Walking across the Green this weekend, I was approached by what was certainly not a Dartmouth student, asking for money in support of a community service program. Organizations flock to Dartmouth looking for money, and once we graduate our dear alma mater will reach out its open palm as well. It's only natural; we're expected to join the ranks of the American elite, and have more money than we could possible need for ourselves.
This system is analogous to the status of the United States in the international community. As the wealthiest nation and the one and only superpower, the United States is expected to assist other countries in need. Requests for aid are so common that the State Department is surprised when visiting dignitaries do not come with their hands out. Yet contrary to popular belief, the United States does not honor all of these requests.
The American public believes that we offer large handouts to every country which looks our way. In a poll published in the New York Times a few months ago, the American public guestimated that 15 percent of our budget is allotted for foreign aid. When asked how much they would be willing to designate for foreign aid, respondents deemed 3 percent sufficient. No one realized that in actuality, the United States spends less than 1 percent of its budget on international aid. After reading that front page article, I was convinced that the issue would receive more media attention. However, I have been sorely disappointed. Especially since our two presidential candidates (and everyone else on the Hill for that matter) have done nothing to dispel this false belief.
Obviously, something is wrong here. The United States is undoubtedly the most powerful country in the world, and in that capacity has some obligation to assist other countries. Yet most political rhetoric can only complain that we spend too much on foreigners, something many Americans claim to be outside of our interests. What I find most disheartening is the utter lack of debate on this issue. Although rarely publicized, the issue of international aid is always portrayed in a negative light. Many Senators and Congressmen (i.e. Jesse Helms) are staunchly opposed to the idea of offering other countries aid, but the issue has never been offered up to the American public for debate.
If our government so adamantly wants to exit from the role of international protector, a logical progression would be to place more trust in the United Nations and its subsidiary organizations to lead the international community in issues of peace keeping and support for development.
Yet our government does not even pay its dues to the United Nations. We are embarrassingly the most deviant country in the world in our payments; the United States is responsible for 74 percent of the budget owed by Member States. Smaller states, most notably the Nordic countries, designate a far greater percentage of their national budgets to the United Nations and other international organizations, acknowledging their importance in maintaining stability throughout the world.
The standard excuse Americans give for evading United Nations payments is that the United Nations is a large, inefficient bureaucracy wasting away our tax dollars. Admittedly, an organization of that scale inevitably will be wasteful, but not to the extent that we've envisioned. One of the United Nation's subsidiary organizations, UNICEF, ran on a smaller budget last year than Dartmouth College and managed to eradicate deadly diseases from several lesser-developed countries. In my opinion that certainly does not qualify as inefficient.
Within the international community, the United States should put its money where its mouth is. For decades we designated a significant amount of our budget for defense, but we have cut our defense budget now that war with the Soviet Union is no longer a threat. We should redirect those funds toward international aid.
Our aid plans to the former Soviet Union are contingent upon our demands of democratic structures and free markets which we hope will develop rapidly. Yet if we do not provide financial support, there is little incentive for these countries to move rapidly in that direction. Considering the amount of money the United States had dumped into the cold war based upon preventative measures, one would think it could invest at least some of it into Russia and the CIS nations now to ensure that we never return to that situation again. Likewise, we should invest in the United Nations if we wish to avoid the role of international police officer. Of course, none of this can occur if the issue does not even reach the arena of American political discourse where all citizens can participate knowing facts not perceptions.
