The United States Agency for International Development known as USAID, is an organization that provides funds and administers programs that are meant to help developing countries in multiple fields including health, economic, security and human rights. This governmental organization has contributed to many advances globally since its inception. The biggest debate though, is that with all the aid that has been administered to foreign countries, is the U.S benefitting more from foreign aid than the countries it is supposed to be helping? In this essay I will explore the benefits USAID contributes to its aid recipients and try to weigh it against the benefits contractors gain that may be a contributor to ongoing poverty in developing countries.
Brief History of the USAID
What is USAID? The United States Agency for International Development, also known as USAID, was developed with the passage of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by President John F. Kennedy and Congress. The foundation of this organization came from the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan is the effort by Secretary of State George C. Marshall that gave a large amount of financial and technical assistance to Europe after WWII that enabled Europe to stabilize itself (USAID.gov).
With the success of the Marshall Plan, President Harry S.Truman proposed an international development assistance program in 1949. The program had two goals; “Creating markets for the United States by reducing poverty and increasing production in developing countries” and “Diminishing the threat of communism by helping countries prosper under capitalism” (USAID.gov). In 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed the Foreign Assistance Act and the USAID was created. Once USAID took off, internationa...
... middle of paper ...
...act that the USAID does not often hire local people to oversee its programs is disheartening since U.S. contractors often have the same goals as the U.S. Government reinforces approaches that are often unproductive.
Conclusion
I believe that there is more business deals going on between the USAID and American businesses that is hindering the overall fight against global poverty and its many contributors that development organizations around the world are struggling to combat. Even though the USAID has made many contributions around the world that has made a positive difference in the immediate life of citizens of developing countries, there is not a real large push for programs that provide a long term solution to global poverty because that would hinder the U.S development job sector. So at the end of the day the question still stands, who benefits from the USAID?
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 United States Agency of International Development (USAID) has published five strategic goals. Under these goals the USAID has formulated a total of thirteen objectives to give the strategy a more specific direction. In these
The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe became the East nations, and the United States, centered on NATO formed the West nations, dividing the world in two. Belonging to neither the East nor the West, developing countries were called Third World nations and became a stand-in for wars between the East and West (Gaddis, The Strategies of Containment 70-78). The end of WWII and the beginning of the C... ... middle of paper ... ... a, from containment to rollback in Korea; welcoming European integration because it portended the creation of an economic unit that encouraged technological innovation; building a configuration of power in the international system, nurturing free markets while safeguarding American interests, a constant in Washington for more than 35 years; and, free political economy at home were just a few of the strategic methods used to change, influence, and shape American domestic policy (Leffler, The Specter of Communism,100-129).
As the President elect of the United States in 1960, John F. Kennedy aspired, to accomplish much during his presidency. Kennedy confidently called his initiatives “The New Frontier” taking on numerous major challenges. Some of the challenges were boosting the United States economy by ending a recession and promoting growth in the economy, aiding third world countries by establishing the Peace Corps sending men and women overseas to assist developing countries in meeting their own necessities. Additional challenges were too built-up the United States National Defense and furthered the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) programs. Kennedy had designed an ambitious legislative agenda for the preceding years of his term. Tragically, John F. Kennedy, himself did not live to see the majority of his New Frontier enacted. However, with the enactment in 1964-1966, of Kennedy’s agenda during his final year, he acquired the respect, as a liberal force for change, following his death (U.S. Department of State, n.d.).
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.
Since most of the productivity of Western Europe countries were destroyed, even they received the aid, they had to buy several equipment like machines from the US as they didn’t have the ability to produce them immediately. Also, there were food shortages in Europe at that time, those countries had to buy food and supplies from the US. Therefore, the aid would eventually go back to the United States and improve the economy like boosting production and increase profits of the United States. The Marshall Plan was more like a loan than a pure giveaway of aid. Then, the Marshall Plan can make Western Europe became more rely on the United States and even make the United States a stronger country. Once they rely on the United States, the US can control the economics of Europe so that the US can take over the leadership of global economics. Also, the Marshall Plan greatly helped Western Europe to recover their economics. “By 1951, six years after the war and at the effective end of the Marshall Plan, national incomes per capita were more than 10 percent above pre-war levels.” (De Long and Eichengreen 22) which was much faster than the recovery of GDP after World War 1. Therefore, the Marshall Plan could help both the Western Europe and the United State and it can be the tool which make the United States be the emerging leader of global
Pitts and Koufopoulos (2012) argue that resources and capability are highly important internal factors that should be taken into account by the organization in order to obtain the successful performance in the long run.
Poverty has conquered nations around the world, striking the populations down through disease and starvation. Small children with sunken eyes are displayed on national television to remind those sitting in warm, luxiourious houses that living conditions are less than tolerable around the world. Though it is easy to empathize for the poor, it is sometimes harder to reach into our pocketbooks and support them. No one desires people to suffer, but do wealthy nations have a moral obligation to aid poor nations who are unable to help themselves? Garrett Hardin in, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor," uses a lifeboat analogy to expose the global negative consequences that could accompany the support of poor nations. Hardin stresses problems including population increase and environmental overuse as downfalls that are necessary to consider for the survival of wealthy nations. In contrast, Peter Singer's piece, "Rich and Poor," remarks on the large differences between living conditions of those in absolute poverty with the wealthy, concluding that the rich nations possess a moral obligation to the poor that surpasses the risks involved. Theodore Sumberg's book, "Foreign Aid As Moral Obligation," documents religious and political views that encourage foreign aid. Kevin M. Morrison and David Weiner, a research analyst and senior fellow respectively at the Overseas Development Council, note the positive impact of foreign aid to America, a wealthy nation. Following the examination of these texts, it seems that not only do we have a moral obligation to the poor, but aiding poor nations is in the best interest of wealthy nations.
1. As far as peace keeping methods go, the reputation of the United Nations is very pitiable. This is not only because they have not been doing their job to it’s fullest extent, but also because the member states on the security council haven’t given the UN the power it needs if it is to be a successful force in peace keeping methods.
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created as a result of the Bretton Woods Conference. Both provide assistance to countries suffering economically. While the IMF is a cooperative institution that aims to create an organized global system of payments and receipts, the World Bank is an institution that aims to help developing countries (Driscoll 1). Both play a part in the economies of struggling nations with the goal of reducing their burden and helping them to survive in the global economic system. Unfortunately, in many cases their practices within developing nations have been seen to create more harm than good. This is possibly because both institutions use a one size fits all approach when aiding countries rather than gaining a deep understanding of each country they are involved in and catering their approach as a result. In this paper I will examine the practices of the IMF and World Bank in developing nations that have led to failure and the effects the policies had on these countries.
“If you owe your bank a hundred pounds, you have a problem; but if you owe it a million, it has.(1)”
“…increasing international trade and financial flows since the Second World War have fostered sustained economic growth over the long term in the world’s high-income states. Some with idle incomes have prospered as well, but low-income economies generally have not made significant gains. The growing world economy has not produced balanced, healthy economic growth in the poorer states. Instead, the cycle of underdevelopment more aptly describes their plight. In the context of weak economies, the negative effects of international trade and foreign investments have been devastating. Issues of trade and currency values preoccupy the economic policies of states with low-income economies even more than those with high incomes because the downturns are far more debilitating.1”
Fifty-one countries established the United Nations also known as the UN on October 24, 1945 with the intentions of preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security. Over the years the UN has grown in numbers to include 185 countries, thus making the organization and its family of agencies the largest in an effort to promote world stability. Since 1954 the UN and its organizations have received the Nobel Peace Prize on 5 separate occasions. The first in 1954 awarded to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva, for its assistance to refugees, and finally in 1988 to the United Nations Peace-keeping Forces, for its peace-keeping operations. As you can see, the United Nations efforts have not gone without notice.