I REMEMBER from my younger days in church that our priest would note the conventional wisdom that rich patrons generally donate less money than those who aren’t so well-off. Unfortunately, that same trend holds true on a macro level, as the United States’s inadequate commitment to foreign aid demonstrates. In terms of pure dollars, the United States donates a large amount of foreign aid, but this statistic is misleading. When considering aid as a percentage of a country’s Gross National Product (GNP), we are the least generous industrialized nation in the world.
America’s distressing parsimony clashes with its desire to be a world leader. We are at the forefront of all major international decisions, and we have one of the world’s strongest economies, and yet we can’t find it within ourselves to be more generous with our money. This sets a terrible example for others to follow, particularly in our increasingly interconnected world. Both because of our world status and prominence and because of our active voice in world affairs, the United States is seen as a model for many countries to follow. In many respects, that model is commendable, but our foreign aid philosophy doesn’t fit.
What makes this particularly jarring is our self-congratulatory nature. We view ourselves as the one nation on earth that all others should emulate and desire for our values to become the norm. President George H.W. Bush once said, “The United States is the best and fairest and most decent nation on the face of the earth,” a rather bold statement that hardly sounds out of place in our culture. Such moral superiority is not entirely unfounded, but it makes it that much more important that our conduct is exemplary.
The need for increased foreign aid may seem paradoxical to some, both because of the absolute dollars the United States gives and its willingness to help countries with emergency relief. For example, after the devastating tsunami off the coast of Indonesia in 2004, the United States pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to the relief efforts. However, the statistics speak for themselves, making it clear that the United States is not nearly so concerned with foreign aid as other developed countries are.
In the recent vice presidential debate, Democratic candidate Joe Biden, when asked to name an area of spending that might have to be cut because of the country’s economic troubles, mentioned foreign aid. Biden may have thought his answer was safe, because the recipients of aid will not be voting for any presidential candidate. However, Americans might be more altruistic than some imagine.
Polls indicate that, perhaps because of our prominent responses to disasters, people consistently overestimate the amount of foreign aid the United States gives. The Program on International Policy Attitudes found that Americans typically propose an acceptable foreign aid amount that is higher than what we actually give. In other words, U.S. citizens do not seem to be afraid of increased spending on foreign aid. Indeed, private contributions in this country exceed the government’s amount of foreign aid distributed. These dramatically raise the overall level of the U.S. contribution, but generosity of individuals should not replace that of the government. If anything, it corroborates the polling information suggesting that Americans could accept higher levels of government spending on foreign aid.
Despite the ideological support for aid, however, the government has clearly not been able to buy wholeheartedly into the principle. For example, the Millennium Challenge, a recently created corporation designed to funnel money to non-corrupt developing countries, received a pledge from President Bush for billions more dollars of aid than were actually delivered. Such failed promises, sadly, are nothing new; a United Nations General Assembly Resolution proposed back in 1970 that 0.7 percent of a country’s GNP should be devoted to foreign aid. The United States consistently gives about 0.1 percent.
As mentioned, private contributions augment this number, but from the perspective of being a world leader that commands the respect of other nations, our governmental contribution is vital. It legitimizes our moral leadership and encourages everyone at home and abroad to feel confident in America’s goodness. Our claims of moral supremacy and our activity in international affairs stem from our government; therefore, substantial amounts of foreign aid should as well.
We are not the only country with this problem — few meet the agreed-upon 0.7 percent amount — but that does not make it acceptable. Our current economic crisis will make it even harder to push for increased foreign aid, and it is unrealistic to expect an overnight shift in policy that multiplies our contribution several times over. But right now, I’d settle for anger with our current level that produces a dedication to change. Perpetuating the myth that we are one of the most generous nations in the world only makes that less likely.
Grant Johnson’s column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at g.johnson@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
