Rockridge High School
Taylor Ridge, Illinois
Teacher:  Barbara Downey

 

Foreign Aid and the Millennium Challenge Account
By Ashley Darland
12^th grade

 

Is the United States of America willing to jeopardize its formation of “a more perfect union,” its reassurance of “domestic tranquility,” and its promise to secure citizens with “the blessings of liberty?”  Previous patriotism has shown that neither citizens nor government officials want to place the United States in that unnecessary and regretful position.  Why even consider the option of committing America to increase its foreign aid when too many objections outweigh the sole purpose?  Granted, foreign assistance seeks to develop this world into one where equality justifies all aspects of life.  Yet, that humanitarian deed is not worth damaging what the citizens of our country have earned.   

During the 1930’s, the United States suffered through the discouraging days of the Great Depression.  Severely limited resources had caused America to lose hope.  While presently combating an economic slump, the United States as a whole cannot afford to spend additional money to support foreign assistance.  The American government and overall life could collapse into chaos if it ever experienced another depression.

However, there are individuals who have opportunities to organize support.  These American citizens have the ability to donate a portion of their own personal time and effort so others who are less fortunate receive the necessities of life.  Not all residents of the United States have such luxuries because they must cope with their own tribulations.  Yet, those who are successful could sacrifice some of their monetary wealth to others battling the nightmare of poverty.  An incentive to encourage such contributions may include tax credits for those donating to the less fortunate. 

A new program presented by President Bush to provide more global development is the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA).  The motive is to encourage developed nations to give more support through grants and services, and in return, the developing countries will take more responsibility to adopt the reforms that make development effective. To some leaders, this accomplishment will lead to world cooperation.  President Bush announced that the program would allow foreign nations to “invest in better health care, better schools, and broader immunization.”  However, is this a feasible outcome?

This program does not seem to be following a positive course.  By concentrating our attention to issues beyond our borders, we lose sight of our own development.  The United States must take action to put itself as a first priority.  Initially, we must be concerned with our own necessities and dilemmas because without a solid economy, the United States will not survive, let alone achieve the goal to upgrading other countries.  With the MCA, we will lose our personal standard of living. 

Although the general direction of the MCA is worthy of support, there is reasonable opposition that should halt all action of the plan.  First, part of this increased funding will come from other sections of the budget which could affect any aid for the elderly and education.  Also, less money will be distributed for America’s own improvement of poverty.  Pulling money from these units will impair our society even more.  Today’s older generation already struggles, desperately trying to pay for heating costs and health care.  Some pay thousands of dollars monthly just for their necessary medications.  Still, there is another hardship involved when most of them live on fixed incomes.  Currently, school districts are facing a budget deficit due to past chains of government borrowing,  which will not be reinstated.  If the MCA goes into effect, the nation’s schools may have to rely on the only option of cutting their staff and services.  Despite the fact that many dream about the American life, the United States does not completely symbolize its alleged image of a true paradise.  Hunger, violence, homeless people, and many other misfortunes still exist within the borders of this country and need to be addressed.  So, we must adhere to resolving our national problems before we dive into foreign corruption. 

In addition, another problem with the MCA involves the reactions of many foreign residents.  Numerous times the United States has deployed American servicemen in unfamiliar territory to provide generosity through goodwill efforts, only to be welcomed with attacks.  For example, America sent troops on a charitable mission to Bosnia a few years ago.  Ironically, our men were met with resistance.  Due to such negativity, it is not wise to increase worldwide aid through the MCA program.  The citizens of these countries do not have any respect for our support, and instead of displaying appreciation, they sometimes ambush and abuse our citizens.  Although the MCA would allow for a constant updating process (no biased opinions) and the opportunity for eligible countries to establish their own plans of focus, many of these governments and citizens would still demonstrate harsh behavior.  Reasoning is unknown, but even acknowledging the truth will not hinder the criticism.  Why continue sending support when we are only mistreated for our efforts?  

A major disadvantage to the MCA’s intent refers to the recent terrorist assaults directed toward the United States.  By accumulating more money for foreign aid, less will be bound for the security of our country.  Granted, the MCA would support the advancement in greater technology and new knowledge for impoverished nations.  This would allow these countries to defend themselves.  However, is the United States willing to risk being attacked by the exact tactics which it taught the other nations?  Presently, the United States should be surveying other nations for possible terrorist threats; otherwise, there may be more potential assaults in the near future. 

As a direct result of the MCA, the United States as a whole cannot afford to increase its foreign assistance without collapsing into another depression.  Additionally, the MCA increase would not permit as much support for our society, would not terminate the horrendous foreign violence, and would not permit as much effort to go towards our security benefits.  The MCA may seem like a compassionate advancement, but America must not gamble away its own economic well-being for the development of other nations.  

Questions

Q1- President Bush claimed that most funds for development do not come from international aid.  He mentions three things that do fund development.  What are they?

            President Bush mentioned that the funds for development come from domestic capital, foreign investment, and international trade.

Q2- President Bush reminded his audience that successful development in a third world country requires more than funds.  What two items did he mention in this regard?

            President Bush mentioned that successful development requires security and citizens who are literate, healthy, and prepared and able to work.

Q3- When is money sometimes counterproductive, according to President Bush?

            President Bush announced that when nations decline to endorse sound policies, eliminating poverty is nearly impossible.  With these conditions, more aid money can actually be counterproductive because it finances bad policies, postpones reform, and crowds out personal investment. 

Q4- Describe the Millennium Challenge Account and include in your description what is anticipated from donors and recipients.

            The Millennium Challenge Account is a new compact for global advance.  Developed nations (donors) are to give much more support and developing nations are to take more responsibility in order to benefit from this program.  

            The United States is a key example.  It will increase its development aid by $5 billion over the next three budget cycles.  Among other efforts, the U.S. will increase its fight against AIDS; it will bring computer instruction to the developing nations; it will assist African businesses and their people to sell merchandise abroad; it will supply textbooks and training to students in Islamic and African countries; it will apply the power of science and technology to increase harvests where hunger is severe.

            Recipients are highly encouraged to adopt the reforms and guidelines that make development successful and lasting.  The developing nations are asked to root out corruption, value human rights, and stay on the rule of law.  It is also requested that these developing nations invest in enhanced health care, better education, and broader immunization. 

Q5- What are the three broad standards that President Bush expects the leaders of the developing nations to adopt?

            President Bush expects the leaders of the developing nations to adopt the three broad standards of ruling justly, investing in their people, and encouraging economic freedom. 

Q6- Describe President Bush’s challenge to development banks and explain why or why not you favor it.

            President Bush’s challenge for the development banks is to supply up to half of the funds dedicated to poor nations in the form of grants, rather than loans.  I do favor his plan regarding grants because it gives the nations a chance to build their economy without having to pay debts so soon.  Also, loans may never be reimbursed. 

Q7- What percentage of our national income (GNP) do you think the United States government committed to foreign aid in 2002?  First answer this question and then use the Internet to find the answer.

            Personally, I believe that the United States committed 17% of our national income to foreign aid in 2002.  In researching the issue, it was discovered that the United States devoted 0.108% of its GNP to aid developing nations.

Q8- Describe and defend a “Me First” attitude.  (Use your head—you won’t find the answer in the required reading.)

            A “Me First” attitude reveals how one country puts itself as a number one priority above all others.  This includes making sure its citizens are safe and the economy is protected with much security.  This type of country concerns itself firstly with its own problems, necessities, and desires.  Wealth, strong and effective governments, healthy living environments, advanced education and technology, and other luxuries are just a few examples.  Once this country is satisfied with its production, then it begins aiding foreign countries.

            In my personal opinion, other countries do see this type of attitude with the United States because we live so freely and comfortably.  Whether that is true or not, I still feel that sometimes it is not a sinful way of thinking.  For example, when the United States details its servicemen in foreign countries to provide humanitarian and goodwill aid, the servicemen are ambushed and attacked by the citizens of those nations.  When this occurs, why think of anyone but yourself, especially when trying to be generous. 

Q9- Describe and defend a “Mutual Benefit” attitude.  (Use your head—you won’t find the answer in the required reading.)

            A “Mutual Benefit” attitude reveals how multiple countries can gain advantages at once.  By helping others, you are helping yourself.  This method contributes to ranking economy as the number one concern.

            If all nations played a role in “Mutual Benefit,” the world would be a much safer place to live in.  Worldwide, economies would improve.  Countries would be provided a location to distribute exports and services.  World peace would exist as well. 

Q10- Describe three unsuccessful foreign aid programs operated by the U.S. government or private American citizens.  (Do not use the programs discussed in the testimony of Faith Action for People-Centered Development Policy included in your required reading.  Conduct research using the Internet.  Duplicate examples from the same class will not be accepted.)

            One unsuccessful program includes the Bridge of Christian Relief (BOCR), which actually began with a vision from God to Tom and Jean Payne in 1989.  The BOCR is a UK registered charity, and its goal is to rescue and assist orphaned children who have severely suffered or been sent into prostitution.  Much of its great work and effort has gone into Romania and Northern Thailand.  However, financing has become a huge dilemma.  Two houses located in Romania and one in Thailand are in danger of closure due to the main sponsor who is unable to carry on monetary support.

            Another unsuccessful program relates to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.  Its main target to support is in Africa.  This program is directed to assist in the research and fight against those previous diseases.  However, there has been a poor response to the Global Fund.  It is considered an “embarrassment.”  This program was supposed to be the “quantum leap,” but after one year, the Global Fund has been fatally under-resourced. 

            A third unsuccessful program includes the Cuban Embargo.  Initially, the policy was developed to overthrow Fidel Castro’s dictatorship by halting all foreign aid to Cuba.  However, he is still in power, and it appears that the embargo has not accomplished anything and instead has reduced the standard of living of the common Cuban citizen. 

Q11- Describe three successful foreign aid programs operated by the U.S. government or private American citizens.  (Do not use the programs discussed in the testimony of Faith Action for People-Centered Development Policy included in your required reading.  Conduct research using the Internet.  Duplicate examples from the same class will not be accepted.)

            One successful program involves the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.  It provides $100 million in mandatory money to maintain the pilot program.  It also assists in contributing preschool and school food for education programs and supports maternal, infant, and child nutrition programs.  This program successfully feeds 9 million preschools in 38 countries.

            Another successful program relates to the Children International program.  It began in 1936 and aids children and families found to be living in the darkness of poverty.  This program contributes support to 10 different countries (such as Chile, Honduras, India, Nepal, etc.) by providing health benefits, housing and household items, clothing and shoes, nutritional support, dental care, school supplies, and other assistance.  It continues to gain support from volunteers and other contributors.  Children International keeps on giving.  In 2001, it helped over 250,000 children and their families. 

            A third successful program includes the Planet Aid program.  It is a non-profit organization that contributes its time and effort to improving others’ lives.  This involves relief aid and protecting the natural habitat of the Earth.  Most of its work is located in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.  This program takes on many significant projects relating to schools, mini banking, farming, clinics, and relocating people who were found in areas destroyed by natural disasters.

Q12- Steve Radelet, Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development, believes we can do both—take care of our own people and lend a helping hand to citizens of less developed countries.  Explain why you think we can or cannot offer aid to both. 

            I truly believe that the United States can offer aid to both its own citizens as well as less developed countries because Americans offer much generosity when others are in need.  It may at times seem like a struggle, but we have the power and support to do so.  However, the American people have to be willing to forgo some luxuries and make sacrifices.  Everyone has to give a little to gain a lot.

            In addition, the United States has to be cautious of its spending and guard its own economy.  It must first try to repair its own problems.  The United States cannot slip; otherwise the ability to aid both will no longer exist.  The process must at all times be under control.

Q13- What do you think about Mr. Radelet’s assertion that “the administration is leaning towards a system in which eligible countries would write proposals (or business plans) describing their objectives and strategy, how they would use the money, the benchmarks use for evaluation.  Giving recipient countries this responsibility is a revolutionary change in US foreign assistance”?

            I do not agree with Mr. Radelet’s assertion relating to more decision-making power for the developing nations when the United States is the supplier.  It can be understood that if the poorer countries set their own proposals, they may not follow through with them.  If this were to go into effect, I feel that the United States would need to survey these nations to make sure their plans are carried out.  Another worry includes the fact that the United States’ foreign aid support is coming from its tax payers.  Most citizens would agree that they would like their own government to have control over where and for what their money is spent. 

Q14- Which of Mr. Radelet’s three concerns regarding the MCA concerns you and why?

1.      as more countries in this income range become eligible, there will be fewer MCA funds available for the poorest countries that are implementing sound development strategies. 

2.      the make-or-break requirement may unnecessarily eliminate some countries.

3.      the separation of US foreign assistance into two agencies could lead to a lack of coordination and overlapping functions.   

The one concern that I find crucial regarding the MCA is the third worry.  My analysis concludes that it is unnecessary to separate United States foreign assistance into two agencies.  The first reason includes the idea it is inappropriate for two people to be paid for the same job.  Also, nothing would ever get accomplished because the two agencies would be competing against each other to prove to the United States government who is better.  In the end, there would be more corruption, and the main objective to providing foreign aid would be forgotten. 

Q15- There is evidence of an increase in negative world opinion towards U.S. foreign policy, not necessarily the American people.  To counter this negative perception of the U.S. some people want the U.S. to concentrate more on weapons of mass assistance (WMA) and less on weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  Please comment.

            With the advancement in greater technology, the WMA firm strongly feels that it has the capability to enter other countries and minister to them with new knowledge.  This aid would allow for these foreign nations to defend for themselves.  They would be able to enjoy the same standards of living that the United States has.

            However, with the current situations of terrorist attacks, I believe that the WMD firm needs to survey other nations for possible threats of danger to the Untied States.  If this is not carried out, there may be more potential terrorist assaults in the near future.  The United States should concentrate more on the WMD for the safety of its own society. 

Q16- What does the World Bank recommend as the United State’s “just and appropriate share” to reach the Millennium Development Goals by 2015?  Do you think our citizens can afford that kind of increase?  Defend your views.

            The World Bank reported that to accomplish the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, an increase would have to be between $40-$60 billion a year.  In comparing the United States and its economy to other nations, it would have to spend an additional $10-$15 billion annually. 

            I strongly feel that as an American society, the United States cannot afford that kind of increase.  We are just beginning to slowly maneuver out of an economic recession.  Now, if the increase was not so high, then I believe that the Americans could afford it.  They can provide a little extra spending money so others in foreign countries can eat.  Too many Americans today take for granted their comfortable lives and do not realize how horrific it truly is for some. 

Q17- What do you think about the request of Faith Action for People-Centered Development Policy’s request that tax dollars be used to fund, not only government-sponsored foreign aid programs, but “that funds also go to NGOs and grassroots organizations”?

            Personally, I believe that the funds should not go to NGOs and grassroots programs.  Unfortunately, not receiving any government funding is the price that one pays when creating a NGO.  Also, the United States must remember the reality that we have our own problems to resolve before helping other countries.  If we just ignored these, our society would crash.  Another reason is that if the money is donated to these nongovernmental organizations, then more money will have to be spent because the United States also has to keep up with the recommendation for government spending.

Q18- How many countries would be affected positively in health-related investments according to the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH)?

            The CMH concluded that eighty-three (83) countries would be influenced positively by health-related investments.

Q19- According to the CMH, how much would be gained annually between 2015-2020 due to saved lives and increased economic growth, if an increased investment were made in global AIDS and other health services?

            The Commission on Macroeconomics figured there to be a possible 8 million lives saved by 2010.  In addition, the CMH calculated there to be an annual increase of $360 billion between 2015-2020 due to lives saved.

Q20- Use the Internet for your research and name the two congressmen who introduced H.R. 4524.  Give a 2-line synopsis of that bill.

            The two congressmen who introduced the H.R. 4524 bill were Mr. Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey, and Mr. John LaFalce, a Democrat from New York.  Its objective is to amend the Enhanced HIPC Initiative so country eligibility for debt relief is more satisfactory.  Also, this bill will make certain that accessible funds are augmented. 

                                                                                                Back