foreign aid - should th US provide more or less?

Great Debates
21

Gest:

To be fair, no I wouldn’t. Yes, I’m aware and not very proud of the unsavory characters we’ve aided and abetted in the past (mostly in the context of the Cold War).

Then again, the military aid and troop deployment we provide to South Korea - which a) leaves South Korea free to spend more money on its own social development and b) helped South Korea to develop into an economic “tiger” by encouraging huge sums of money in multinational investment and c) helps protect the South against their lunatic neighbor - is military assistance helping a bad situation.

(All that said, I think it’s high time we brought those troops home from there. South Korea is a big boy now, let it protect itself. I’m mighty tired of seeing spoiled South Korean kids - who grew up in peace and prosperity due in large part to the presence of American troops - protesting in Seoul about the U.S. military “occupation.” Yeah, South Korea, we love the fact that we have 37,000 soldiers who get to be sacrificial lambs if Kim Jong-il has a bad hair day and crosses the DMZ, while you spit on them if they have a beer in Seoul. :mad:)

Gest:

Geez, overreact much, Gest?

No, bless his heart, he’s still trying to do good work in a war zone: he’s now a junior high science teacher at a public school in Oakland (he told me the other day that his current job is more dangerous than Mogadishu :D) Since he’s a member of the California Teacher’s Union, he’s required by the bylaws to a) pay union dues and b) be a Bush/Republican hater. :smiley:

Gest, your brother-in-law, and my cousin, are doing God’s work, IMHO. I’m proud as hell of my cousin’s work - there’s no doubt he’s a better human being than me. If there is such a thing as heaven, my cousin and your brother-in-law already have their tickets punched. It was not my intention to denigrate their heroic efforts; it was my intention to point out that in some (not all) cases, foreign aid exacerbates an already bad situation.

And Eolbo, if using my cousin as “anecdotal” evidence (he’s a primary source) or using a scene from Black Hawk Down for my rebuttal ruins my credibility, then may I humbly offer this 1993 report on Somalia from Human Rights Watch.

Scroll down to the section titled “The Famine”:

And so on…

Another interesting book on this subject is “The Road to Hell” by Michael Maren. Maren is a former aid worker who spent time in the worst places on Earth and who has seen firsthand how aid organizations get corrupted and how foreign aid is misused. I will concede that the tone is both angry and cynical, which does erode its credibility as a cite for this debate, but it doesn’t take away from his central thesis - that sometimes, foreign aid makes a bad situation worse.

The point of my rebuttal, Eolbo, was that using the statistics you and sailor provided as “proof” that Europeans were somehow more “generous” and “do more to help” than Americans was inconclusive (not to mention snide) if you don’t take into account solid metrics on how the aid was used, metrics on whether or not the aid actually helped the situation or hurt it.

If, as Adaher points out, the aid goes directly to dictators and warlords who perpetuate human misery, then you have no right to hijack the moral high ground.

22

And to expound more on my last post, I certainly agree with you (Eolbo) that America can do more to help. I was thrilled to hear about the Bush plan to send $15 billion in AIDS relief to Africa. I believe in the concept of debt forgiveness.

Certainly, I don’t support those positions out of pure altruism (not that I feel guilty about that; not when you’re talking about giving that much money away, money that I and my fellow taxpayers earned by the sweat of our brows). I believe that aid money and medicine PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED amounts to enlightened self-interest because I believe the real danger to world security are failed states that tend to become terrorist-friendly. If that makes me an capitalist exploiter of the benighted third world masses, so be it.

Just don’t tell me that because Europe has a higher amount of per-capita public aid than America that Europe is somehow “better.” Not if that aid makes a bad situation worse, which it often (but not always) does.

23

Thank you, a better source.

I didn’t say either of your quoted remarks, but however I or sailor say it and however your wounded national pride baulks at accepting it the reality is the Europeans are indeed more generous. Your private contributions do not make up the gap and nor are you the only nation with private contributions. On current projections your aid budget is due to increase by roughly 50% by 2006, a huge increase which will still leave you giving only a bit more then half what you gave in the 1980s and still less relatively then the Europeans. And lest you think I am European I will point out that I am from Australia and we too are put to shame by European generosity which I dont say with any pride. We should give more, and so should you.

More to the point hijacking the moral high ground was your own ploy specifically with your assertion that “European governments indeed do more to sustain the rule of warlords who use food as a weapon of war than the American government”, an attempt to make your relative miserliness a virtue. Apart from being a still unsubstantiated assertion which also lacks solid metrics, its a rather trite assertion given that:

a. The United States itself supplied much of the food aid to Somalia and not just Europeans so presumably the US itself must share in any blame due to food aid, not that I think blame is due to either you or the Europeans in that regard

b. More importantly, if sustaining the rule of dictators is to be considered, which was the topic you raised, the provision by the US of hundreds of millions of dollars in direct military aid to the Barre regime would be a greater factor then European food aid dont you think? Barre was propped up by the US until 1989, and this was a big factor in why many Somalis were so eager to kill Americans and drag their bodies through the streets in 1993, all part of the context which Blackhawk Down omitted.

24

My final comment, at least for now as I’m going to bed, is that I dont have a problem with enlightened self interest as long as it really is enlightened and that we recognise the self interest aspect which some posters do not seem to have done eg German bases. I disagree with you, as you have probably guessed, about the merits of aid, you seem to imply its more often detrimental then not, I believe the converse. Its a difference of degree.

25

Darn hamsters ate my last post.:mad:

So according to you, Eolbo, even though United States…

  • “is now the world’s top donor of economic aid” (per your original link)
  • “on current projections your (American) aid budget is due to increase by roughly 50% by 2006” (per your post) and,
  • America has made the decision to increase public aid despite the fact that we have every right to be wary that aid may exacerbate an already bad situation (per my HRW link)

…you simultaneously denounce American “miserliness” :confused:

Any wonder why many Americans have a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” mentality these days?

As far as acknowledging the “self-interest” part of “enlightened,” sure, I’ll do that. Frankly, it damn well better be in our nation’s self-interest considering the aid is given as a result of money paid by me and my fellow taxpayers.

For instance, I question whether it’s such a good and noble thing for Europe and America to send food aid to North Korea, especially when the aid is given with so little oversight and no internal structural framework for verification. Based on what I know of the character of the North Korean government, I can safely deduce that the food aid sustains a vicious Stalinist government. Perhaps the aid prevents a total collapse and inherent instability (good); then again, perhaps the aid buys the regime enough time to produce nuclear weapons (bad).

Does it at least feed the hungry? Well, maybe, maybe not: there’s very good reason to believe the North Korean government diverts the food away from its intended recipients and into the mouths of the North Korean army and scummy black marketeers.

Please excuse me if I ask for a modicum of discipline and efficacy metrics to ensure the aid is doing what it should (help the poor/oppressed/sick/etc.), and object to giving that aid if I determine it is simply making a bad situation worse (such as when it makes its way into the hands of warlords who use it as a weapon of war against their clan rivals).

If I make that determination, I don’t think that makes me a “miser.” It just means that based on all the information I have, the least-worst ethical option may be to oppose giving that aid. Conversely, if you make the determination that the aid is perpetuating a bad situation and decide to give the aid anyway (while fatuously proclaiming your virtue), I don’t think you deserve kudos.

I beg forgiveness for insisting (as a taxpayer) that factors other than pure altruism are considered when determining if Nation X gets Y amount of Z type of aid, although I do insist that morality play some role in the decision because usually it’s in our nation’s strategic self-interest to promote human rights.

In return for insisting on the aforementioned points*, I do think it’s my duty as someone fortunate enough to prosper in the richest country in the world to identify and donate to charities (both domestic and international) that work to alleviate human suffering. But this is a personal thing, and I don’t denigrate those people who spend their hard-earned money the way they see fit. I believe in Mencken’s Law: “Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel.”

(* - not that there’s any such thing as government fiscal discipline, of course. It’s the principle I’m getting at.)

Now, Eolbo, since I acknowledged self-interest, I hope you’ll address my points about how foreign aid can be corrupted and perpetuate misery (not all the time). I notice you didn’t bother to do so in your last post.

Look, Eolbo, I suspect you and I probably agree on this subject more than it appears from our tete-a-tete. I don’t think foreign aid is a bad thing in and of itself, and I give credit where credit is due to Europe for its public beneficence (Iraq notwithstanding, of course). I don’t doubt Europe’s heart is in the right place.

I just think it’s disingenuous for you to try to score cheap rhetorical points against U.S. “miserliness,” especially when there’s plenty of solid evidence pointing to how foreign aid can be corrupted. It’s a cheap smear, but then again, we Americans are getting used to them, and many of us are starting to tune the critics out.

26

In your previous post you wrote that you dont doubt the US can do more to help. I agree with you on that. You might not like a foreigner pointing it out but the reality is that in former years you have given much more aid then you do now and whether you want to hear it or not, you are not especially generous compared to other developed nations, in fact you are pretty much last. I could sugarcoat it I guess but yes it looks like relative miserliness to me. In the 1980s you gave circa 27 billion, nearly three times as much as now and even the projected increases do not take you anywhere near that amount.

You have gone on at some length about failures in aid and want me to address the topic so I will but its not one as important to me as it seemingly is to you. Now while I would quibble with the frequency I will agree with you that aid has not always been useful, that it can be detrimental, that it can be wasteful and encourage corruption. But I dont draw the same conclusion from that as you. Yes aid can be a waste of money if you like, just as its a certainty that much of the reconstruction money being provided to Iraq will be wasted. There is no possible world in which that will ever be any different, thats just how the world is, and its how people are. People with an opportunity to make quick dollars will likely take it whether it be Halliburton or Somali warlords. But that to me isnt an argument for giving less aid, because the needs remain all too real and very much greater then any figure either you or Europe is ever going to give. Your points are an argument for better control and monitoring of aid money and in that I concur. Or to give another example, in the 1980s there was large scale famine in Mozambique and much aid was sent. Very large quantities were seized from convoys and diverted to the Renamo guerillas who were devastating the country. Now perhaps thats an argument that the aid shouldnt have been sent as it didnt reach the intended recipients and it was all a waste, to me its just an argument that the convoys needed military protection nothing more. The need remained, the starving people were real people.

I dont object if your criteria is enlightened self-interest, in fact I prefer that it is, its a more sound impulse in my opinion then moralistic military crusading. I do think though that there is much more room for enlightened self interest then you are currently paying for, and it would seem that in former days American governments thought likewise. You could pump billions into building modern educational systems in the islamic world for instance. And I really really think you should, as its very much in your interest to do so. Aid was seen as a crucial weapon in the cold war, why should it be any different in your war on terror? Money buys influence and friends and its not like you dont need them.

Anyway thats all I want to say on the topic. I agree with you that we probably agree more then has been apparent here but on the area of disagreement we are not going to see eye to eye, we see the world differently. Which is as good a reason as any for us both to read this board.

27

Debt forgiveness is a big one. I think that we should forgive the debts of nations that are working towards free market economies. We should also forgive all debt incurred under dictators, and Europe and Asia should join us in this. After all, people like Saddam Hussein and Ferdinand Marcos racked up huge debt without any consent from their people, but now the world expects them to pay it back. The money should never have been loaned in the first place!

28

Given that the US gives more in raw dollar amounts than anyone else on the planet, the simple fact is that the US is more generous than anyone else on the planet. (shrug)

I mean, lets not talk “relatively”, nor “per capita”. Lets talk tonnes of grain. Lets talk about who feeds more people than anyone else. Lets talk about who buys more material, medicines and other necessary items for those in Africa and around the world.

The US does. It’s just that simple. Oh relatively Denmark gives a shitload more than the US does. But you could put all of Denmarks grain in one fucking freightship and it’d take a FLEET to carry all the grain the US sends.

That the real difference you’re pretending doesn’t exist. And it’s why your argument is just horseshit. Simply and painfully, “per capita” does not a hungry mouth feed. Food does. And the US contributes more than Europe and in fact more than major parts of Europe COMBINED.

Your argument just boils down to someone worth 1000 dollars giving up a dollar to feed people versus Bill Gates (net worth 40 Billion or so) giving up 4000000 to feed people. “Per capita”, and “relatively” the pauper is much more generous. Orders of magnitude so. But the fact is that here in the real world, Bill gates has just fed a crap load more people for a lot longer.
Europe talks it, the US walks it.

It’s a horseshit argument designed to make Europe look better than it is, and to try and take some moral high ground by playing numbers games. In the end, if you’re starving to death, it comes down to this, you’d rather have real food than someone telling you “per capita, the Dutch are feeding you right now! think yummy thoughts!”.

Based on the raw amount, the USA feeds more people everyday than europe does. It helps more people in more places. Every. Single. Day.

And ALL of that is leaving aside the tens of billions in private giving from the US.

Regards,
-Bouncer-
PS: If you really want we can break down the cost of food per ton and figure out just how much bigger a pile of grain the US gives versus Denmark (or any other european country you care to name).

29

The burden of proof is on you. I was merely responding to the OP’s claim, which is buttressed only by a cite that makes the “twice as much” claim without reference to actual numbers or any indication of where the data appears.

The person making the assertion carries the burden of proof. I withdraw my claim. We’re left with the “twice as much” claim that needs verification.

  • Rick
30

One has to consider exactly WHERE the US aid goes.

A little example.

Between 1947, and 1997, the United States has donated 68 billion US dollars in foreign aid to Latin-America, Africa, and the Carribean. That’s an area of the world that has roughly 1,410 billion people.

In that same time-frame, the United States has given 74$ billion dollars to Israel, a country with a mere 6 million people, and an economy bigger than that of Ireland, and on par with that of Spain.

That figure represents 33% of the aid the United States has given in the last 50 years. If you add in Egypt (Egypt receives a large amount of US foreign aid in return for the Sadat signature in 1973), that’s FIFTY PERCENT of the US foreign aid going to the development of it’s prime Middle-Easter ally.

For Israel, this represent 20% of their GDP, and, incidentally, a substantial amount goes into the funds that are used to buy military equipment.

31

Bouncer, um, would you have some cites handy? I sure would appreciate them. You do realise the population of Europe is quite a bit larger that that of the USA?

32

Given that there is no objective measure of what the “correct” amount of foreign aid is, I’d submit that any answer to the OP is simply a matter of opinion.

A country (govenmnet) should give precisely as much as its collective humanitarian will and own national interests allow. And as long as there are no significant barriers to private individuals donating more money, if they so choose, then I’d have to say whatever an elected government decides to give is “the right amount”.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that we have could agree that the EU gives more per capita, or a larger portion of its GDP than the US. So what?

I think a better question might be: What is the best way to ensure that a country’s foreign aid is actually doing what it’s supposed to be doing-- eg, helping the needy people in the world, as opposed to lining the pockets of dictators, petty theives or middlemen? And what is the best way to ensure that this aid also helps those people to become independent of the need for aid, as opposed to creating a class of people perpetually dependent on it?

33

Sailor,

No problemo… here is basically where both sides are getting their info:

Scroll down about halfway for lists of both raw numbers, and GNP. My apolgies for saying per capita, I meant by GNP.

For 2002:
Denmark, the worlds #1 giver by GNP (.96%) gave 1.2 Billion.
The US, the worlds #22 giver by GNP, (.12%) gave 12 Billion.

In the real world, wheat costs around 150 dollars per ton, so the Danes can contribute about 8 million tons of food. A not unimpressive amount you’ll agree. The US, by contrast, contributes EIGHTY million tons of food. See the real impact difference? 8 million tons versus 80 million tons.

Of course in the real world it’s not so straightforward as just buying tons of wheat. But it makes the point that per GNP arguments don’t reflect the real world at all. They’re just number games. And do not reflect the real impact that real dollar amounts have.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

34

Bouncer wrote:

That’s kind of the whole operant point isn’t it? It’s rather pointless looking at the 12 billion dollars the US provided in foreign aid last year if you’re not also going to examine what countries that aid went to, and what it supported. If you scroll down that page a bit, you’ll see the division of cash flow for the various countries that the US gives aid to.

Here it is:

http://www.globalissues.org/images/USAid19992000.jpg

If you look at the amount Israel and Egypt received, we’re talking about 1.8 billion dollars out of that 12 billion dollar budget. I’d absolutely mind-numbing to note that this gets classified as “foreign aid”, when really what it’s for is the continuation and support of political programs that have nothing to do with “development” whatsoever.

35

And the point in comparing the aid provided by a small country like Denmark to a huge one like the USA is?

Then, according to your own cite, the EU gives 180 million tons of wheat as compared to the US 80 milions tons. See the real impact difference? 80 milion tons versus 180 milion tons.

And of course, you can’t state that the EU has a larger poulation or any similar argument, since it seems to make sense to you to compare Denmark and the USA in raw amounts.

36

You’d be more persuasive if you were interested in doing the same for other countries, too.

Blanket moral assertions such as “the reality is the Europeans are indeed more generous” (i.e. making judgements on national character) might begin to be meaningful if were including non-governmental aid. But you’ll pardon me if I don’t credit generosity to someone whose only contribution to charity is that he pays taxes to a government whose bureaucrats have decided that foreign aid is in the national interest. Not that that makes him greedy, either. I submit that it just doesn’t count as much as mailing in his own five quid.

“per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas – more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion”
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

Not counting military expenditures at all is absurd. In many countries, a functioning military is desperately needed to create a stable order: does anyone think that helping the Afghan government train and arm soldiers is not in the long-term interest of the people there?

Moreover, cross-training can help promote the idea of the “professional soldier” who submits willingly to civilian authority. Anecdote: I knew a Navy Seal who did just this sort of training, and he told me that he would often have conversations with foreign nationals where he would discuss how much he hated Clinton (this was 98), but that he would never consider any sort of coup “because that’s the way you really fuck up your country.” He said that some of the people he was training, who had enormous respect for him as a soldier, were often surprised and taken aback to hear this. (And yes, this sort of “professionalism” is part of the official curriculum.)

Having said all that, I would like to see the US do more. Not that they’d get any credit if they did…

37

Furt wrote:

Do you want me to say that Europe does it too? Of course they do, I won’t deny that. Europe traditionally gives only 39% of its foreign aid to low-income countries in Latin-America and Africa, with the lion share going to “middle-income” countries in the Balkan, and for reasons that have everything to do with politics and very little with “foreign aid”. But… um… so what? Do you mean that because Europe is rather hypocritical about how it spends it’s foreign aid, it’s okay for the US to be too?

The United States is giving a paltry 300 million dollars to Afghanistan this year, and only after the United States congress stepped in when criticism arose over Bush “forgetting” Afghanistan when it came time to revise the foreign aid budget. That being said, I’m inclined to agree that in the case of Afghanistan, some of that money needs to go to internal security.

But we’re not talking about Afghanistan here; we’re talking about Israel. The third largest nuclear power in the world, which was created by an act of ethnical cleansing, and has aggressively pursued a policy of racial purity for the past 50 years, while simultaneously repressing 4.5 million people, in the face of countless international condemnations and UN General Assembly resolutions. A country with an economy that rivals most Western European countries, and with an army that could probably take on the whole of Europe and come out victorious. To call that “foreign aid” is rather… laughable.

Europe is not without blame, it is true. But Europe does not support any foreign nation in quite the same way the US supports Israel.

38

It is sort of silly to apply the same standards to all European countries and to talk of Europe as a single entity. The US should be compared to high income European countries such as the ones in Scandinavia, Holland, Germany and Luxembourg.

The US looks pretty good compared to countries that have no money to spare like Portugal, Greece and Spain.

Bouncers theory on how per capita analysis in unfair is a bit like saying that whoever is part to the biggest charity is the most generous, no matter how much he/she gave to it.

39

“Bouncers theory on how per capita analysis in unfair is a bit like saying that whoever is part to the biggest charity is the most generous, no matter how much he/she gave to it.”

Err… come again? I’m not disagreeing, but I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. “whoever is part to the biggest charity” lost me.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

40

You think per capita analysis of who is the most generous is unfair to Americans. I think its unfair that the Danish have to give at least 100 times as much as Americans in order to be “as generous” using your logic.