|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cart is a malcontent, posing as a student. He's really just a lout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Articulate: An Angstlust Project |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Politics of Aid
by Cart
US Foreign Aid in the developing world can serve both as blessing or blight. The implementation of aid can buoy an economy following a crisis, fund much-needed social programs, such as healthcare and education, and fund infrastructure development. The implementation of aid can also result in an increase in the oppression of minority groups, as well as the citizenry as a whole. Foreign aid can also be misappropriated (or in some cases, simply used as intended) to terrorize, threaten and oppress neighbouring countries. The refusal of aid can have dire consequences that can be felt generations later. This essay aims to outline different methods employed by the US to distribute foreign aid, the results of the action, and the political motivation for each. A case study which exemplifies arguments herein regarding US aid will conclude this essay.
Following the Second World War, with Europe largely destroyed, the United States passed a bill that which immediately saved Europe from economic ruin. An amount still staggering by present standards the $16 billion, infusion of funds over a 4 year period was to be the first ‘aid package’.(1) Though there must have been pangs of altruism, the Marshall Plan was also undoubtedly a coup for American business interests. The political interests weren’t insignificant either. According to President Truman’s Secretary of State, Dean Acheson:
“These measures of relief and reconstruction have been only in part suggested by humanitarianism. Your Congress has authorized and your Government is carrying out, a policy of relief and reconstruction today chiefly as a matter of national self-interest."(2)
Unfortunately, this type of pure economic aid has become scarce, though it may be the most effective. As Charles Weiss Jr., notes, “This commitment [to largely unfettered resources] shows concern, inspires confidences and focuses assistance on the needs of recipients rather than on the self-interest on the donors.”(3) It also seems to purchase UN General Assembly votes, with sixty six percent of nations receiving foreign aid, “supported U.S. positions a majority of the time on important issues.”(4)
Manipulation of aid for political gain began to catch on. According to Zinn, “From 1952 on, foreign aid was more and more obviously designed to build up military power in non-Communist countries. In the next ten years, of the $50 billion in aid granted by the United States to ninety countries, only $5 billion was for nonmilitary economic development.”(5) With the US having the largest defense industry in the world, it isn’t surprising to note that a quarter of all US foreign aid is spent on US-manufactured ‘weapons, equipment, or services.”(6) The industry of war or the modern day military industrial complex is far more advantageous when your sponsor country can subsidize your industry by creating proxy wars, essentially, a new marketplace. A front page humanitarian article prominently featuring your piece of military equipment is free advertising only a government could manufacture.
The American foreign policy of ‘containment’ was the most common political motivation behind the aid (and lack thereof) for the past 60 years following the Second World War. The World Bank has historically been an ‘American’ organization, because of the voting process being weighted by economic size. Therefore, the United States essentially maintains veto power over all decisions. Aid was denied in the early 1970’s to Chile after Salvador Allende, a staunch support of agrarian reform, was marked as a communist who’s claim to the office of the President was deemed illegitimate by some members of the opposition and observers with vested interest in Washington. Not only was American aid (as well as trade) denied, American influence also stopped any new loans to be granted to Chile by the World Bank. According to William Blum’s Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II, “…American businesses were given the word to tighten the economic noose.”
The most interesting political play in this example is the increase in military aid at a time when all other assistance is literally cut off. This military aid included but was not restricted to trips for military personnel to be trained in Panama and the United States. As Blum writes, “The Allende government, caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, was reluctant to refuse this “assistance” for fear of antagonizing its military leaders.”(7) With Allende’s weakness exposed, the lack of command of the military, he was easily ousted by a well equipped and trained group of military generals. Chile’s newfound ‘aid’ submerged Chile into 25 years of dictatorial rule. Not surprisingly, this outcome served to assuage some domestic issues in the United States between politicians and the corporate world who stood to profit as a result of much more ‘stable’ conditions down south.
In more contemporary discussion, Africa has now become synonymous with the discussion of poverty and foreign aid. Increasingly, however, this aid has been subject to conditions of favourable, pro-commerce legislation and high corporate incentives for investment. The majority of this aid however has been or is being horded by corrupt governments, usually in the form of military dictators, or is squandered because of lender restrictions on exactly how these funds are spent. For the first time in the history of African Aid, the interest payments on loans to Africa are larger than the loans being received. Most, if not all large scale investment into the region is now based on building infrastructure to remove resources for western interests rather than building local industry for those same resources. “There has definitely been a shift of U.S. aid to regions like the Caspian, West Africa – places that are reliable energy suppliers, or could be.”(7)
To speak of infrastructure investment is to speak of the second most important reason the continent requires so much aid. In the last quarter century, Africa has been ravaged by the HIV-Aids virus. Despite recent, very expensive publicity stunts, the attitude towards aid in Africa has largely stayed the same. “Just prior to the [G8] Summit, President George W. Bush said he would double U.S. assistance to Africa, and announced several new programs totaling $1.65 billion,” though, “a closer look at Bush’s actual spending proposal shows that only 9% of it consists of new money.”(8)
Perhaps the most interesting of contemporary examples of US Foreign Aid is the military aid given to Afghanistan during the late 1970’s and 1980’s. The Afghan ‘Trap’ as it was called by National Security Advisor to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski was drafted to be a cold war weapon. Proxy wars and insurgencies are nothing new when it comes to manipulating foreign ‘aid’, as will be elaborated upon during the case study of Israel which will follow, however, the maneuvering of the Soviet Union into the debacle that was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. With the help of Tehran, US foreign aid began funding the Moujahedeen to simply be Russia’s equivalent of the Vietcong. This military aid was not solely used against the Russian’s. Throughout the conflict, the slaying between rival tribes both battling the Russians was prominent. As Blum notes in his book, “they [rival Moujahedeen] have in recent weeks killed more of their own than the enemy,” a trend that continued long after both the United States and the Soviet Union backed out of the war in 1993, eventually culminating in a Taliban controlled Afghanistan . The spite of this political maneuvering can also be found recorded in Blum’s Killing Hope, referencing the leader of the Moujahedeen, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, “Ironically, they were afraid that if he did [take power], his brand of extremism would spread to and destabilize the former Soviet republics of large Moslem populations, the same fear which had been one of the motivations behind the Soviets intervening in the civil war in the first place.”(9) US aid often works to destabilize regions, usually resulting in political situations more volatile than before the aid arrived. This lesson had the opportunity to be learned again following 9/11, an even which never would have occurred had the United States not funneled so many resources to the Moujahedeen twenty years prior.
One cannot have a discussion on the role of US foreign aid in development without discussing at length the issues surrounding the largest recipient of US foreign aid, Israel. Israel can be seen as a prime example of the political intentions and affects of foreign assistance. In an analysis of UN General Assembly votes from 1984 to 1993 it was revealed that Israel voted with the United States in 89% of votes cast, more than any other nation that receives foreign assistance from the US.(10) Israel receives aid from the U.S. for more than the support it provides in the UN General Assembly. Nearly one third of all U.S. foreign assistance goes to Israel, in exchange for a role that some say is no more than just, “another federal agency,” for use when, “[it’s] convenient to use and you want something done quietly.”(11)
Israel has been the largest recipient of US foreign assistance since the mid 1970’s, though recently the bulk of the money appropriated for aid to the country has been
re-assessed so that the majority of it is now in the form of military aid as opposed to economic aid. Resentment is strong throughout the region towards the shift in the distribution of aid (ignoring the obvious religious and historical tensions in the region) as many states see this as being akin to an arms race. With the substantial growth of Israel’s military, Israel’s neighbours must also, for their own security assurance, spend more and more money on arms, purchased by and large from the United States. According to a Congressional Research Service brief, “the Administration requested $480 million in economic, $2.16 billion in military, and $50 million in migration resettlement assistance,” for the 2004 fiscal year, a tremendous amount of assistance for what is considered to be a first world nation with both high personal income and quality of life standards.(12) According to that report, that aid does not include a further $3.65 billion in military research and development projects, including a massive $1.3 billion in a now defunct aircraft development project. This aid also does not include guaranteed loans financed by the US government, essentially insuring the Israeli economy to the tune of billions of dollars. Also not included are the private donations received through charitable and fund raising organizations, as well as reparations paid out by West Germany.
Though Israel obviously initially seems to serve as an extreme example, given how disproportionately it is funded, it really may be the best example of how politicized foreign aid truly is. Israel also embodies examples of the different scenarios listed in the introduction, which I will now outline.
US military aid to Israel is reliant on the stipulation that funds, “cannot be used in the occupied territories,” nor can, “equipment,” be used for anything but, “internal security or defensive purposes,” nor can they, “be transferred to a third country without U.S. approval.”(13) One might assume that countries reliant on this aid would do their very best to obey the conditions of the aid, yet in the case of Israel, there is no fund transparency required, funds are spent without having to detail how. Such a position is theoretically defensible, as previously stated, the most effective type of aid has traditionally been the unfettered variety. Indefensible however, is the use of American cluster bombs in an attack on Lebanon in 1982 as well as the use American helicopters and fighter planes to assassinate Palestinian leaders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Also indefensible is the repeated sales of American technology to third parties, such as Iran and China on multiple occasions.(14) If nothing else, this is a clear example of foreign aid being used to oppress and terrorize not only minority groups within ‘Israel’ (Gaza Strip, West Bank) but also Israel’s neighbours, such as offensives in the Golan Heights or the attack on an Iranian nuclear plant, which, incidentally violates international law. An argument could also be made that this type of militarism is also being used to oppress and terrorize citizens of Israel, namely those who refuse to serve their mandatory rotation in the Israeli Defense Force for which they face stiff penalties.
While US Foreign Aid can be used to help following crisis, such as following the South Asian tsunami in December of 2004, the overwhelming use of aid and assistance is used as a tool of foreign policy as opposed to a gift of benevolence. As a tool of foreign policy, it is far more ‘effective’ than overt aggressions as one doesn’t have to worry about high casualty rates undermining the morale of the people. Funding foreign wars and aggression is often used on campaign platforms, when jazzed up; foreign aid can turn the hardest politician into a humanitarian, it is a strong political move when sending troops may be too risky, at the polls. The real political issues at hand are hardly ever on the surface, though, if one bothers to look, they are not what might be called subtle. In the case of Israel, it is not a difficult leap in logic to assume that if US military aid accounts for a large portion of IDF resources and the majority of IDF resources are used in the occupied territories, that a portion of that military aid might be used in a method it was not intended for. It also is not that large of a leap to assume that if that logic is so easily attainable, then legislatures must be aware of the issue. If one follows that line of thought, one quickly arrives at the conclusion that if they continue to fund these demands, they must be working as designed.
Footnotes
(1) Howard Zinn. A People’s History of the United States. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980. Also available online at http://www.zmag.org/ZNetBooks/apeoplesexc.htm .
(2) Howard Zinn. A People’s History of the United States. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980. Also available online at http://www.zmag.org/ZNetBooks/apeoplesexc.htm .
(3) Charles Weiss Jr. "Eurasia Letter: A Marshall Plan We Can Afford”. Foreign Policy 94-109, No. 106 (Spring, 1997)
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-7228%28199721%290%3A106%3C94%3AELAMPW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R
(4) T.Y. Wang. “US Foreign Aid and UN Voting: An Analysis of Important Issues”. International Studies Quarterly 43, 199-210 (1999)
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/production/isqu/1999/43/1/0020-8833.00117/0020-8833.00117.pdf?sessionID=cVYhMpHp2aYgA3efIC
(5) Howard Zinn. A People’s History of the United States. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980. Also available online at http://www.zmag.org/ZNetBooks/apeoplesexc.htm .
(6) Unaccredited “Harpers Index.” Harper’s, October, 2005, 11.
(7) William Blum. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II. (Monroe: Common Courage Press, 2004.)
(8) Paul Roberts. The End of Oil. (London: Bloomsbury, 2004)
(9) David Bryden. “Bush Overstates Africa Aid Increase,” Silver City, NM & Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, (July 20, 2005). http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/171
(10) William Blum. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II. (Monroe: Common Courage Press, 2004.)
(11) T.Y. Wang. “US Foreign Aid and UN Voting: An Analysis of Important Issues”. International Studies Quarterly 43, 199-210 (1999) http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/production/isqu/1999/43/1/0020-8833.00117/0020-8833.00117.pdf?sessionID=cVYhMpHp2aYgA3efIC
(12) Stephen Zunes. "U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship"'
Bibliography
Roberts, Paul. The End of Oil. London: Bloomsbury, 2004.
Bryden, David, “Bush Overstates Africa Aid Increase,” Silver City, NM & Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, (July 20, 2005). http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/171
Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II. Monroe: Common Courage Press, 2004.
Wang, T.Y. “US Foreign Aid and UN Voting: An Analysis of Important Issues”. International Studies Quarterly 43, 199-210 (1999) http://www.blackwell- synergy.com/production/isqu/1999/43/1/0020-8833.00117/0020- 8833.00117.pdf?sessionID=cVYhMpHp2aYgA3efIC
Zunes, Stephen. "U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship"'
Mark, Clyde R.. “Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance”. CRS Issue Brief for Congress Order Code IB85066
(updated July 12, 2004) Also available online http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB85066.pdf
Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980. Also available online at http://www.zmag.org/ZNetBooks/apeoplesexc.htm .
Weiss, Charles Jr. "Eurasia Letter: A Marshall Plan We Can Afford”. Foreign Policy 94- 109, No. 106 (Spring, 1997)
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-7228%28199721%290%3A106%3C94%3AELAMPW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R
Unaccredited “Harpers Index.” Harper’s, October, 2005,
|
|
|