Introduction
According the US Census Bureau, the United States spent $44.957 billion on foreign aid in 2009, in terms of total foreign assistance. Of that, just over $11 billion was military assistance. The nations that received the most foreign aid were Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel and Pakistan. Some aid went to financial institutions and to aid agencies, and therefore is difficult to classify by country. By regions, Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East were the biggest recipients of foreign aid. The recipients and types of foreign aid are indicative of priorities that the US government has with respect to foreign relations. As many people applaud high levels of foreign aid from the US to poor countries around the world, foreign aid also has its critics. From a domestic perspective, criticisms include the argument that this money would be better used in the United States, and the libertarian argument against all forms of foreign aid in general. It is worth noting that many critics of foreign aid still support aid to support military objectives, which includes the four largest recipient of aid (Traub, 2011). External critics of foreign aid argue that such aid has generally failed to achieve its objectives, for a variety of reasons ranging from rapidly increasing populations to corruption to the promotion of dependency relationships (Bovard, 1986). This paper will analyze US foreign aid in the context of its success and failures and make the case that the United States
diplomas that do not certify academic confidence in basic subjects that most schools after high school look for. The money spent on foreign aid can be a lot more beneficial if it’s invested at on the future of the country, rather than helping countries
Foreign aid is something that is provided by donating governments to countries in need, mostly third-world countries. Foreign aid is allocated for two extremely broad categories, economic development and military aid. Under these categories there are specific uses for foreign aid like, health, humanitarian assistance, democratic elections and even protection for forests. There is debate about foreign aid being a waste because of corrupt governments, which gives the United States speculation whether it should continue to provide foreign aid and how much. This was a popular topic in the 2012 election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It would be most beneficial to the United States to maintain foreign aid levels while having conditions
aid can be used to protect the United States from threats from other nations. Beyond humanitarian aid, there is a more complex interpretation of what U.S. foreign aid is and what it does both for the recipient country and America. For example, building democratic governments in other countries is one strategy for fighting terrorism. The United States has long had the reputation of using its military forces for good, such as during World War II when American soldiers helped to defeat Hitler’s Nazism. When dealing with a repressive regime which does not want to engage in democracy military force may be necessary. I am convinced that the United States can provide a healthy dose of overwhelming firepower if that is what it
Everyday problems are occurring in the middle east. Millions of refugees are being displaced and ISIS is gaining land. Many Americans do not care about these conflicts but we should if we are the cause of them.America grants Israel more foreign aid than any other country mostly in arms and weapons. The foreign aid America gives to Israel is clearly unlawful and inhumane. The United States should stop this program immediately because it goes against many government policies preventing the formation of militaristic countries and giving arms to Israel will help them commit more human rights violations against the Palestinians that the United Nations already
Should the United States increase foreign aid? This is a topic that has come up many
There are two main perspectives on foreign aid in Australia – are we giving too much or not enough? Foreign aid is given to developing countries, and is necessary to build an environment where policies and infrastructure can be in place to support other sources of finance. Australia is part of the worldwide foreign aid commitment as we value that everyone should have a fair go, and the country plans to give $3.9 billion over 2017 and 2018. We help countries in need by contributing, food, resources, providing financial assistance, exchanging goods, personal time and knowledge. The main types of aid are humanitarian aid, which is disaster relief and emergency aid and development aid, which is a long-term commitment between nations. Australian aid is strongly on development aid particularly focused on the Asia-Pacific region, but it also has a strong commitment to African and South Asia. Interestingly, 90% of Australia’s foreign aid goes to Asia-Pacific countries such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, because if they build into a developed nation, then we can build trade relations, regional security and partner in defence. This is a polarizing issue that divides the nation due to different views on Australia giving aid, however, a strong foreign aid program is vital for Australia to build successful relations and regional security.
Over the recent years the military has had a greater involvement with aid programs, this was most notable from her experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Militarization of aid politicizes it for something that shouldn't be political. As the author believes humanitarian aid needs to exist in a neutral humanitarian space in order to remain its legitimacy and maintain close ties to the community level. From one example mentioned in Damned Nations, during the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, international aid agencies that worked closely with communities showed greater progress and effectiveness (Nutt, 92). In essence this administered a positive attitude towards westerners, and symbolized progress within hostile nations. Aid that is not militarized allows civilians to feel safe access to services and without the fear in putting themselves or their families at risk (Nutt, 92). In comparison military administered aid has proven to lack the same level of trust because civilians inherently become worried about being targeted as collaborators (Nutt, 92). In addition the militarization of aid proves to bring further danger towards humanitarian workers. “Over the past decade, attacks against aid workers have increased 177 percent, with reports of rape, violence, extortion, abduction, and killings” (Nutt, 94). The author states this was reflected from a misjudgment that involving armed militants into
Is America the world's policeman? Currently it would seem so, with the United States sending unheard of support to countless countries. America has been doing this task for about 60 years, more or less. America spends millions of dollars for the safety of countries that can't help themselves. Obviously America cannot afford to support so many countries and itself. Either it will run out of money or it will run out of men. Policing the world takes a lot of manpower. America is dragging down its own future. If America supports everyone else when they are down, will they do the same for America in the future? America, if it keeps wasting its resources to protect everyone else, will eventually fail (Snyder).
Many skeptics challenge the reasoning for investing so much money into helping so many other countries when that money could instead help us improve internal affairs. After all, foreign aid spending has increased to $50 billion a year today, which could be put towards funding education to ensure that more kids go to college and possibly affecting the innovation of the future(Morris). Giving more than you receive is nice, but when it involves a country 's financial crisis, maybe it 's best if Santa cuts back some of this year 's presents. And although the argument may be valid, lending out a helping hand can create more allies than enemies to help us in return when we need it. In fact, foreign aid only accounts for 0.5 percent of the federal budget (Stearn). Compared to all the other matters at hand that the government is worrying about, the amount of spending put into aiding poorer countries is positive in both a moral aspect and a political aspect.
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.
Throughout history and present day times, many countries such as Germany, France, and Canada have provided assistance and aid to underdeveloped countries to help alleviate poverty. The United States itself issues aid to developing countries which include Israel, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia; this has been an American practice since 1947 after World War II. During the time period from 1947 to 1949 the United States, under the Marshall Plan, provided both financial and technical assistance to Europe and Asia after the war. As a result, Europe was rebuilt both politically and economically. Today the United States continues to provide aid to underdeveloped countries, helping them evolve and strengthen their economy. Many Americans believe that America is doing the right thing in issuing aid, while others hold the opinion that the United States should not issue aid, and that the issue of money to developing countries needs to stop.
Foreign aid is a term referring to resources and money lent out or given to a ‘recipient nation’ who is in need by a wealthier ‘donor country’. This can be given either in long term ‘humanitarian aid’, aimed at improving the welfare and development of the human population, or short term ‘emergency aid’ focused on providing the daily necessities to a population after a war, or natural disaster. Despite common belief, the purpose of foreign aid is not only to help countries which are in need, but also to achieve a range of social, economic, cultural and geopolitical goals that will benefit our national interest. Australia is currently the largest foreign aid donor of its nearest neighbour,
Should the United States increase foreign aid? This is a topic that has come up many
Defense is one of the main priorities in US foreign assistance. The US also has certain goals regarding foreign aid. They always try “rehabilitating the economies of war-devastated countries” in order to bring them back to where they once were and the US also tries “strengthening the military defenses of allies and friends” in order to make sure that poor countries are able to sustain life and have a good government without remaining in poverty for such a long time (Foreign
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