Throughout the United States’ history, the prominence of foreign aid has fluctuated. Franklin Roosevelt presented the Marshall Plan to rebuild a devastated Europe after World War II, a comprehensive effort which cemented America’s place as a world leader. Later, when the perceived threat from the Soviet Union receded in the early 1980s, the U.S. kept a lower profile on the world stage, and Congress slashed diplomatic, military, and foreign assistance budgets. However, during the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the war against terrorism, and through the democracy movements and resulting civil wars throughout the world, these budgets increased, and the U.S. became again a leader in international matters (Radelet). The concept of foreign aid is now under attack by the Trump administration’s rhetoric of “America First,” and the resources needed to remain engaged in the world decrease dramatically in his most recent budget proposal (Kesten). Although only about 1% of the total budget is allocated to foreign assistance, even this seems too generous for the current administration. The United States’ foreign support impacts the world socially, economically, and politically. Providing unwavering foreign assistance to other nations validates and promotes America’s …show more content…
The United States must increase funding for humanitarian aid and diplomatic missions around the world. After all, benevolence bestowed is confirmation that the U.S. is “great,” not again, but still. Continuing the diplomatic and military effort that the U.S. has undertaken, bringing security and stability to America and the rest of the world, is a crucial part of anti-terrorism work. Ongoing efforts bring peace to a world that desperately needs it. When one examines the speechifying and oratory more deeply, it is obvious that “America First” is best achieved through deliberate engagement with the rest of the
Steven Hook and John Spanier's 2012 book titled “American foreign policy since WWII" serves as one of the most important texts that can be used in understanding the underlying complexities on American foreign policies. Like the first readings that are analyzed in class (American Diplomacy by George Kennan and Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis), this text also brings history into a more understandable context. Aside from being informative and concise in its historical approach, Hook and Spanier also critiques the several flaws and perspectives that occurred in the American foreign policy history since World War II.
The United States continues to give around $550 billion in aid to other countries each year, making America the world's top donor by far (Richardson). While the United States government only supplies $252 billion to needy Americans each year. Former Assistant to the President for Communications, Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous" (Foreign Aid). The United States need to give money to support the domestic impoverished rather than supporting developing foreign countries because the poverty and homelessness in America is increasing faster than the aid necessary to reduce this trend. Part of the reason that the United States should aid the domestic impoverished is that some foreign countries cannot be trusted with the money given to them and in certain cases, the money intended to aid countries are harmful for that country’s well-being.
During 1940-1970, the USSR and the USA were the world’s leading superpowers. After WW2, it was the US money that helped rebuild nearly all of Western Europe, putting nearly half a dozen countries into debt. They opened trade and helped Europe’s ravaged economy to get back onto its feet. They did so by creating the ‘Marshall Plan’ on June the 5th, 1947. The plans aim was to reconstruct Western Europe and at the same time to stop Communism spreading to them – the Americans were avid believers in the Domino Theory, and believed that communism would take over all of Europe if they did not intervene. They also created other policies such as the Truman doctrine on March the 12th, 1947 (which is a set of principles that state that the US as the worlds ‘leading country’ will help out other democratic governments worldwide) and NATO, 4th of April 1949.
The book A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy, by Joyce Kaufman, and the essay, American Foreign Policy Legacy by Walter Mead both acknowledge the history, and the importance of American foreign policy. The two argue that American foreign policy has always been an essential aspect of the prosperity and health of the United States. After reading these writings myself, I can agree that American foreign policy in the U.S. has always been detrimental to the success of this nation. Throughout history most Americans have had very little interest in foreign affairs, nor understood the importance. This essay will address the importance of foreign policy, why Americans have little interest in foreign affairs, and what the repercussions
.... Address to the 46th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States of America: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=20012
Before extending aid to other countries, we should focus on our more prevalent domestic problems. Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous. Almost every American knows it, feels it, believes it." The topic of United States foreign policy is greatly debated, and a decision on how to handle is very hard to come by. It seems as if we are finally leaning towards less aid to foreign countries, as we try to cut wasteful spending. The American government is finally opening its eyes to the realization that all of the aid we are giving out may not be worth it. Our priority should be to help our homeless, instead of other countries' poor.
As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy, manifest destiny, humanitarianism, and economic expansion.
President Truman distinguished his policy of dismantling communism, not through military means, but through the form of economic aid to countries under communist threat (Document B). However, while Truman may have preached universal funding for nations in need, American financial commitments exemplify otherwise. Between 1948- 1952, American provided billions in assistance to traditional allies, including the United Kingdom and France; conversely, many weaker nations received a fraction of the funding allocated to America’s closest allies (Document C). The hypocrisy of the United States, coupled with underfunding, were indicative of a failed strategy to contain the future spread of communism. First, the basic issue here is the lack of funding provided to countries who desperately needed U.S. aid. By providing minuscule amounts of funding, democratic countries were destined for failure. Without the economic aid of the United States, countries would continue to fall to the sheer enormity of the communist movement. Therefore, the misallocation of funds was a fundamental misstep of the government in their efforts to combat communism. Secondly, the United States was portrayed as a betrayer across the globe. Publically, the leader of the United States promised money to countries combatting communist insurgencies; however,
The first food aid program in the world was started during the Great War by soon to be President Herbert Hoover. Food production kicked in and the United States started to feed areas under Bolshevik control in Russia literally right outside the Tsar’s palace in the hopes that hunger – and therefore the main void and driver of need that communism fills could possibly be tackled. In a time absolutely different from our own where the United States gives foreign aid as a matter of routine, Hoover’s program was given over $700 million from France and Britain in order to feed Belgium and wartime
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
In conclusion, this extensive review of American foreign policy is just very broad. This topic is his shortened summary of a broad topic in a narrative arrangement, if they contributed anything to the historical understanding of this book. Ambrose and Brinkley made the topic very fascinating and easier to comprehend than a plain textbook. By writing Rise to Globalism and narrating stories without including unnecessary truths and statistics. Thanks to this book, I gained a more thorough understanding of the struggles in the Middle East after Vietnam and a new perception on where American presently stands in the world.
There is no static or perfect definition that can encapsulate all that may fall under the theme of humanitarian intervention. Philosophically speaking, humanitarian intervention is the idea that individuals have the duty to prevent human rights violations from occurring. Furthermore, the legal basis of humanitarian intervention is derived from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Lecture 11/15/16). As decided by the UN in 1948, all nations have a responsibility to protect, or to prevent crimes against humanity, and while it was an important milestone for the recognition of human rights, not all those experiencing the crimes of genocide
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it." This is one of Mitt Romneys famous quotes. The scary part about this quote is that he is right. About half of our country is dependent upon government assistance, and some are passing this way of life on to their many children. This is the main problem, if the future generations begin to think this is a good way of life our government will crash, again. Government assistance is a problem due to the fact that; there is no incentive to work, people get handed money with no enforced restrictions, and there is no constant supervision for people, “needing” this assistance.
Peter Burnell and Lise Rakner 2008 Governance and Aid Conditionality in a Globalizing World. United States of America: Oxford University Press
Globalization’s history is extremely diversified and began during the beginning of civilization. Now we live in a world that is constantly evolving, demanding people to use resources in locations that are very difficult to obtain certain resources. This could make it completely impossible to operate in these specific parts of the world. However, globalization allows people across the world to acquire much needed resources. Globalization creates the opportunity for businesses to take advantage and exploit the ability to take part of their business to a different country. Nevertheless, globalization is part of today’s society and will be involved in virtually all situations.