Rockridge
High School
Taylor Ridge, Illinois
Teacher:
Barbara Downey
How
much can the United States afford to take on right now?
By Jessica Fink
12th Grade
It is Friday night, and I have just plopped down on my warm, plush bed, thoroughly exhausted from the rigors of my long day in which I really have done nothing of extreme significance. Remote control in hand, I turn on the television and prepare to speed-flip through hundreds of channels, hoping that something of slight interest will catch my eye. Something catches my eye all right, but it is not the latest episode of Friends. Instead, I stare transfixed as the image of a dirty, run-down shack floods the screen. It does not look passable for firewood, let alone provide adequate living quarters for a human being, but sure enough a woman emerges through the shack’s broken plywood door. Upon her face is a look of utter despair and helplessness. While my eyes attempt to take in the whole scene, I detect a small waterhole off to one side of the “house.” Observing the water’s profound filth, I am shocked to perceive three scraggly children kneeling ankle-deep in the muck, drinking from it.
The commercial goes on to ask for donations to help people in situations similar to the one I just saw, but my mind has wandered, and I am no longer paying any attention to the pleas. I am thinking about what a pity it is that anyone would have to live in such severe poverty, but I am realizing that many people in the U.S. suffer just as much. What about the homeless man who wanders the dark alleys of Chicago, digging through dumpster after dumpster, praying that he will find something edible to help him survive yet another day? And what about the poverty-stricken mother in downtown New York who cries silently while singing her terminally ill baby to sleep, knowing that she has no money to provide him with the right medical care? These situations are heartbreaking, but the fact is that they occur all over the world, all the time. It is time that the U.S. did more to stop all the destitution, hunger, and government corruption that has been threatening the underdeveloped countries of our world; however, the Millennium Challenge Account that President Bush has proposed is not the right program for our country at this time. Although it appears to be a good idea with valuable goals, providing less fortunate nations with the funding needed to spawn more opportunities for their people, it needs more work, and we need to thoroughly focus more on our own problems.
Due to difficult times, the U.S. has been in a disappointing economic recession for the past several years. This recession desperately needs our complete attention and focus. Foreign products are less expensive, and in realizing this, many nations have slowed their purchases from the States. North Korea has also been a challenge, with its unyielding attempts to develop more atomic weapons. We are also facing the troubling situation with Iraq that has only served to add to our long list of economic woes. Many nations look up to us, and right now we can barely cope with our own disorder. One MCA goal is to encourage other countries to become leaders by following our example, but how can we expect others to follow our lead if our nation is troubled, too?
Along with many of my fellow Americans, I possess a strong “Me First” attitude. Too much focus on other countries could result in the crumbling of ours, as our escalating problems would be overlooked. Poverty, hunger, and unemployment will rise in our nation if we do not reduce them now; therefore, more money should be put into operating programs in the U.S. Our government cannot continue successfully without citizen support, and people will not want to support more foreign aid when they observe their own country suffering. Also, many citizens will feel that the U.S. cannot afford this program. Pouring billions of dollars into the pockets of foreign governments when our own economy is so weak does not seem logical, especially since half of our funding to these countries will be in the form of grants that do not need to be paid back. We need to attempt to replenish our resources, and by increasing the number of free handouts we bestow, we are taking a step backward from achieving that goal.
Terrorism has also created intense difficulties throughout our government. The U.S. is on the brink of war, and it just does not make any sense to try and take on complex foreign aid programs when we have serious threats from our enemies. Since the September 11th attacks, military costs have skyrocketed, and they will continue to rise for a long period. Time, attention, and money--these are all things that this impending hostility we face will demand. We will also face the risk of rising hostility from those countries that are eliminated from the Millennium Challenge Account. Although President Bush hopes to inspire the countries we do help to rule more justly, invest in their people, and create sound economic policies to encourage economic freedom, the plan is unable to cover every underdeveloped nation’s needs. What about those that feel we are denying them funding out of pure spite? Misunderstandings like those will only create more problems for the U.S. and could aid in the possibility of more terrorist attacks and more countries turning against us. Do we really want to take such risks? Until we have insured victory over our foes, our priorities need to be centered around the United States, because if we fail to protect and provide for our citizens to the best of our ability, then what is it we are really fighting for? When our nation is entirely confident in the stabilization of its economy, then we will be able to concentrate more on the expansion of our foreign aid development.
The Millennium Challenge Account is too overwhelming for us right now. While our influence and leadership on other countries is strong at this moment, it could be affected negatively if our economy continues to slip further. Too much of our time and effort will be needed to run this program successfully, and we have none of that to spare right now. We need to adopt a tough “Me First” attitude and focus on the threat of war that is hanging over our heads, because if not, we may live to regret it. Hunger and poverty will always be lurking in this world. However, to ensure the breakdown of these alarming numbers, we need to rebuild our own foundation first so we can be the strong and solid example that other nations expect of us.
1.
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?
The three items he mentions are domestic capital, foreign investment, and trade.
2.
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?
The two other items he mentioned in this regard are security and healthy, literate, and able to work people.
3.
When is money sometimes counterproductive, according to President Bush?
When nations refuse to enact sound policies, money is then considered counterproductive.
4. Describe the Millennium Challenge Account and include in your description what is anticipated from donors and recipients.
The Millennium Challenge Account is the effort of the United States to provide struggling countries with the money and encouragement needed for them to be better leaders and make good, sound decisions. Donors and recipients both must make a commitment to reform and take full responsibility for the results. It is anticipated that recipients will take and use the money sensibly in order to make their lives better and more affluent. Of donors, there is the hope that more funding will be given in order to provide underdeveloped nations with a better opportunity to flourish. Overall, good decisions need to be made in order to make development prosper and persevere.
5. What are the three broad standards that President Bush expects the leaders of the developing nations to adopt?
The three broad standards he expects them to adopt are just rule, investment in their people, and economic freedom encouragement.
6. Describe President Bush’s challenge to development banks and explain why or why not you favor it.
President Bush has challenged development banks to adopt a growth agenda, increasing their support for private sector enterprises and focusing more on education. He also challenged the banks to give up to half of the funds devoted to poor nations in the form of grants, rather than loans. I do not favor this because I do not feel that we would really be helping them grow if we just handed over a lot of free money. Too much free money could result in reckless spending, and countries would be more apt to spend it wisely if they knew that they had to pay it back eventually.
7. What percentage of our national income (GNP) do you think the United States government committed to foreign aid in 2002?
I thought the government has committed at least 10% to foreign aid, but I was surprised to learn that our actual commitment was 1/10.
8. Describe and defend a “Me First” attitude.
A “Me First” attitude includes caring for the needs of our own people first before considering the needs of others. Although I do not think this attitude should be taken to the extreme, I do feel it is very important to make sure that everyone under your care is provided for to the best of your ability before you start to look to helping others. A successful nation calls for a successful economy, and that is not possible unless everyone is supplied with equal opportunities.
9. Describe and defend a “Mutual Benefit” attitude.
A “Mutual Benefit” attitude consists of sharing your wealth equally with others. The good thing about this is that everyone is given equal chance to excel, as long as they use their money wisely.
10. Describe
three unsuccessful foreign aid programs operated by the U.S. government or
private American citizens.
One unsuccessful foreign aid program was
USAID’s assistance to Somalia. It
exacerbated the country’s famine, upset local agriculture, and turned
traveling tribesmen into “relief junkies.”
An open-minded foreign policy would not disregard financial support to
our corporations through programs like the Export/Import Bank and the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation. These programs pledge against losses, but this
existing flawed policy removes the difficult decisions of when to invest in
foreign countries and lessens the pressure on those particular countries to
clean up their political acts in order to attract foreign capital. The foreign
policy today encourages poor investments. Ironically, this is all done in the
name of free trade and capitalism. However, it does more to export jobs and
businesses than to help free trade. When it fails, capitalism and freedom are
held responsible. Also, in 1995 a
campaign by anti-abortion lawmakers to ban U.S. funds to international family
planning programs that perform abortions delayed $12.1 billion in foreign aid --
including $3 billion for Israel. The
dispute over the foreign aid bill also contributed to the lapse of the Middle
East Peace Facilitation Act, which allows for U.S. aid to the Palestine
Liberation Organization and permits the PLO to maintain its office here.
11. Describe
three successful foreign aid programs operated by the U.S. government or private
American citizens.
AIESEC, founded in 1948, enhances cultural
collaboration and knowledge through its international work exchange program.
It is the world’s biggest student-run organization and is sited in 87
countries and over 700 universities around the world.
They help U.S. companies reach
out to young business and I.T. professionals in over 700 universities worldwide
and also help U.S. students find paid internships.
Founded
in 1961, ACCION International’s goal is to help people overcome their poverty
by giving them small loans and training to expand their minute businesses.
ACCION’s partners have made $3.8 billion in loans. These partners
actively work in 20 countries in Latin American and Africa and in over 30 U.S.
cities.
Founded
in 1998, Able & Willing International Education Foundation, Inc., is a
501(c) non-profit organization committed to reducing poverty by endorsing
education and independence in developing African countries. It was created with the intent of constructing primary and
technical schools in developing countries.
12.
Explain why you think we can or cannot offer aid to both our own people
and citizens of less developed countries.
I
think that we can offer aid to both, but we need to do so intelligently because
our economy is low right now, and we really need to focus on replenishing our
resources. Although we cannot
afford any big foreign aid projects at this moment, every little bit helps, and
even if we cannot do as much as we would like to for other countries, the fact
of the matter is that we would have tried.
13. What do you think about Mr. Radelt’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 used for evaluation. Giving recipient countries this responsibility is a revolutionary change in US foreign assistance.”?
I think that giving recipient countries the responsibility of writing proposals specifying exactly how they plan to use the donated money is a valuable idea, and I agree with Mr. Radelet that, in doing this, U.S. foreign assistance would be radically changed. It is extremely beneficial to know where our donations are going. and if they are being put to the best possible use. The business plans that will be sent to us will allow us to keep an eye on the recipient countries and decide if they are really serious about improving their economy. Without their dedication to this improvement, nothing will ever change, and through their assessment in the proposals, we will be able to tell just how earnest they are about flourishing. Also, we benefit from this as well because we will not sound so much like dictators by allowing them to write their own proposals; therefore, we lose the risk of upsetting nations that might have turned against us.
14. Which of Mr. Radelet’s three concerns regarding the MCA concerns you and why?
The concern of his that concerns me is the separation of US foreign assistance into two agencies that could lead to a lack of coordination and overlapping functions. This confusion could affect our government by creating chaos and more problems than we really want to deal with. We risk giving double the amount of money to the same countries if these two agencies do not communicate well. Disagreements could occur if this happened, and hostilities in our own government is something we want to avoid.
15. 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.
Weapon issues will always bring on heated arguments and strong opinions. The only way to solve that problem is to do away with all weapons, but since that is obviously never going to happen, the best we can do is what we feel is best for our country. Domination and intimidation play an important role in being on top, and having more WMD’s than an enemy nation could help in determining their next move and whether or not they really want to challenge a country more powerful than theirs. On the other hand, all weapons of mass destruction present problems and would be very dangerous if they fell into the wrong hands. I think that the U.S. should focus on the WMA’s but certainly not forget about the WMD’s.
16. 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?
The World Bank recommends an additional $10-$15 billion annually for the “just and appropriate share” of the United States. I do not think it is wise to request an increase of this size. We are slowly moving out of economic recession, and we do not need to get ourselves further into debt. The United States needs to focus on helping itself first.
17. 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”?
I am against this request. The reason government-sponsored organizations receive money is because they are government-sponsored. Not receiving tax dollars from the American people is the price that NGOs have to pay for not being government-sponsored. Also, funding NGOs will create widespread requests for more money from more organizations. Eventually, we would have no more money to give.
18. How many countries would be affected positively health-related investments according to the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH)?
According to the CMH, 83 countries would be affected positively.
19. According to CMH, how much would be gained annually between 2015-2020 due to saved lives and increased economic growth, if an increased investment were made global AIDS and other health services?
Between 2015-2020, $360 billion would be gained annually.
20. Name the two Congressmen who introduced H.R. 4524. Give a 2-line synopsis of that bill.
The two Congressmen who introduced the bill were Chris Smith and John LaFalce. The bill’s objective is to amend the Enhanced HIPC Initiative so country eligibility for debt relief is more satisfactory. It also hopes to make certain that accessible funds are amplified.