Quote:
Originally Posted by Splitter
We have a group here in American that we call the "Blame America First" brigade. Some of you would love them  . Carter is pretty close to the top of that list.
...
Even the recipients have no loyalty and, as you all have pointed out, it will never be enough to change the impression of the US in some parts of the world. We are beyond broke anyway. |
Carter may not have been a splendid president, but in this case (the US as stingy) the cold numbers do bear him out. Yes, Northern European states generally give from 10 to 30 times as much foreign aid per capita. Not liking Carter is not a valid reason for brushing his argument aside.
Some of the problem with US aid is the context in which it is given. Often it is given to one side over another. While the recipients may turn friendly, the other side will hate you doubly, thus (at least partially) negating the diplomatic gain from the aid. Some aid is given all too clearly to buy support or compliance (here, take these X million dollars and look the other way while we screw you over). The aid given is very often in the form of money or weapons, non of which are suited to establish a civilian infrastructure that the civilian population will fear loosing. Finally, the much stick/little carrot politics destroys much of the potential gains from the aid. Saying "here, take these dollars/weapons and support us while we beat up your neighbour, or get targeted yourself" will not buy you friends. People generally do not like to be told what to do, 3rd World countries are no different from the US in that regard, and they have a lot less to loose.
Doing away with all foreign aid would certainly be an interesting move (I suppose you exclude the military aid for Israel and Egypt from that?). I think you would discover that the aid you give actually do have an effect.