Rockridge
High School
Taylor
Ridge, Illinois
Teacher:
Barbara Downey
No
to Foreign Aid
By
Linsy DePooter
12th
Grade
Although the attacks on the World Trade Center happened
over a year ago, they are still affecting the lives of all Americans.
Since these attacks many people have changed their opinion about what
is important. Unfortunately, with the results of these attacks, many programs
have been put on hold, including foreign aid.
Now is not the time to increase our commitment to foreign aid.
There are too many problems inside our own country that need our
attention before we try to help the rest of the world with their problems.
First
of all, there is the matter of the economic recession.
The United States has been suffering because of the way the stock
market is plummeting. There has
been talk about how to get the American people to go back to supporting the
stock market, to once again invest in it.
But as of yet, I have not seen any results.
The United States needs to try and fix our own economic problems before
we grant money to other nations. The
money that we are now proposing to use on foreign aid is needed inside of our
country instead of outside of it. There
are many things inside of this country that this money could be used for.
One example is health care for senior citizens.
Many older people in this country are cast aside without common
comforts and are not able to take care of themselves because of the poor
health care they receive. Another
good way this money could be put to use is by trying to lower the cost of
prescription drugs. The cost for
prescription drugs is out of control in this country.
Even with insurance the cost has skyrocketed in recent years.
How are low-income families going to be able to pay for needed drugs?
Tax money should be used to help pay for these drugs.
Whatever amount of money a family spends on prescriptions the
government should pay a percentage. The
money could be put to use to try and find ways to lower the cost without
lowering the care received.
There
is also the probable war with Iraq to consider.
In the United States’ past, war has been known to jump-start our
economy. Look at WWII, for
example. The entrance of the
United States into WWII is what pulled the country out of the Great
Depression. While nothing that
drastic has happed yet, our economy is definitely going downhill, so a war
would be a good thing in terms of the economy.
In terms of foreign aid, a war would not be such a good idea.
Probably the original contributors to the MCA will turn their
attentions instead to the war effort and begin to make their contributions
there. Over time the MCA will get
over-looked and will not be able to do what was originally intended.
The MCA will get put on the back burner and forgotten and all the
things that had originally been promised will get set back with it until the
war is over. While a war with Iraq would be good for the economy, it would not
be good for the MCA and foreign aid.
While
the MCA may sound like a good idea now, other programs have sounded like good
ideas and then come back to haunt the United States.
An example of this would be during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan
in the 1980’s. Through a covert
CIA operation the United States supplied billions of dollars to support
insurgent militia forces. Following
the Soviet’s withdrawal in 1989, factions of the militia fell into a civil
war and in 1994, the Taliban emerged as the dominant force.
Another prime example is Ethiopia.
In the late 1970’s and 1980’s the military regime of Mengistu
received huge quantities of food aid to fight a famine it had helped create.
Yet 90 percent of international aid supplied Mengistu’s followers,
while 10 percent reached equally famine-stricken rebels.
The famine thereby strengthened Mengistu’s grip on the country.
While helping other countries sounds like a good idea, it does not
always turn out that way. The MCA
just seems like another program that has unforeseen complications that will
hurt the United States.
Another
concern about the Millennium Challenge Account is that if we keep helping
these people, they will never be able to stand on their own, to support
themselves. Yes, the countries
are to present their ideas on how they are to use the money but what if these
do not work? While a country
could plan to use the money exactly as it says, there are always unforeseen
consequences. A natural disaster,
a coup d’etat, or a famine within the country, are just some examples of
what could go wrong. If all of a
country’s foreign aid goes towards an unforeseen problem, is that all the
foreign aid that country can expect from the MCA and the United States?
Are there provisions about what will happen during situations such as
those? The MCA does not seem to
be well thought out. What other
questions can be asked for which there are no answers?
These
are just a few of the many concerns about the MCA and foreign aid.
At present, the United States could find better things to do with its
money than commit billions of it to foreign aid.
When a nation is on the verge of a war, there are bigger considerations
to be made. We have our own
nation to consider and there are definitely things inside of the United States
that could be fixed. Instead of
foreign aid our country needs to think of its own citizens and their needs.
Foreign aid is not a priority right now.
Our money needs to be put to better use.
Questions
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?
They
come from domestic capital, from foreign investment, and especially from
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?
One
item is the development of security because there can be no development in an
atmosphere of chaos and violence. Another
item is the successful development which requires citizens who are literate,
who are healthy, and prepared and able to work.
3.
When is money sometimes counterproductive, according to President Bush?
When
nations refuse to enact sound policies, progress against poverty is nearly
impossible. In these situations,
more aid money can actually be counterproductive, because it subsidizes bad
policies, delays reform, and crowds out private investment.
4.
Describe the Millennium Challenge Account and include in your description what
is anticipated from donors and recipients.
The
United States will increase our development assistance by $5 billion over the
next three budget cycles. The
goal is to provide people in developing nations with the tools they need to
seize the opportunities of the global economy.
In return for this additional commitment, we expect nations to adopt
the reforms and policies that make development effective and lasting. Good
government is an essential condition of development.
So the Millennium Challenge Account will reward nations that root out
corruption, respect human rights, and adhere to the rule of law.
We will reward nations that invest in better health care, better
schools, and broader immunization. We
will reward nations that have more open markets and sustainable budget
policies, nations where people can start and operate a small business without
running the gauntlets of bureaucracy and bribery.
5.
What are the three broad standards that President Bush expects the leaders of
the developing nations to adopt?
The
three broad standards are ruling justly, investing in their people, and
encouraging economic freedom.
6.
Describe President Bush’s challenge to development banks and explain why or
why not you favor it.
America’s
support for the World Bank will increase by almost 20% over the next three
years. We expect the World Bank
to insist on reform and results, measured in improvements in people’s lives.
All the development banks should adopt a growth agenda, increasing
their support for private sector enterprises and focus more on education, as
the Inter-American Development Bank has done.
President Bush challenges the development banks to provide up to half
of the funds devoted to poor nations in the form of grants, rather than loans.
Grants instead of loans that may never be repaid.
The
U.S. does not have unlimited funds to give away in the form of grants. If we
are going to give the money in the form of grants instead of loans, then the
U.S. needs to be very sure of where that money is going and where it will be
spent. We do not want the money
to go toward something like a new palace for a leader.
7.
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.
My
guess was 15%. The actual answer
is .1%.
8.
Describe and defend a “Me First” attitude.
(Use your head – you won’t find the answer in the required
reading.)
A
“Me First” attitude is when people argue against helping other nations
when we have so many problems within our own country.
Why should we spend billions on feeding other nations’ populations
when we have people starving in our own country?
9.
Describe and defend a “Mutual Benefit” attitude.
(Use your head – you won’t find the answer in the required
reading.)
A
“Mutual Benefit” program is the attitude that if we give foreign aid to
other countries eventually they will be able to support themselves and in
return, buy our exports. The
Marshall Plan in Europe after WWII is the best example of this.
10.
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
example is the covert funding of the mujahadeen by the CIA during the Soviet
occupation of Afghanistan. Following the Soviet’s withdrawal in 1989,
factions of the mujahadeen fell into a civil war and in 1994, the Taliban
emerged as the dominant force.
Another
unsuccessful program was in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s when
Ethiopian leader, Mengitsu received huge quantities of food aid to fight a
famine his policies had helped create. Yet
90% of U.S. aid supplied Mengitsu’s followers, while only 10% reached
equally famine-stricken rebels. The
famine thereby strengthened Mengitsu’s grip on the country.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency is spending millions to reduce coca production in Colombia. Yet, since 1995, net coca cultivation in Colombia has more than tripled.
11.
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.)
Accion
International helps people work their way out of poverty by providing them
small
loans and training to grow their tiny businesses.
Action
Against Hunger USA is an humanitarian relief organization, recognized as a
leader in the fight against hunger and malnutrition worldwide.
Africa-America
Institute concentrates on the education and training of Africans in a
strategically selected range of disciplines and advanced skills and also
educates Americans about Africa.
12.
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
think that the plans are all well-intentioned, but they should not be taken
too literally because there are always unseen problems for which one does not
plan. While I think it is a good idea, it may not always happen.
13.
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 used for evaluation?
Giving recipient countries this responsibility is a revolutionary
change in US foreign assistance.”?
Revolutionary
change rarely happens this quickly. I
would foresee bureaucratic problems and disputes between agencies which are
tasked to administer this program.
14.
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.
I
think what worries me is the separation of U.S. foreign assistance into two
agencies because that could lead to a lack of coordination and overlapping
functions. It is great that the
U.S. is coming up with these plans but with a separation, there could be the
same program twice and the U.S. could end up paying twice for the same
support, not to mention paying
two staffs to do the exact same job. Now,
if the separate agencies could coordinate together and let each other know
what is going on, this might not be such a concern.
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.
While
focusing less on weapons of mass destruction seems like a good idea, in the
current situation with hostile countries, this does not seem feasible.
If the U.S. were to stop focusing on WMD, then we would be perceived to
have less influence around the world. If
there is some way to concentrate on both WMA and WMD, then I think we should
do so.
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? Defend your
views.
The
World Bank has recently issued a report noting that “if countries improve
their policies and institutions, the additional foreign aid required to reach
the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 is between $40-60 billion per
year.” Given the size of the
U.S. economy and its wealth relative to other countries, the “just and
appropriate” U.S. share of this amount would be approximately an additional
$10-15 billion annually for these programs.
While
we probably can afford it, the question seems to me to be “Do we want to do
it?” The answer to that question, in my view, is “No.”
Americans throughout history have objected to tax increases necessary
to fund foreign policy objectives. A
tax increase would certainly be needed to fund such an increase to the World
Bank.
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
think that NGOs and grassroots organizations should not be funded by tax
dollars because, if they are funded by taxes, they are no longer really NGOs.
The Constitution of the U.S. clearly separates church and state.
This would seem to violate that separation.
18.
How many countries would be affected positively by health-related investments
according to the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health(CMH)?
83
countries.
19.
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?
$360
billion
20.
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 are: Christopher Smith and John LaFalce. The bill’s purpose
is to ensure that the Enhanced Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
achieves the objective of substantially increasing resources available for
human development and poverty reduction in heavily indebted poor countries,
and for other purposes.