Essay Foreign Aid Programs are Good Politics

In Paul Johnson’s “American Idealism and Realpolitik Critique” about American involvement in political battles in foreign countries, he brings forth the idea that the American government plays a vital role when it comes to mediating and facilitating conflict. Their importance can often be overshadowed by some opinions that the government, specifically the army, has over stepped its boundaries by intruding on countries and excessively becoming involved in hostility. Johnson notes that without American intervention, there would be cause for a considerable diminish in aid and possibly a rise in disputes. Johnson compares to America’s duties to Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan in which the lack of control over the discord between countries results in an anarchy that would leave the world’s population to “‘continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” (Johnson 387) Although he does put a stress on the significance of the American government, he does not ignore the obvious moral flaws that sometimes tarnish this reputation. When adding up the pros and cons of the United States authority, Johnson’s writing favours the positive aspects but also has hints of neutrality; this attitude is quite fitting considering America’s actions.

The United States has been a super power for decades, and since America has always involved themselves in other countries' problems. Instead of isolationism, the country has practiced getting involved. Since the Monroe Presidency, America has been named the World's police force. Dispelling anarchists, and stopping coos, the united states portrays itself as the world protector. Since Monroe, some Americans have felt that isolation is the way to go, and most feel that it is our right to offer assistance. Two recent incidents, Operation Desert Storm and The War in Bosnia have allowed the United States to show off it's strength, both on the military and political level. It has also given the chance for America to evaluate it's foreign policy,

Isolationism was a major idea in the 20’s; we preferred to stay out of other people’s conflicts. However, at the time, we had the biggest economy of a developed country, and we were too powerful not to get involved. As time went on we started to realize that we couldn’t remain isolated, we must help when we are needed. Sometimes that help came too late, and because of the occasional consequences of our delayed involvement, the United States mindset shifted to believe that everything is our problem. In the modern day we get involved in conflicts that have no effect on us, we stick our nose in places it shouldn’t be, and, sometimes, end up making the situations worse. We created an image for ourselves of the overly-nosy neighbor, and, somewhat rightfully, certain countries hold contempt for the U.S. because of our incessant need to intervene in conflicts that mean nothing to us.

Ever had that one friend? The one who tries to help, but no matter how hard he tries, he just aggravates the situation. This friend, Steve, insists he is helping, and those around, too, would support that he is indeed helping. But Steve is actually worsening the circumstances. He is like countries who provide foreign aid to less developed countries. Foreign aid, defined as “the international transfer of capital, goods, or services from a country or international organization for the benefit of the recipient country or its population,” can be military, economic, or humanitarian (“Foreign”). It is often granted to less developed countries in order to evoke government reforms or to stimulate economic growth. However, foreign aid neither elicits government reform, nor does it consistently and reliably stimulate economic growth; therefore, the United States should discontinue providing foreign economic aid.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said that America ‘must be the great Arsenal of Democracy. For us, this is an emergency as serious as war itself. We must apply ourselves to our task with the same resolution, the same sense of urgency, the same spirit of patriotism and sacrifice as we would show were we at war.’ Meaning that America should use their workforce to have an impact on a war that supports the protection of the ideals of democracy. That we must come together to protect what we believe is morally correct and to protect those who are vulnerable to oppression.This hasn't been the only time that we’ve seen America at ‘war’ for a more noble cause. Years ago, Woodrow Wilson claimed that ‘The

In 1787 President George Washington delivered his farewell speech. In it, he warned “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.” Today, the United States is entangled in too many alliances and too many problems. Since the 1990s, the U.S. has become more invested in being the world police, by becoming engaged in too many issues that did not affect them. They need to take care of their problems before dealing with other countries’. I believe that America’s role in the world should be equal to those of other countries—it should still be powerful, but it should use its power for itself primarily. Doing this, the United States would reduce war time and war

Militarily, a strong United States equals prosperity and peace. As a witness of history and with using our own common sense, there is testament to the fact that when America’s armed forces are feared, focused and powerful, the world is a better place than if she is unprepared and weak.

It merely addressed the problems within “underdeveloped” countries, without taking into account the effects that colonialism, war, and natural disasters may have had on the ‘development’ of certain nations. The idea that, “the ‘laws of development’ are supposedly the same for all , and ‘win their way through with iron necessity’,” and the emphasis on self-ambition, and self-generated consequences also demonstrate the North American interest. These concepts are very similar, if not identical, to the American idea of equal opportunity. Furthermore, they sought to define these countries by their actions and the individual mentalities of their populations rather than account for outside forces. Such carefully crafted diction, removed the United States from fault, while simultaneously justifying its hand in international

In their book American Foreign Policy since World War 2, Steven W. Hook, and John Spanier take a historical look at American foreign policy. Since its independence, all through to the start of the 20th century, the United States had a policy of detachment. This was rooted in the believe that Europe, the only other meaningful powerful in the world in the 18th and 19th century, had intrinsic issues related to feudism that kept the continent in a constant state of war (Hook & Spanier, 2015). The U.S on its part was far away from Europe and had a unique chance to chart a different course, one free from the troubles of Europe. As a democracy free from the class systems of Europe and hence maintain peace and stability (Hook & Spanier, 2015). To maintain this peace and stability, it was in the United States interests to maintain detachment from Europe. In fact, Monroe wrote that Europe and its flawed system was evil and America should strive as much as possible to stay away from it (Hook & Spanier, 2015). However, in the 20th century, this policy of detachment was put to the test when the United States was drawn into the first and second world wars by external factors. This led the United States to get more engaged in global affairs. The idea behind engagement was to promote the ideals of democracy which, the U.S believed were the pillars of peace, as well as to protect itself from aggressors like Japan in the Second World War. After the

The United States stepped up and defined its role as “world police” at the onsite of communism in the 1900s. The U.S. assumed the role in an effort to assist countries by intervening in their governments. However, today we are facing an era of terrorism, and the United States is still concerning itself with this role. Along with “policing” the world, the U.S. has concerned itself with loaning aid to poverty ridden nations. This is dangerous because when nations become dependent on foreign aid, they expect it. What happens when the aid is withdrawn from them? Picture a country in extreme poverty. The people are desperate, and with desperation comes impulsiveness. Without

“The goal of this article is to determine empirically whether and how the United States has maintained aid allocation patterns consistent with its overarching security objectives” (1146). There are three hypotheses in the article that give a solution to why the U.S. is a “fair-weather friend” and their possible reasoning. Firstly, the authors try to make the readers understand that it is the United States’ strategy to aid allies or states and in that strategy there is another strategy to pick out who and how much help. During Bush’s presidency, after 9/11 he made a speech saying that our battle with terrorism doesn’t stop until all terrorist groups are defeated which gives a sense that “as the lone superpower in the international system, the United States has an interest in stability everywhere on the globe” (1148). Having said that, what the authors are trying to do is see if we actually held the claim of “the war on terror” and to do that, they show from hypothesis 1, which basically says that if the volume of attacks increase on a state, they are more likely to receive U.S. foreign aid and if they are already receiving aid, they are more likely to receive even more aid (1149). So first the authors introduce the verbal side of the U.S. to show that we have an interest in terrorism

Today, twenty-six years after the end of the Cold War, the United States foreign policy has shown its many flaws. Out of the copious conflicts the U.S. has found itself involved in, many have had unsatisfactory and unexpected endings. Somalia in 1992, for example, had begun as a simple humanitarian aid mission, later ending with nearly 150 U.S. servicemen and thousands of civilians dead in the Somali Civil War. About a year after this turmoil, the U.S. created new policies and mandates, creating a more organized and planned approach for later conflicts, such as Haiti. After both diplomatic and military peacebuilding tactics failed in Somalia, the United States must develop and uphold guidelines for when, where, and why the United States should enter conflict, similar to how the United States handled Haiti.

The USA exercises its foreign policy through financial aid. For example, scarcity relief in North Korea provides not only humanitarian aid but also a base for the development of democratic ideals and bodies.

Previously, I perceived our opponents to be the “bad guys” and the United States to be the heroes that were helping people around the world. While this may be true in some applications, I’m no longer naïve to the fact that the U.S. isn’t handing out millions of dollars in economic interest simply because it’s the right thing to do. Rather, I believe that most military conflicts the U.S. has engaged in over the last century, as well as the current battles in Syria and throughout the Middle East, stem principally from economic motivations. While I’m undecided in the political debate that exists between political parties over the term imperialism itself, I’ve become keenly aware of how much of our country’s foreign policy is driven by the economic needs of its citizens. The profound change I’ve experienced is in remaining mindful as to the influence on foreign policy that receptive markets and favorable political conditions in countries throughout the world has.

US aid: In the current world-economy, core countries such as the US go through increases in wages, employment, and general prosperity. However, when this phase comes to an end, it is the peripheral countries that bear the burden. (Wallerstein, 30) For example, let’s say that the US produces a product. The production of this good does quite well, until there is a tipping point, otherwise known as an ‘overproduction’. The product is manufactured at such a high rate that it surpasses the actual demand for said good. Due to the surplus, the prices become more competitive and continue to decline, which means that there is less of a profit. So, core countries then outsource their production processes to