The U.S. Acting In Own Interest… Unacceptable!
The Observer reports about an interesting research carried out by economists:
The US uses its aid budget to bribe those countries which have a vote in the United Nations security council, giving them 59 per cent more cash in years when they have a seat, according to research by economists…Anti-poverty campaigners reacted angrily to the findings. ‘Aid should go to the people who need it, not as a political sweetener,’ said Duncan Green of Oxfam. ‘In recent years most rich countries have been making progress on this, but showering bribes on developing countries just because they sit on the UN security council is clearly a step backwards.’…
When there is a controversial vote in prospect, the premium for countries with a security council seat is even higher. US aid surges by as much as 170 per cent, bringing in a £23m windfall, while the UN spends an extra £4m.
‘Some countries serve on the security council during relatively calm years, whereas others, by chance, are fortunate enough to serve during a year in which a key resolution is debated and their vote becomes more valuable,’ the authors say. They highlight controversial resolutions over issues including the Korean War, Suez, the Falklands and Kosovo – though the period they study does not include the notorious ‘second resolution’ over the invasion of Iraq, which never came to a vote.
Ed Morrissey reponds angrily:
Well, what a shock! America acts in its own interest, and we use our foreign aid to advance our foreign policy. It must be the first time that’s ever happened in world history! Or, perhaps, I only imagined the calls from organizations like the Guardian/Observer to withhold aid and trade from places like apartheid South Africa, among others.Given all of that, the same people who hold this debauched and corrupt organization as the pinnacle of human government cannot complain when we decided to direct our foreign aid to those Lilliputians who make up part of that effort to tie use down that might be in a position to keep the ties at a minimum. In the first place, the Observer fails to recognize that our foreign aid is our money, and it belongs to the American taxpayer. It should get spent in ways which benefit Americans as well as people abroad, and the outrage of the analysts at that simple truth speaks volumes about their political agenda.
The US uses aid as leverage when important votes are pending. That may seem like healthy, pragmantic politics to some, but for an organization whose chief purposes are peace and justice, the behavior of American administrations is cynical and destructive. Worse, we don’t limit our abuse of power to our role within the Security Council…But at least we know now that, when we’re talking about reforming the UN, we first have to do something about reforming the US.
I’m somewhere in the middle: it is completely logical for the U.S. to use money to get other countries to do what it wants them to do. This doesn’t just work like that in matters before the U.N. Security Council, but also when the U.S. tries to push other countries to accept domestic reforms.
Same goes, of course, for negotiations with countries that, umh, put up a fight: buying countries off is nothing new. It is and will always be an intregal part of the foreign policy of every single country on this blue planet. The U.S. is ‘guilty’ of this, same goes for Russia, The Netherlands, Spain, France, Great Britain, India, China, Argentina and so on and on.
However, there is, or at least should be a limit. Sometimes it’s in a country’s (short term) self-interest to support certain ‘rogue regimes’, be it either far-left or far-right ones. There is, or at least should be, a limit to what one considers to be acceptable.
Strange as it may sound to some, especially when one’s country is the world’s only superpower.
P.S.
Something important to consider: I believe that it is never in a country’s long term interest, to support so-called rogue regimes.
8 Responses to “The U.S. Acting In Own Interest… Unacceptable!”
I wish I had more confidence in our present leaders to sort through these choices and discern the best use of our resources for moving the world towards security, liberty and prosperity.
Newt Gingrich talks about a fundemental reconsideration of how we relate to the world.
I would like to see more humanitarian aid that is more widely distributed, better trained diplomatic corps, a more surgical military force…
I agree- Paul in Austin-its not the practice of using our resources to garner support, that’s a problem- its the inflexible worldview of the present decision makers, that is making this policy ineffective. One example is determining that a lot of AIDs money be spent on abstinence only programs, instead of birth control or medication. The money spent that way has not proven to be effective against the spread of the virus.
Ultimately, the citizens of the country are responsible for the decisions made by representatives, since they are voted in. So, if we are responsible for enshrining dictators who, in turn, murder innocent civilians, then we are immoral. Just because a country acts in its own interests does not absolve it of moral culpability.
Michael-
Strange as it may sound to some, especially when one’s country is the world’s only superpower.
Not to be offensive, but… Consider this analogy-
“I understand ‘prison rape’.”
“I even expect it- after all, everybody does it!”
“But, strange as it may sound to some, I think it becomes particularly repugnant when the ‘rapist’ is the only other person in the entire prison big enough to also rape me…”
-
I agree that America is doing absolutely nothing wrong, but I vehemently disagree that we(America) should be forced to bear any special “moral” burdens due to our disproportionate global power.
Each and Every Government during the entire history of our species has had the same basis: “Lives by the sword, dies by the sword”…
As an American, I’m just sorry everyone else’s sword is so small.
)
(head tilt)
That organization devoted to peace and justice that Prarie Weather referred to. Did she mean the UN? She doesn’t believe US generosity is mostly real, but she takes the UN’s self-evaluation at face value? Madness.
Kim, no one does more for AIDS and Africa than the US, and Bush has done far more than Clinton or previous officeholders have. If Bono is a credible source to you, you might check out his comments on the subject. While you’re at it, you might look up the reasons why many African men don’t believe it is necessary to wear condoms, and why abstinence is an enormously better choice in that instance. Applying your social views for America is a simple, understandable solution that’s wrong.
I think we have some consensus in the comments that this sort of aid-for-influence is okay when it’s not Bush doing it.
Assistant Village Idiot
Thats true. Like pissing in the ocean to raise the level, but true. However Bush is six years to late and the repubs voted down a similar bill introduced by the Clinton Administration.
What about Polio? One vaccine costs ten cents and you only have to give it once. So why is Africa the only continent where everybody hasn’t been vaccinated for Polio? Nobody even talks about it! Maybe Israel would like to show a little compassion. They rarely do anything for anybody and they could use some of that 40 billion dollars Warren Buffet gleend from Americans and invested in Israel. How many times will ten cents divide into a billion dollars??
Assistant Village Idiot,
Thanks for beating me to the rebuttal of Kim’s point. Kim, the Bush aid program to fight HIV in Africa is NOT abstinence only. Here’s a link to a summary of the “ABC” plan, which includes funding for condoms and education about correct condom use. Do you object to the fact that the program also promotes abstinence, or were you not aware that the funding also provided for condom use?
Oops, sorry, here’s the link.