In Defense of Foreign Aid
This is a paper I wrote during a summer session in my last few months in college at Cal Poly Pomona. I still needed one lower level English course, so I took Eng 105 during the Summer. I received an A in this class, so this paper must have earned a decent grade. It is dated August 22, 1990.
A human feels the need to give to the less fortunate in the same way he may feel greed - both are instincts. Some devote their entire lives to helping needy people and some devote their lives to selfishness. It is interesting to note the way in which each are viewed when successful. A successful philanthropist is thought of as generous and kind, though not prosperous in an economic way. A “successful” miser is seen as practical or wise in a business sense. The object of this discussion is not about the perception of these two opposites, but rather their views about giving.
Foreign aid is an integral part of America’s role in the world. Some have argued that we should stop pouring money into other countries while we still have problems at home. Others argue that we should not give any foreign aid even if we can afford it. Should the United States give foreign aid to third world countries? Does foreign aid really make a difference? It would be easy to give a resounding “yes”, though it is not that simple. Giving aid to developing nations has had some problems, but it does work and is necessary for all parties involved.
Garret Hardin has suggested that the world poverty situation is analogous to a lifeboat (Hardin, Lifeboat Ethics, p.709). He compared wealthy nations to people in a lifeboat and the poor countries to people in the water. There are limited seats, he claimed, and those not fortunate enough to be in the boat will drown. Hardin seems to have overlooked a few variables when drawing up this imaginative metaphor. First, he mentions no direction. Being stranded in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean only means a slower death than drowning. Is there land nearby? Or a rescue ship on the way that will hold everyone? Next, he fails to mention the ability of those in the boat to help those in the water. He believes there is no way to help except by getting into the water and drowning so that someone else may have a seat. Most lifeboats, however, are stocked with life preservers. Would it not be logical to give the preservers to the people in the water? Obviosly there are problems with the lifeboat theory. Besides those questions already raised, it is simply not a good illustration of the present situation, or of our ability to help those in need.
People in America can and do help without the negative repercussions Hardin suggests. Alongside traits such as greed and indifference, humans also possess qualities such as compassion and empathy. Those of us who allow the latter qualities to surface freely give to the less fortunate. Being a “wealthy” nation, the U.S. gives assistance to struggling countries; it is not of an excessive amount that hurts the U.S. or its citizens. The fact is that we can help, so we do. Hardin does not take into consideration how the American people would react if aid to deserving countries was stopped. No successful government in the United States today would be accepted without the policy of foreign aid.
It is not exclusively an American cause to want to help starving people. Hardin’s assessment was that poor countries are getting what they deserve, and that most people only give to charity for a selfish interest. He can only speak for himself, for most people individuals seem to give because they want to help and feel they have made a difference. Why countries give aid is another matter, but Hardin does not differentiate between the two. Hardin does not even seem to want to help. When he claims, “Every human born constitutes a draft on all aspects of the environment,” he is promoting an extremely hypocritical attitude. If he were born into one of those countries, perhaps his view would be different.
Foreign aid actually is advantageous to the United States as well as the countries receiving the aid. Since becoming a superpower, the U.S. has taken on a magnanimous role in the world. This role has paid off for America just as it has for the recipients of the aid. Before World War I, there were less than 200,000 volunteers in the army, and the U.S. defense budget was only $500 million. We had no real military alliances or any bases stationed outside of the U.S. or its territories. Today, the army alone has over one million members, we have military alliances with over forty nations, U.S military bases are all over the world, and a the defense budget is neary $300 billion. Much of this stems from U.S. aid to developing countries and its expanded global role. We help them economically, often resulting in another ally, and are allowed to establish bases on their soil.
This concept has established the U.S. as not only a superpower, but also a world leader in many other areas. It is sometimes referred to as dollar diplomacy, an evolved version of President Taft’s “dollars for bullets” theory in which he had bankers and finaciers lend money to countries such as China, so they would not receive influence from unfavorable countries (Moore, Jr. and Roberts, The Pursuit of Happiness, p. 314).
An example of a country which has benefitted from U.S. aid is Turkey. Though it is not an oil producing country -, Turkey is in a critical geographic location, situated near Middle East countries, the Soviet Union, North Africa, and Southeast Europe. This location has proven to be vital to U.S. interests in the region. In the recent incident involving Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Turkey’s location was an immediate benefit for U.S. policy.
Since joining NATO - as the only primarily Muslim member - Turkey has amassed the one of the largest militaries in NATO, second only to the United States. U.S. military funding alone has exceeded $300 million, no doubt a reason for their prominent military.
Turkey is primarily an agricultural country.
In the mid-1970’s, the Soviet Union attempted to sway Turkey out of NATO. The Soviets offered to invest in Turkish enterprises and gave Turkey the opportunity to buy cheap electricity from them (Catchpole, A Map History, p. 38). This forced the U.S. and the rest of NATO to reevaluate the importance of Turkey. Because of its location, it has become vital to NATO’s interests.
Why should we help needy countries? The answer is different in each case, but there is an underlying theme: We do it because they need our help and we are in a position to oblige. Aid is not given arbitrarily, but to countries that are in dire need, or that may further our interests. The U.S. is also securing itself for the future. So much of the world relies on the United States, it is probable that if the we ever desperately needed help, there would be a strong base of help waiting among our allies. It is a concept few can conceive, but one that must be taken into consideration in the light of the pace of global change in the last year and a half. The policies of the U.S. are not imperialistic, but humanistic. We help countries because we feel a moral obligation, and we receive as a benefit a significant role in the world today and in the history books of future generations.
Tags: Foreign Aid, Term Papers, Turkey