Read the story here

Recently the amount of foreign aid has been increased at the pressure of British Prime Minister, Tony Blair.


Questions for Debate:

1.) Are you happy with the increase in foreign aid? Does it represent a weaker America for bowing to pressure or a stronger America for helping those in need?

2.) Should the money be kept in America to deal with American issues?

3.) Do we have an obligation to send money to other nations? Would other nations consider aiding us should we request it?

4.) Is domestic aid a better use of monies than foreign aid?

1.) Are you happy with the increase in foreign aid? Does it represent a weaker America for bowing to pressure or a stronger America for helping those in need?

I am against the war in Iraq for about the same reasons I am against large scale govermental foriegn aide to other countries- we, as Americans, need to clean up our own house before attempting to fix others. We, as a nation, simply do not have the resources or will to do both.

2.) Should the money be kept in America to deal with American issues?

Yes, as explained above

3.) Do we have an obligation to send money to other nations? Would other nations consider aiding us should we request it?

We have no obligation at all- it is a question of national will rather than obligation- if the American poeple, by consensus, decide this is what they want to spend thier tax dollars on, then so be it, but we have no external obligation. Probably- I could see most of Europe aiding us in the case of some disaster.

4.) Is domestic aid a better use of monies than foreign aid?

Absolutely! Perhaps if we took better care of our own problems, solved or at least reduced some of our own horrible problems in this country, then in the future we could AFFORD to teach our children, and say, the children in Sudan at the same time- but resources are limited, and our only REAL obligation is to our own citizens!

I think there is a slight misconception about the purpose and overall effects of sending foreign aid. In the end...this is about the self-interest of the United States. When we send aid to a poorer nation to help their infrastructure, their economy, exc... this inevitably benefits the United States because as the country is progressing, it becomes a more viable trade partner and our investments in those countries increase. So in the end...foreign aid is more closer to foreign investment (except for like charitable aid...like sending money for AIDS).

I think that it IS our job to send aid to other nations because it is in our interest to see these nations grow and progress into world contributers. However, we should find a balance between was it beneficial and what is excessive. Since this is a debate about ALL aid and not just that to Africa...yes i think at some times that our aid is too much. For instance in the Tsunami crisis, the US was criticized for not sending enough aid. But it was our navy, our troops, our planes, and our helicopters that as bringing and distributing that aid received from other countries. Nobody ever seems to take into account that our military spending IS foriegn aid. Not only because of all the peacekeeping and humanitarian missions they committ to...but because when our allies have problems with other nations...it is our military to the rescue. People criticize the US for spending so much on the military...but its because our allies do not. France, Germany (two nations people think would (or would have) make a difference in Iraq), and Britain do not have sizable military forces compared to the US or our enemies like China.

So in the end...its bascially a balance between solid foreign investment and domestic spending. The problem is that we are fiscally irresponsible and not cutting back on useless programs to save money and spend on useful programs.

That is simply false.

The "large-scale" foreign aid that Blair's Africa commission is asking for is no more than the US government has promised repeatedly, most recently in 2002 in the Monterey Conference.

0.7% of GNP. Something we could easily afford, several nations in worse shape than we are have already either reached that level or have set concrete plans to do so. Germany's unemployment rate is far higher than ours and yet they have found a way to live up to their commitments.

America is not in economic crisis. I put it this way before when dealing with this fantastic idea of "cleaning up our house"

Our house is a gleaming castle to the poor world's rotting shack.

2.) Should the money be kept in America to deal with American issues?

Said money would be barely 1% of the federal budget. We waste more than this in nearly every area of government.

We are not in desperate need of this funding.

HA!

The "horrible" problems in this country are something a full third of the world's population would hope for.

That is exactly right and it is a crucial concept to understand here.

The real misconception, however, is that the US gives large amounts development aid.

Check my signature for the stats on that. The US spent less than six cents per African in development aid for that continent.

I posted a pretty enlightening post at my blog, that should clear things up.
Link
Second Post From the Top

We've been throwing quarters around like they were manhole covers.

I'd just like to add that Bush has not recently increased development aid at all...

Aid groups keep pressure on Blair

1.) Are you happy with the increase in foreign aid?
Yes, I am. In a grimly satisfied, "it's about time" kind of way, rather than a happy "aren't you good" way (i.e. similar to what I take turnea's line to be)

Does it represent a weaker America for bowing to pressure or a stronger America for helping those in need?
Neither. My closest estimation, from the outside, would be that it represents a stronger America for "bowing to pressure". If the pressure from outside it pressure to do the right thing, as I believe this is, there is no shame in bowing to it.
And don't think Tony Blair is done yet. His ideal goal at this Summer's G8 summit in Edinburgh is more or less complete Third World debt relief. Getting America to act on something they agreed on in principle years ago is only the beginning.
If you don't like that, start lobbying your representatives now.

2.) Should the money be kept in America to deal with American issues?
I'm with turnea on this one. The amounts involved are tiny - 0.7% would barely be a dollar a week for most US taxpayers. The principle that individuals can spend their money better than governments can is all very well, but on this scale, the cost of a burger or a newspaper (which very few, outside the very poorest sections of society, will even notice) for an individual can, collected across nations, be the difference between a dying, disease-ridden continent (too often we in the west talk about Africa as if it is a country, and a small and irrelevant one at that), and a thriving, productive continent of trading partners and consumers.

3.) Do we have an obligation to send money to other nations?
Yes. As has been pointed out, even from a selfish perspective, international aid is enlightened self-interest.

Would other nations consider aiding us should we request it?
I am pretty sure they would. The question in my mind would be, would America be too proud to actually ask anyone for their help?

4.) Is domestic aid a better use of monies than foreign aid?
I'd say that both domestic aid and foreign aid (sensibly targeted and responsibly used) are better uses for monies than tax cuts, agricultural and industrial subsidies, or expansions in a military that is already several steps ahead of anyone else's.

Once again, if it were just the aid you are talking about- fine- but once again, you discount all the money we have spent and are spending on Iraq and our own military so we can run around being the worlds policeman- 87 billion in one appropriation alone, what is Iraq costing us, something like 400 billion or more by now?

Also, what is this habit we have of always comparing our problems as so much better than the third world, but not our real peers in Europe- in that case, we are not such a shining beacon. Massive deficit spending to support foriegn causes (and granted, almost none of it goes to Africa in humanitarian aid) hasn't helped America or Americans.

I would have far rather seen the 87 billion dollars from one appropriation alone (and remember, GW doesn't even count this in the "regular" budget ) go to aids in Africa or such, but, that ship has already sailed hasn't it?

So we can say "oooo, we only spend 0.7 percent of the budget"- but it doesn't tell the whole story does it?

Firstly, if as if you didn't know, our real peers in Europe often times don't live as comfortably as people in the US. Anyone who travels on a regular basis understands that whether we're talking about Europe or Asia, the majority of the US has a "comfort" level that far exceeds anywhere abroad.

But to the matter at hand, the problem that I have with your argument is that it doesn't address the real issue. What you're asking is for your tax dollars to be spent in African humanitarian aid... that these people need our help, and I don't discount that for a split second. The problem is that most Americans (or westerners in general) don't see Africans as people or worthy of their "charitable" spending, and that politicians don't spend our money there for that very reason. If Americans (or Europeans) really cared about African humanitarian issues, how in the world did the Rwandan Genocide happen? Why are there still millions of children starving???

In a nation with consumer spending eclipsing our "peers" by exponential amounts, why don't we send our personal expendable income to Africa??? This problem is far from new.

Many Americans would agree with the war and it's cost. This is inherent with any military spending once we see how much it really costs. I won't begin to address whether it's necessary or not. That's a different thread. However, the average American has no idea what it costs to feed/supply/house an average combat Marine, much less what an F-16 costs. Once these figures are presented, it seems pretty darn daunting...

In summation, I believe that Americans should put their money where their mouths are. For less than what a McDonald's value meal would cost a week, you can house, supply, and send medicine to more than one African. How many of us could skip lunch now and again??? The other argument is always that we could spend the money domestically, which is a pertinent statement. the odd dynamic of that argument is that often times people below the "poverty line" in America have color TV's, microwaves, and automobiles. The funny thing, is that as I get into my Chevy truck and drive home at 2.05/gallon, stop at the gym and take supplements that I spend big $$ on, put on my expensive Adidas running shoes, and go home to my comfortably air conditioned home... I doubt that I'll think of anyone here in the US or abroad that could use just $5 of the untold dollars I spent this evening. Most Americans don't worry about it either. My better half and I give generously, but definitely could give more (Lord knows her spending habits are another story!).

Before we begin to baste the problem in political rhetoric and point fingers towards liberals or conservatives (or an administration)... I think the majority of us can find even a few dollars a month that are spend EXTREMELY frivolously that could go to someone that REALLY needs it.

1.) Are you happy with the increase in foreign aid?

A person dies of starvation that we could have prevented, every 3.6 seconds. We arnt doing enough, and (while I dont think the average American realizes this) our current policys are immoral and selfish.

Does it represent a weaker America for bowing to pressure or a stronger America for helping those in need?

It represents apeasement, but it obviously isnt working.

2.) Should the money be kept in America to deal with American issues?

Africa has more need then we do, so Africa has a higher moral claim for the money.

3.) Do we have an obligation to send money to other nations?

If we can save millions of lives by merely allocating a small portion of our budget to aid, then yes, certainly.

Would other nations consider aiding us should we request it?

4.) Is domestic aid a better use of monies than foreign aid?

Our lower class has its problems, but at least it has food, and social services.

Like I said before, Africas need is greater then ours. Its immoral to let millions of people die, just so we can live in a little bit more luxory.

1.) Are you happy with the increase in foreign aid? Does it represent a weaker America for bowing to pressure or a stronger America for helping those in need? I am not unhappy with it. If it works and ends some misery, I will be absolutely delighted.

Usually, history shows the mistakes, not the present and good intentions. We (not solely the US but the entire west) have a history of vast failure with aid in Africa. If we repeat those mistakes, I will not be happy. I don't think it is inevitable, but the results lie with choosing recipient governments wisely, rather than simply the most-needy. The most needy are often found under exactly the types of corrupt and/or incompetent regimes which grow stronger from the aid and lead to MORE need and poverty in the overall population. It isn't as simple as writing a check and helping things....and history is replete with direct examples.

Other examples: Somalia, which funded warlords and crime through UN dollars. In Mauritania, the government of President Taya, who siphoned away $1.8 billion of aid money for himself and supporters. Mobutu Sese Seko looted Zaire for decades empowered by nine loans from the World Bank and IMF. Julius Nyerere’s regime virtually destroyed the agricultural sector in Tanzania, empowered by large amounts of aid from the Scandinavian countries.

I'll admit I'm jaded after Somalia. Afterall, it's just a mercy mission to distribute food, AND we're sending in military forces to ensure proper food distribution....what could possibly go wrong?

BTW... .7 percent of 11.5 trillion GDP is not a small sum. It's over 80 billion, which divided into the number of adults in this country comes to roughly 350 a year, give or take. That's a dollar a day, but also enough to feed a family of four for a month. I have given more than this, personally, for the past few years to Africa annually through charity. I use a reputable agency and purchase malarial mosquito nets and water purifiers through them. I have more faith in this system than I have that a certain amount of my tax money will get to Africa to purchase those things...I hope so, but, like I said, I'm a bit disillusioned.

2.) Should the money be kept in America to deal with American issues? Again, it depends. We could certainly use it here, but if it does well overseas and eliminates some of the potential for civil warfare and predatory violence which can breed terrorism, it is a sound investment.

That is certainly true and most of the times it is patently obvious which governments can't be trusted as far as you could throw them.

With any increase in aid should come strict auditing procedures. Any irregularities should result in the aid flow being held until things can be sorted out.



Farrah Adid and his thousands of drugged-up fanatical foot soldiers, a fact-finding mission should have seen that coming a mile away...

It's understandable, the media coverage is enough to have Americans scared silly about foreign aid.

We must consider the source however, the media is always more prone to show the negative side of an issue.

The vast majority of foreign aid is not stolen.

80 billion sounds like a lot of money to private individuals. Heck, I'd be impressed with a lousy million.

The question is one of perspective 80 billion is a fraction of the need, the rest is to be made up from other countries donations.

Private aid is great, especially on things like malarial nets, but let's face it they don't have $80 billion dollars to invest. The US government has more money, more clout, and more expertise.

Edited to Add:
Oop wrong strongman, Farrah Adid not Idi Amin.

But, it wasn't just Adid. There were over a dozen warring factions in Somalia. After months of fighting between them, food and medicine were scarce and used up. Troops were sent to reopen supply routes and to get the food moving again. The UN established its headquarters in Mogadishu, which was Adid's turf. Adid initially welcomed them because he thought that this would add to his strength, as he believed he would be Somalia's new leader. When he found out that he was more likely to be disarmed, empowering his main rival Ali Mahdi, he turned against the UN as Mahdi feigned interest in nationbuilding plans and support for the UN because they weakened his rival Adid. There were lots of bad guys and we were sucked into taking sides. The UN aid workers then payed exorbitant rents to stay in areas of warlord control. By paying the hotel owners and workers (even cab drivers) we were paying the militias who extorted money from the population and used it to buy weapons and strengthen themselves. It's the law of unintended consequences.

This is an interesting read regarding past aid problems on both the donor and recipient sides, offering possible solutions.

We must be careful to recognize that law in its totality and not to use it as a crutch as so many people often do.

There are unintended consequences for action, certainly. There are also unintended consequences for inaction.

The unknowable nature of the future should not preclude all action. Otherwise is may be best for us to wall up our bedrooms and wait for death, wouldn't want to kill a child on the morning commute.

We should review the facts and take appropriate action, if the unexpected happens (it always does) then we deal with it.

Sometimes we have to stumble towards the finish line. It doesn't mean we should quit running.


It is indeed and his portion may well be the most telling.

It fits with the quote from my signature.

Corruption can't be our biggest problem if the corrupt leaders don't even get to hold the money before we spend it on ourselves.

This is one of the problems with relying on thousands of private firms to handle the job. Everybody needs their own experts, their own payroll, and has their own priorities.

This could be fixed by a simple change in focus on behalf of the US. If you want poverty to stop you need development. In a low-capital country that means development aid. The US gives far more in military or even emergency food aid than the type that gets results.

Corruption is a problem is some countries and inefficiency in others. But the amount of money is so low that it doesn't make a difference.

The US acknowledged this when the signed the Monterrey Consensus
back in 2002.

The International Conference on Financing for Development

The fact is that poor countries govern poorly, I know of very few exceptions. This does not mean the poor governance causes poverty necessarily. After all some poorly governed countries do fine for themselves in terms of economic growth.

Rather poverty leads to poor governance, good governance costs money.

It is pointless therefor to wait for poor countries to gain good governments
They won't. They can't.

Examples like South Korea and India have shown that when economic prosperity rises then political reforms become a possibility.

That quote would indicate that those figures were for all foreign aid, not Africa specifically. That foreign aid study was done ten years ago, and the brunt of our aid was to Israel, Egypt, and parts of the Soviet block coulntries. We don't know the portion of African aid specifically that came in as goods and services. For all we know from that quote, it might have been 0 percent, all cash, and thus open to stealing. Of course, I'm sure that isn't the case, but I'd bet that the amount exploited was very high, and mismanagement higher. I don't know how one could read that entire link and come to a different conclusion. NOt saying we're squeeky clean by any means, I agree with you that we need the change of focus, but I also think the quote is misleading. I must confess I've been reading up on this a lot since yesterday and educating myself due to your topics (thanks ) Another good link

I think you are wrong here. True, an impoverished government will not be able to perform the way a first-world one does, but we can easily juxatapose examples of countries which used their money and natural resources prudently, and those which did not. Thirty years ago, Sierra Leone and Botswana were both very poor, but sitting on vast diamond deposits. Botswana used its resources wisely and has experienced extreme economic growth. Sierra Leone is as bad or worse off today than thirty years ago. The same could be said for Sudan. Vast oil reserves, but bad government and civil warfare makes it impossible to take advantage of those resources. ODA isn't going to help them. Uganda, on the other hand, is looking better and better. Resources should be allocated only to countries with reasonably good economic policies and relative stability.

I would need to know exactly what "operation" is being referenced here. Was "Le Monde" editorializing or stating the results of an investigation?

You needn't try an search for it if you don't have it on hand, I can probably dig up the context later.

Right now to a more urgent point.


Perhaps my stats are a little old, but are we talking about the same Botswana that NationMaster lists as #3 in the worldfor people living under $1 per capita. Botswana with one of the lowest life expectancies on earth as of 2004?

It is certainly true that Botswana has acheived tremendous growth in certain sectors though it's not due to any dramtatic turn around in leadership, it is a special case.

Botswana's capital is near its border with one of Africa's few rich countries, South Africa. It's growth was highly dependent on South Africa for a long time.


In any case not all of Africa shares the distinction of being one of the world's biggest diamond producers or bordering South Africa as a trade partner. Both attracted foreign investment.

I won't say exceptionally bad government can't stifle growth, it certainly can. Sudan needs a lot more thn aid to get out of its fix, but that is not the case with most of Africa whose problems relate to economic isolation and a lack of infrastructre.

Without roads to a port or a stable work force, the private sector is not looking to invest in these countries.

Toyota will build cars, but they won't build highways to ship them to ports.

Without better farming techniques and fertilizers Afrca's farmers can't provide for themselves less alone save money to invest.

It's no accident that many of these countries are landlocked.

There are a lot of poor in Botswana, but it is a middle class country by Africa standards. The GDP is over 9,000$ per capita. They only receive .6 percent of their GDP in aid money. Juxtapose that with Sierra Leone, same diamond reserves abnd receiving 28 percent of its GDP from aid money per capita GDP 492 dollars a person. I think Nationmaster is a bit old with their data. They list Botswana as having a per capita GDP of a little over 8,500$. I'm certainly not an expert on Africa, but I've come to this conclusion from reading opinions of experts. Botswana has its problems...including high AIDs rates and high unemployment, but it has sound policy and good credit. From the CIA worldfactbook:

This one takes the cake. Not only does my hard earned money wind up going to some third world toilet I couldn't possibly care less about, now they actually have a MORAL CLAIM to it? They have a higher moral claim to AMERICAN money than AMERICAN people do?

I, personally, am quite irritated at this whole thing. This is embezzlement, pure and simple. They take our money and then export it to people who have NOTHING to do with it. As much as I am against welfare, I would rather see every single American citizen on welfare, than have one penny go to some other country. Why is it my concern? I personally do not care if the entire African continent lives forever or grows daisies tomorrow. Charity should be voluntary, and if I want no part of it, I should not be coerced into it. Can someone point to a part of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to steal from its own citizen, to take money that could benefit Americans and give it away?

And whether it is a penny or a dollar or a million makes ZERO difference to me. I WANT MY MONEY BACK.

This is one of the ends and outs of democracy. Most Americans support the concept of government-give foreign aid. It's their money to.

I don't like some of the things government does, but I have no illusion that they are stealing from me. Majority ruled and that's that unless it breaks the law.

Mrs. Pigpen
I agree that Botswana is doing very well compared to other African nation, but The fact that it is a nearly lone example should say something. It isn't as if Africans don't want good governance. I have friends from Africa and you will never hear anyone complain so loudly about government corruption.

Botswana had unique geographical and political advantages. It is doing well for Africa but still struggles despite good governance.

Corruption is not the key issue here and waiting for it to go away certainly won't help.

History is replete with examples in Asia. Eastern Europe used to be a byword for corruption.

Poland didn't pull it's own out of the fire. They needed a massive debt relief program first. First prosperity rose, then corruption fell. Western Europe needed billions in aid to get back on its feet after WWII and we gave willingly.

We have nations in far worse shape and yet some would have us believe if only we do more nothing things might get better.

That's not the way life works. Never has been. Never will be.

The Flow of Foreign Aid and Private Capital to Developing Countries
The US government has known this to be true for a long time...

On a related note, evidently the G8 has agreed to eliminate the debt of 19 African nations.

I think this is an excellent step in that area. Many of these countries can't make their own investments in development when a significant amount of their small GNP goes to interest payments first.