United States of America: Foreign Aid

[Mid]

A recent posting elsewhere on the board promped me to search American Foreign Aid ..................


United States of America: Foreign Aid
Vexen Crabtree
2003 Aug 28

1. The USA is the World's Biggest Giver

“When the going gets tough, Americans keep giving - to the tune of nearly $241 billion. Charitable donations for 2002 set a new high, rising 1 percent over 2001's total in current dollars, according to Giving USA, a report released Monday by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel's Trust for Philanthropy in Indianapolis. The estimated $240.92 billion in gifts equaled 2.3 percent of US gross domestic product.Although once it is adjusted for inflation the amount represents a 0.5 percent decline since 2001, it still shows "the resilience and pervasiveness of giving in our culture," says Leo Arnoult, chair of the AAFRC Trust.

Most donations come from individuals (76 percent of the total), and some nonprofit sectors were hit harder last year than others.”
Stacy A. Teicher (2003)1

2. ... and the Stingiest

2.1. Beneath the Surface

The USA is only the world's biggest giver because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world:

“[Americans] are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgeable ignorance'. According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999.

In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period. But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share.”"Why do people hate America?" by Sardar & Davies (2002)2

Not only that, but according to one source cited by Sarder & Davies, 80% of that aid itself actually goes to American companies in those foreign countries.

% of USA aid 1988-1989 Israel12.5 Egypt9.5 Pakistan3.9 El Salvador3.3 India1.9 Philippines1.8

“US aid, which acquired an increasingly military flavour during the Regan years, is now concentrated on a relatively small number of countries of special political importance.”"Introduction to International Politics" by Heater & Berridge (1992)3

According to Heater & Berridge, Israel has been receiving 12/13% of all American charitable foreign aid since 1979, the chart shows numbers from 1988-1989.

2.2. Tied Aid

“The most generous countries are also the ones that do not tend to tie aid to their own products and services. The stingiest countries also, almost spitefully and nastily, force countries to buy their own services and products with the aid they give; which reduces free trade and commerce and harms the countries economy, as well as being simply selfish and conceited. Thankfully, many countries do not tie their aid.

Countries that tie less than 10% of aid include Ireland, Norway and the UK, then Belgium, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden. The USA is the worst, and ties nearly 90% of its aid to developing countries. Italy is the second worst with 70%. The two worst countries for this obnoxious practice in aid-giving are also the two countries out of the most developed countries, who give least generously!”"Which Countries Set the Best Examples?" by Vexen Crabtree (2005)

3. Conclusion

Firstly, I will briefly highlight how this causes hatred of the USA, then I will make sure that no reasonable reader can automatically blame the average USA American personally for the state of affairs as given.

1. Cause of hatred: The hypocrisy that the USA claims moral high but fails when the details of this claim are examined lead many to believe that the USA is ('as normal...') merely using its wealth to buy the moral high ground rather than being it. USA economic interests seem to be the only priority of the ethics of the USA. People are led to hate Americans: For not giving more to the people who genuinely need it, for economic bullying and aggression, and finally for not being critical of their own government and believing its propaganda. People are also driven to hate the USA as a whole for its wholesale economic aggression, hypocrisy, lies and power mongering even when it comes to charity
2. But, the statistics are not enough to warrant a justifiable hatred of USA Americans. For starters, the vast majority of giving is done by individuals, not by corporations, and we need to be able to differentiate between the two. If corporations are particularly poor givers in the USA, then it is simply commercialism that is to blame for the USA's tight pockets, but USA individuals may well be the same as individuals in other developed countries. From these stats, we can't tell, so any conclusion would be wrong
3. USA citizens are not given world news in the same way as most the other developed nations, and may well be genuinely unaware that much of the world is as poor as it is. European news is highly world-centric, whereas due to its size most USA news does not have enough time to cover news in all neighbouring states, let alone news from around the world. Therefore again it may be corporate greed that betrays American, not its relatively innocent ordinary citizens

The rest of the world

It is likely true that all countries are biased towards giving to countries where they have economic or political interest. This is inevitable, and will probably never change. The difference with the USA appears to be that it is the single loudest self-congratulator. When it comes to war and aggression and other USA foreign policy issues, the USA is always heard to be boasting of how it is a beneficiary to much of the world. Yet, proportionally, all 21 of the other developed nations give more, and none of them used the "we are good because we are generous" argument that their policy was correct. Such emotional blackmail would produce a lot of internal criticism in any European country where the government claimed such a thing. In Europe where worldly communications are highly developed, every country can see the internal workings of the rest of the world and governmental criticism is heard of all governments.

However, despite the USA's dominance of mass media, it is frequently only the pro-USA, self-congratulatory messages that seem to arrive in Europe, the USA citizens criticism and disbelief of their own government is not apparent, which gives the overall impression that Americans are either gullible, ignorant or honestly uncaring. It appears to many Europeans that the USA government and its citizens believe two things:

1. That USA is a generous nation of people.
2. That this also give the USA a right to enforce aggressive foreign policies and aggressively pursue economic interests in all other countries.

This can be explained if we dismiss it purely as a symptom of USA style overpowering commercialism, but it leaves many people in the modern world to seriously doubt the honesty or sincerity of any USA aid that does go to non-American companies in foreign countries. (Also, we need to look at what percent of foreign aid of other countries goes to own-companies abroad). The result is a cycle of mistrust of USA aid, distrust of the motives for giving (where the blackmail tactic is used so often, the motives are often not seen as charitable, but manipulative) and hatred of the USA's approach as a whole.

I must assert, however, that I believe most USA citizens give money because they genuinely care about the plight of the poor world, as well as their own numerous poor, but that they themselves do not often look into the mechanisms of how that aid is distributed and used. And let's face it, when we give to charity, how many of us check how the charity in question is using the funds? Especially with foreign charity, it is a difficult task and most people do not even know how to go about checking that their money is used properly, usefully and unpolitically.

So, in conclusion, I think that the USA government intentionally manipulates other countries, especially poor ones, by strategic giving, and the USA government also manipulates its own people by boosting their egos and self-worth through delusions of moral greatness achieved through charity. It is nearly certainly not the case that the average USA citizen is less caring or less generous, but is a function of USA style capitalism that money is power, and morals are subservient to long term economic interests - something which the average citizen (or company) can do little to alter. Any alteration needs to be enacted wholesale by USA federal government, but, however, the USA government system is the single biggest conscious cause of such a situation, and appears to be very unwilling to change, and perhaps even believes that its style of "free trade" is actually good for the rest of the world. Is the government wearing blinkers, or, as George Orwell would be very quick to suggest, have they succumbed to their own commercialist propaganda? Are the stats all wrong and the USA is genuinely more generous than all 21 of the most developed/richest countries even including Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden?

References:

Heater & Berridge
"Introduction to International Politics" (1992). Quotes from 1993 version, Harvester Wheatsheaf publishing, Hertfordshire, England.

Sardar, Ziauddin and Davies, Merryl Wyn
"Why Do People Hate America?" (2002).

Notes

1. Stacy A. Teicher (2003 Jun 23) article. Teicher is a staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor newsfeed. Article on www.csmonitor.com accessed 2003 Aug.^
2. Sardar & Davies (2002) p79.^
3. Heater & Berridge (1992) p80.^
4. 2005 Sep 16: Added quotes from "Which Countries Set the Best Examples?" by Vexen Crabtree (2005).

vexen.co.uk

[Mid]

Who Gets U.S. Foreign Aid
— Rebecca Davis O'Brien

The U.S. will give an estimated $26 billion in foreign aid in 2008—70% more than when President George W. Bush took office (the figure doesn’t include funds related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).

More than 150 countries get financial assistance from the U.S.

Here are the six that received the most this year.

COUNTRY AID PURPOSE

1. Israel $2.4 billion Virtually all of this money is used to buy weapons (up to 75% made in the U.S.). Beginning in 2009, the U.S. plans to give $30 billion over 10 years.

2. Egypt $1.7 billion $1.3 billion to buy weapons; $103 million for education; $74 million for health care; $45 million to promote civic participation and human rights.

3. Pakistan $798 million $330 million for security efforts, including military-equipment upgrades and border security; $20 million for infrastructure.

4. Jordan $688 million $326 million to fight terrorism and promote regional stability through equipment upgrades and training; $163 million cash payment to the Jordanian government.

5. Kenya $586 million $501 million to fight HIV/AIDS through drug treatment and abstinence education and to combat malaria; $15 million for agricultural development; $5.4 million for programs that promote government accountability.

6. South Africa $574 million $557 million to fight TB and HIV/AIDS; $3 million for education.

7. Mexico $551 million Click here for details.

8. Colombia $541 million Click here for details.

9. Nigeria $491 million Click here for details.

10. Sudan $479 million Click here for details.

*Source: Estimates based on figures and documents from the U.S. Department of State. Click here for more information.

parade.com/news/intelligence-report

[SEA Traveler]

here's looking a "gift horse in the mouth".....

[Humbert]

What a total load of crap. Where did you dig this obscure opinion piece up.

[sabang]

If we add to the government figures the considerable international charity coming from wealthy private foundations like the Gates, Soros, & Rockefellers, US charity is no slouch even amongst the western world. And China doesn't even bother pretending it's aid is without conditions.

It's certainly legit to criticise the destination of some political Aid- propping up despotic regimes or whatever, but at the end of the day the power of the almighty US and Western aid budget, plus our diplomatic ability as a Bloc to get UN sanctions put in place, is pretty formidable. I think it helps us 'get our way' more than any recent wars.

[Humbert]

Not only does the article cite no sources for many of its assertions but it also manages to mix up foreign aid and charitable donations.

The article itself is not really an analysis of foreign aid but rather a rather lengthy and rambling conclusion that the US is hated because it boasts about its giving. Regarding foreign aid, all countries tie conditions to their aid giving.

Reads like the work of a sophomore poli sci student.

[Mid]

Not only does the article cite no sources

References: Heater & Berridge "Introduction to International Politics" (1992). Quotes from 1993 version, Harvester Wheatsheaf publishing, Hertfordshire, England. Sardar, Ziauddin and Davies, Merryl Wyn "Why Do People Hate America?" (2002). Notes 1. Stacy A. Teicher (2003 Jun 23) article. Teicher is a staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor newsfeed. Article on The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com accessed 2003 Aug.^ 2. Sardar & Davies (2002) p79.^ 3. Heater & Berridge (1992) p80.^ 4. 2005 Sep 16: Added quotes from "Which Countries Set the Best Examples?" by Vexen Crabtree (2005).

*Source: Estimates based on figures and documents from the U.S. Department of State. Click here for more information.

usually you do better than that Humbert

[Humbert]

usually you do better than that Humbert

However, despite the USA's dominance of mass media, it is frequently only the pro-USA, self-congratulatory messages that seem to arrive in Europe, the USA citizens criticism and disbelief of their own government is not apparent, which gives the overall impression that Americans are either gullible, ignorant or honestly uncaring. It appears to many Europeans that the USA government and its citizens believe two things: That USA is a generous nation of people. That this also give the USA a right to enforce aggressive foreign policies and aggressively pursue economic interests in all other countries.

I want to see some specific back up for this. It's opinion.

By the way, I was thinking the same thing about you. Usually your thread starters are much better.

[Mid]

It's opinion.

did you miss we are in Issues ?

[Humbert]

It's opinion.

did you miss we are in Issues ?

She is masquerading her article as analysis. She bases her conclusion on the rather fragile assertion that the European press is full of news regarding America boasting about its aid giving. I would like to see some of these articles. I don't doubt that Euros have the perception but what are the real sources? Probably just the lingering effects of Bush's rhetoric. It would have helped her argument. Sounds like hyperbole to me.

[Mid]

and that is your opinion and one I will respect .

For mine there is truth in the quote below

So, in conclusion, I think that the USA government intentionally manipulates other countries, especially poor ones, by strategic giving, and the USA government also manipulates its own people

[Humbert]

Good quote. That was her opinion going in and the entire article was a rather weak justification for that view. It is always better to learn and then form opinions.

[Mid]

her opinion

his actually , and rather a colorful character

About Vexen Crabtree: Biographical Details

[Humbert]

Although the article by Vexan Crabtree is weak and seems more designed to illuminate causes of hatred for the US rather than seriously discuss the effectiveness and strategic use of foreign aid, the subject of foreign aid does merit serious discussion. So, putting aside Crabtree's article and drawing upon some of the comments in the 9/11 Strategic Distraction thread, I have the following comments to make: Foreign aid is an appropriate tool to be used by countries to shape the behaviors and policies of the recipients. Pure altruism is an admirable ideal but to expect it among nations is naive. To hold nations to the standard of absolute, unreciprocal altruism is unrealistic.

[Mid]

Foreign aid is an appropriate tool to be used by countries to shape the behaviors and policies of the recipients

Obviously I disagree and thus will refrain from addressing your subsequent points .

Countries are free to attempt to shape behaviors and policies BUT not with Foreign Aid .

Foreign Aid by definition is for the benefit of the recipient and must not be confused with political bribes .

A recent case is America's attempt to assist re Cyclone Nagis and the Junta's subsequent rejection due to their seeing such aid as tainted .

[Humbert]

A recent case is America's attempt to assist re Cyclone Nagis and the Junta's subsequent rejection due to their seeing such aid as tainted .

Unfortunately the junta is not concerned about the desperate plight of their own people. They have a paranoid obsession with an invasion by the US and their own hold on power.

[Jet Gorgon]

I've read that on a per-capita basis, smaller countries donate more than the US, but I believe this is govt funds. Folks giving charity outta their own wallets -- I believe the Americans win that one. You can check that, Mid. I'd rather choose who I gave my charity to than have my nanny state leaders do it for me. The EU states and other nations are never the first with boots on the ground in disaster areas -- it is always the US coz those ninnies have to hold several years of mtgs to figure out what the fek they should do. I note, Pakistan was even reticent to accept US Aid during the flood because of Taliban threats about accepting it.

[Marmite the Dog]

Foreign aid only works on the level of manipulating a foreign government. The money either buys weapons, gives resources to corrupt govt officials or/and prevents people in less fortunate countries to have a legitimate need to make something of themselves by working.

Whichever way you look at it everyone (both givers & takers) would be better off without it.

[Tunaka]

I agree with this statement. "Aid" always, has attachments.

Foreign aid only works on the level of manipulating a foreign government. The money either buys weapons, gives resources to corrupt govt officials or/and prevents people in less fortunate countries to have a legitimate need to make something of themselves by working.

Whichever way you look at it everyone (both givers & takers) would be better off without it.

[Indian Jones]

Of course the USA is self-serving in its donating aid, as are many other nations. I don\'t see why Americans are getting hot under the collar about this, as it has always been the way.

On the front of personal aid through charities it is a different matter.

[gingsa]

"Pure altruism is an admirable ideal but to expect it among nations is naive. To hold nations to the standard of absolute, unreciprocal altruism is unrealistic."

You got that one right!