Foreign Policy Aid - Essay Example

Should US Increase Foreign Policy Aid Introduction There is little doubt that the United s of America is the most influential, powerful and economically confident nation of the world. The nation has been the leading donor to the poorer countries and especially the third world countries. Though, the United States has led the western world in the absolute dollar value of financial aid, it has been repeatedly observed by the noted economists and political theorists that the nation is not the leading aid provider in terms of percentage value. Most astonishingly, the financial aid of the developed nations has always remained much below the nominal figure of 1% of their budget outlays (Bueno de Mesquita & Smith, “A Political Economy for Aid”). Under such circumstances, it is the moral responsibility of the only superpower to display higher level of commitment and increase their assistance towards the poorer nations of the third world. Along with higher allocation, also it is important that the United States initiate proper disbursement of such funds so that the poorest of the poor are really benefitted. Understanding It was in the year of 1970 that the donor governments had signed an agreement in the United Nations General Assembly promising to spend 0.7% of the Gross National Product (GNP) on the ODA (Official Development Assistance) and the deadline for such effort was agreed to be in the mid of the decade of 1970. After almost 35 years of such agreement, the European Union has recently pledged to spend 0.56% of the Gross National Imports (GNI) for the purpose of poverty reduction with in the year of 2010. The EU has further decided to take up the aid to 0.7% by 2015 which implies that the target set by the western world for the aid has been missed terribly (Shah, “US and Foreign Aid Assistance”). The above facts prove that the western world has been way below their obligation for years. And consequently the shortfall has been increasing year after the year. This facts call for increased funds to be allotted by the US. The year of 2000 and there after are regarded as the years of high aids but still the aids have been with in the proximity of 0.3% to 0.4% of the Gross National Imports. It has been estimated that if all the DAC nations had provided for their quota of 0.7%, the total aid of the year of 2008 would have exceeded by US$ 260 billion. Assuming the rate of aid to be in between 0.25 % to 0.4 % of the GNI for the period of last thirty years, the shortfall has been estimated at the staggering figure of above US $ 3.6 trillion at the prices of 2007, which implies shortfall to be around 57% (Shah, “US and Foreign Aid Assistance”). Noted scholar on the subject of development and aid issues, Professor William Easterley has criticized the aid providers time and again. He has categorically termed the entire episode to be ‘tragedy’. He observed, though the West spent US $ 2.3 trillion of foreign aids over the period of last fifty years, yet it was not enough to provide medications of twelve cents to prevent at least half of the total malaria deaths. According to the noted economist, also the entire amount of aid was not enough to ensure US $ 3 to every new mother to prevent five million deaths of new born infants where as the global society has found numerous ways for entertainment of the rich (Easterly, “The White Man’s Burden; Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest have Done So Much Ill and so Little Good”). David Dollar, the former director of the World Bank on development policies maintained that with the advent of globalisation, it is possible to eradicate poverty and food insecurity and other problems of poorer nations. Also, he observed that to reap the benefits of globalisation, it is necessary that the recipient nations build the infrastructure and good governance prevails in those countries. These, as per his arguments, have been the crucial differences as to why few of the developing nations (like China, Brazil and India) could benefit optimally while others (particularly Sub-Saharan Africa) could not (World Bank, “Interview with David Dollar on Making Globalization Work for the Poor”). Till the commencement of the new millennium, Japan had been the universal leader of the foreign aids in absolute value of US dollars. But since then, it has been the United States. Still the percentage figure on the GNP has been miserable lying with in the periphery of 0.2%, excluding the funds donated for reconstruction of Iraq (Bueno de Mesquita & Smith, “A Political Economy for Aid”). With George Bush at the helm, the amount allocated for the foreign aid amounted to only five percent of the total fund requested for Pentagon (Shah, “US and Foreign Aid Assistance”). The Counter Argument The federal government has been emphasizing the fact that the amount of aid has been on the rise on year to year basis. According to the government sources, it has been the largest donor in terms of bilateral foreign assistance. The United States paid US $ 26 billion towards the cause of Official Development Assistance in 2008 which marked 19 % rise from 2007. According to the advocates of the nation, the funding substantially increased towards the development of Sub-Saharan Africa and least developed nations. Also, it had enhanced funding for Millennium Challenge Poverty Reduction and towards fighting of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis (Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, “The US Commitment to Development”). Though the fact that the aid provided by the United States is on the rise, is absolutely right but still the condition of the recipient nations is far from the desired standards. On the flip side, because of the rising prices of food in 2008, more than 40 countries indulged in riots and demonstrations. Food security, debt forgiveness, education, multilateral contributions, global climate change, sanitation and water, sustainable management of natural resources are few of the sectors that call for immediate increased funding from the western world, especially that from the United States. Conclusion The United States should definitely initiate honest measures to increase its funding towards the poorer nations of the world. The leading country can reach the desired level of 0.7% of GNP or GNI as aid comfortably if it cut a part of its defence expenses. The private remittances often are not intended to benefit the poorest of the poor and so the governments should have the leading role. With President Obama saying, “To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds”, at the inaugural speech, it can definitely be expected from the nation to increase its contribution towards aid (Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, “The US Commitment to Development”). References Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. “The US Commitment to Development”. 30 November, 2009. Fact Sheet. 7 July, 2009. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce & Smith, Alastair. “A Political Economy for Aid” 30 November, 2009. New York University. April, 2007. < http://as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/2806/peofaid.pdf> Easterly, William. The White Man’s Burden; Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest have Done So Much Ill and so Little Good. Penguin Press. 2006. Shah, Anup. “US and Foreign Aid Assistance”. 30 November, 2009. Global Issues. 13 April, 2009. World Bank. “Interview with David Dollar on Making Globalization Work for the Poor”. 30 November, 2009. Speak Out. 2 February, 2004. Read More