Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of the marshall plan
Analysis of the marshall plan
Positive impacts of marshall plan
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysis of the marshall plan
The integration of international communications and trades, the flourishing peril of global terrorism, the surge of HIV/AIDS, the growing poverty in developing countries, transnational crimes and nuclear weapons – all are hallmarks of a germinated 21st century outlook for alteration and adjustment. Given many menaces to national security in the post-Cold War and especially post-9/11 terrorism, Americans now understand that the security of their homeland greatly depends on civilization, freedom, and development beyond other nations. Since Congress passed the Marshall Plan in 1948 and the Foreign Assistance Act in 1961, the U.S. has been well-known worldwide for its commodious overseas contribution. Nevertheless, this renown is inevitably questioned. What did the U.S. really accomplished? Or the effort was just a gilded, counterfeit mask?
The United States, according to the CIA World Factbook 2009, has been ranked first in Gross Domestic Product (GDP - a basic measure of a country's overall economic output) 59 times in a row since 1950. Being the wealthiest and strongest part of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and even helping to formulate the United Nations over 60 years ago, our actions can be felt around the world - flagrantly and magnificently. Yet, we give the most which is the least.
It is indubitable that we have always granted the Third World countries with the largest amount comparing to any other First World countries. In fiscal year 2008, American government assisted with over 25 billion dollars, more than twice that of Germany and of Britain (Figure 1). Ironically, the percent of Gross National Income (GNI) we granted was the lowest (Figure 2). Forty years ago, along with other affluent nations, Americans...
... middle of paper ...
...nia News. Online. 9 May
1995. Google. 25 January 2010. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/usaid_frnAid.html
Becker, Elizabeth. “Groups Pledge to Account for Tsunami Aid.” New York Times. 25 February
2005: A5.
Heath, Dan, and Chip Heath. “Does America Spend Too Much on Foreign Aid?” Made to Stick:
Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die. New York: Random House Inc. 2007. 77-79.
Lancaster, Carol. “The Phenomenon of Foreign Aid.” Transforming Foreign Aid: United States
Assistance in the 21st Century. Washington D.C.: Institute for International Economics.
1 February 2000. 9-13.
Slavin, Barbara. “Role in relief could draw U.S. closer to Iran.” Los Angeles Times. 31
December 2003: A3.
“U.S. Foreign Aid Programs: 1980 to 2007.” Chart. Online. 30 September 2007. Google. 25
January 2010. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1262.pdf
As the United States developed into a world economic power, it also became a military and political power. Certain things led Americans to become more involved in world affairs, such as territorial growth. There were also consequences to the nation’s new role, like conflict between citizens and people of power. United States government and leaders had to learn the “hard way”, the challenges and negativity that they would face, such as loss of money and lack of control between certain nations, and the positive effects such as expansion of territory and alliances.
Stephen Ambrose speaks much on wars that America was directly or indirectly involved in. In one chapter, The Legacy of World War Two, he saw war, for the US and the Allies, in World War Two, as “not to conquer, not to enslave, not to destroy, but to liberate” (Ambrose 120) He goes on to say that “the Marshall Plan was the most generous act in human history.” (Ambrose 121) The Marshall Plan created NATO, the Berlin Air Lift and Ambrose swimming in patriotism claimed it was “the American spirit, more than American productive power, that made it so.” (Ambrose 121) He continues h...
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.
For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East had depended on a friendly government in Iran. The newly appointed leader, the shah of Iran, began Westernizing the country and taking away power from the Ayatollah, powerful religious leaders. The United States poured millions of dollars into Iran’s economy and the shah’s armed forces, overlooking the rampant corruption in government and well-organized opposition. By early 1979, the Ayatollah had murdered the Shah and taken back power of the government. A group of students who took the American embassy hostage on November 4th, 1979, turned the embassy over to the religious leaders. Carter knew he must take action in order to regain the American embassy and the hostages, but with all of the military cutbacks, the rescue attempt was a complete failure and embarrassment. It took the United States 444 days to rescue the hostages. This was the final straw for many Americans, and enough to push them to the “right” side of the political spectrum, Republican.
Without understanding the importance of foreign relations the American people’s way of life could be at stake. Not only could the economic strength of the U.S. diminish, but the military might of the U.S. could also be compromised. Mead argues that without the centrality of foreign policy being evident in American politics the happiness of the world is at risk. “Since the United States has become the central power in a worldwide system of finance, communications, and trade, it is not only the American people whose happiness and security will be greatly affected by the quality of American foreign policy in coming years (Mead 176). I contend that without a strong emphasis on foreign policy, we could begin to see the end of American
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
As seen by the terrorist attacks of September 11th and afterwards this is not an easy approach, if even possible, and it asks for a unreserved commitment, the clear definition of interests within the international system, it asks for the use of force if necessary as well as the clear distinction when not, and it asks for a transformation of institutions and policies. Since this was not done early on, the examples provide the reasons of failure as well as a demonstration of a slow learning process in U.S. foreign Policy.
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.
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
... aid across the world. As we have established that we do have an obligation to redistribute globally in a cosmopolitan perspective, distributing wealth however we may need to rethink what the best assistance is. Amaryta Sen conveys that before sending aid to the third world state, we would need to fully understand the limitation of freedom in the country. Redistributing wealth to global countries requires it to be evaluated by the economic shortage that they are suffering and to see whether it will be efficient in the long run. The more effective ways to contribute would be to international relief agencies or NGO’s that would pursue international development projects to help those in poverty or the alternative option by Tom Campbell’s idea of a ‘Global humanitarian levy’ which suggests a more appropriate taxation on all citizens to collectively aid those in need.
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.
Maghen, Z. (2009, January). Eradicating the "Little Satan": Why Iran Should Be Taken at Its
In pouring through and examining countless research for this paper, I noticed immediately that Obama has written and published many articles, books, and journals—in short the man is undoubtedly well-spoken, expressive, and passionate about his job. Although he is well-versed and a visionary in his own right, he likes to refer to past leaders for guidance—“Confronted by Hitler, Roosevelt said that our power would be ‘directed toward ultimate good as well as against immediate evil. We Americans are not destroyers; we are builders.’ It is time for a president who can build consensus here at home for an equally ambitious course.” (Obama) In this address to the Council of Foreign Affairs, Obama, instead of easily dishing out a litany of lambasting remarks concerning our current administration, he speaks more proactively of what he can do. In his arguments, much of the time, he tends to start with a general idea or value system, then he moves to the particular—“After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; t...
The first reasons to think that foreign aid should be spend is that “Aid saves lives” which is clearly illustrated by the researches conducted. Compare 1990 to 2010, as a result of aid in vaccines and health, there was a decrease in number of children who died from illness of pneumonia and diarrhoea (BBC). For example, in Botswana, the foreign aid fund had provided a test of HIV for pregnant mothers and therefore decrease the amount of newborn babies which catches HIV. Furthermore, in Bangladesh, there is a 62% drop in death rate for the under five children, the aid fund allows the government to be able to afford “vaccines and trained the midwives”.
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.