightforward. Living simply means consuming less and wasting less. If practiced consistently, shortages of fish and animals can be prevented. Hunting and fishing become more successful, and families at home can enjoy good meals every day.

Like many Indigenous belief systems around the world, Tengrism includes the practice of making offerings. Yet for its followers, offerings are primarily a way of acknowledging the existence of nature and everything within it. Offerings mean nothing if they are not accompanied by behavior that follows the principles passed down by their ancestors.

Selfless Giving Is a Myth

Even charitable organizations impose conditions on those who receive assistance. It is naïve to place complete faith in any entity that claims to provide help purely out of sincerity, without expecting or seeking anything in return. If generous financial assistance comes with no restrictions and no rules governing how it should be used, that is not necessarily something to celebrate.

Imagine that after decades of hardship, you suddenly become wealthy because of someone else's generosity. Then, just as suddenly, that support disappears and you find yourself struggling again.

Would you be able to return willingly to your former life, without regret, without anxiety, and without a sense of loss? (dswas).