Posted on 12/31/2004 3:12:15 AM PST by kattracks
The other day, a United Nations official accused the United States of being “stingy” in terms of aid to tsunami victims in South Asia. After criticism from the State Department, the official clarified his position. Americans are not being stingy in helping tsunami victims, only stingy in terms of overall foreign aid as compared to other countries.
This is a familiar attack, which comes up annually when the foreign aid appropriations bill is before Congress. But let’s look at the facts. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, in 2003, the world’s major countries gave $108.5 billion in combined foreign aid. Of this, the U.S. contributed $37.8 billion or 35 percent of the total. The next largest foreign aid contributor was The Netherlands, which gave $12.2 billion, following two years in which it was actually a net recipient of foreign aid.The claim of stinginess, however, comes from a different calculation—foreign aid as a share of national income. In 2003, U.S. foreign aid came to just 0.34 percent, well below the world leading Dutch at 2.44 percent. Other big contributors are Ireland (1.83 percent), Norway (1.49 percent), and Switzerland (1.09 percent). The U.S. would have to triple foreign aid just to reach the lowest of these contributors.
The first thing one notices when looking at the big foreign aid contributors is that they all spend very little on national defense. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2002, The Netherlands spent just 1.6 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. Norway spent 2.1 percent, Switzerland spent 1.1 percent, and Ireland spent a piddling 0.7 percent. By contrast, the U.S. spent 3.4 percent—and this was before the Iraq war. It’s easy to be generous with foreign aid when another country is essentially providing your defense for free.
Another thing one notices is that the foreign aid data are only for “official” (i.e., government) aid. The data are sketchy, but by all accounts Americans are far more generous in terms of charitable contributions than the citizens of any other country. A 1991 study found the United Kingdom to have the second largest percentage of private charitable giving. But in 2003, charitable giving amounted to 8.6 billion pounds or 0.8 percent of GDP in the U.K., according to the Charities Aid Foundation, compared to $241 billion or 2.2 percent of GDP in the U.S., according to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel.
But even this estimate of charitable giving by Americans is low because it counts only cash contributions and omits volunteer work.
According to Independent Sector, in 2003, they contributed an additional $266 billion worth of their time to charitable enterprises. This is based on a value of $17.12 per hour of time. But even if one assigns a value equal to the minimum wage, this noncash contribution still comes to about $100 billion.
In the area of international aid, the official data also exclude private transfers such as remittances by foreign workers in the U.S. According to the Inter-American Development Bank, remittances to Latin America alone amounted to $38 billion in 2003—more than all official assistance combined. And $31 billion of that came from the U.S. In some countries, foreign remittances came to more than 10 percent of GDP, thus having a significant impact on economic growth and poverty alleviation.
Former U.S. Agency for International Development official Carol Adelman attempted to calculate a total of all private foreign aid in 2000 in a 2003 Foreign Affairs magazine article. She found that private foreign aid greatly exceeded that provided by the U.S. government. Official aid came to $22.6 billion that year, but private aid came to $35.1 billion, including $18 billion in remittances, $6.6 billion from private voluntary organizations, $3.4 billion in aid from churches, $3 billion from foundations, $2.8 billion from corporations, and $1.3 billion from universities.
But even this understates the extent to which Americans help developing countries, because it excludes private investment and trade.
According to the Institute of International Finance, in 2003, Americans invested $124 billion in emerging market economies, three-fourths in direct investment such as plant and equipment and the rest in stocks and bonds.
Americans also buy a considerable amount of goods from developing countries. This year, about a third of all our imports will come from developing countries, providing jobs and incomes for millions of poor people. This is probably less than most protectionists think. The bulk of our imports still come from industrialized countries such as Canada, Japan and Germany.
In short, the charge of stinginess is unfounded. The U.S. carries much of the world on its back, providing other nations with security, aid and much of their investment and income. It also pays for a fourth of all the salaries of U.N. bureaucrats.
Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Townhall.com member group.font>
Much of part of the world suffering so grievously would be termed underdeveloped. That being said, I peered into my crystal ball, and this is what I saw: The US and coalition partners doing what was necessary, lives saved, hugh cleanup accomplished. This took time, but then, when one might reasonably think everyone would be satisfied...No, sir, not on your life! Human nature being what it is, people demanded not that things be returned to the existing state of affairs before the tsunami, but better. Luxury hotels rebuilt bigger and better,(insurance companies quietly raised their rates in the US, so we paid that, too.)
Just the tip of the iceberg. The US is expected to rebuild the entire world on demand. Do it yesterday, or else, and expect to be vilified and spat on in the process. We turn the other cheek...mostly...and do what we can, but even an idiot could see this as the logical outcome of bad times and worse conditions. Mexico and our collapsed border are but one example somewhat closer to home. At some point we fix Mexico, or that benighted country will be depopulated altogether. Fox and friends won't have any servants left. With that in mind, how many millions in the tsunami ravaged areas will simply decide to come to the US. Why not? What's to stop them? So move over, you eleven million illegals already here. Make room for more.
Those two or three thousand Costa Ricans a few years back, who stated they were sick and tired of hurricanes, poverty, and corruption and were walking north and when they got to the US, weren't leaving. They're here, guys. One incident, a microcosm of what's happening. We can't afford to simply let events run their course, when we know the eventual outcome. Even without the terrorist threat, our immigration problems are out of control. Band-aids won't work. The world expects, demands that we make their lives at least as comfortable as ours, and if we don't, they'll just move in. (That's why they want a vote in our Presidential elections.)
Yesterday, someone posted a fine article by a European about the wisdom of leaving Europe to stew in its own juice next time they call. Learn to say NO. This will encourage them to pick up a shovel and solve their own problems. People don't appreciate what they're given for free -- they often resent the gift for not being more. Well, as the junior senator from MA. said recently, 'it's complicated'.
My rant was not meant as a criticism of our helping the tsunami victims, I got to thinking where all this will lead in time if we don't figure out a way to prevent it.
So many in the world HATE our great country and President, yet they look to us for help during times of crisis. And once again, we will not disappoint.
bookmark bump
(repost for publicity)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1312134/posts?page=1
URL above is just a link with a bit of "truth antidote" to all the "sting" comments...
It's obvious anti-American, quasi-liberal factions favour the UN for global governance. Nation members'*governments* appoint their UN representatives. Most Americans do not even know who the UN member nations are and NOTHING about their UN representatives. Would you subject America to a "Global Test" by the concensus of the following nations' UN membership?
GROWTH IN UNITED NATIONS MEMBERSHIP, 1945-2004
List of Member States
Home pages of Permanent Missions
| 1940s | 1950s | 1960s | 1970s | 1980s | 1990s | 2000s |
Year Number Member States
1945 Original
51
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia*
1946 55 Afghanistan, Iceland, Sweden, Thailand
1947 57 Pakistan, Yemen
1948 58 Myanmar
1949 59 Israel
1950 60 Indonesia
1955 76
Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Nepal, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sri Lanka
1956 80 Japan, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia
1957 82 Ghana, Malaysia
1958 82** Guinea
1960 99 Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Madagascar, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Togo
1961 104 Mauritania, Mongolia, Sierra Leone, United Republic of Tanzania
1962 110
Algeria, Burundi, Jamaica, Rwanda, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda
1963 112 Kenya, Kuwait
1964 115 Malawi, Malta, Zambia
1965 117 Gambia, Maldives, Singapore
1966 122 Barbados, Botswana, Guyana, Lesotho
1967 123 Democratic Yemen
1968 126 Equatorial Guinea, Mauritius, Swaziland
1970 127 Fiji
1971 132 Bahrain, Bhutan, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates
1973 135
Bahamas, Federal Republic of Germany, German Democratic Republic
1974 138 Bangladesh, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau
1975 144
Cape Verde, Comoros, Mozambique, Papua New Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe, Suriname
1976 147 Angola, Samoa, Seychelles
1977 149 Djibouti, Viet Nam
1978 151 Dominica, Solomon Islands
1979 152 Saint Lucia
1980 154 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Zimbabwe
1981 157 Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Vanuatu
1983 158 Saint Kitts and Nevis
1984 159 Brunei Darussalam
1990 159*** Liechtenstein, Namibia
1991 166
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Latvia, Lithuania, Marshall Islands, Republic of Korea
1992 179
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina,*** Croatia,** Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, San Marino, Slovenia,*** Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
1993 184 Andorra, Czech Republic, Eritrea, Monaco, Slovak Republic, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia***
1994 185 Palau
1999 188 Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga
2000 189 Tuvalu, Serbia and Montenegro*
2002 191 Switzerland, Timor-Leste
* The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was an original Member of the United Nations, the Charter having been signed on its behalf on 26 June 1945 and ratified 19 October 1945, until its dissolution following the establishment and subsequent admission as new members of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/46/237 of 22 May 1992.
The Republic of Croatia was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/46/238 of 22 May 1992.
The Republic of Slovenia was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/46/236 of 22 May 1992.
By resolution A/RES/47/225 of 8 April 1993, the General Assembly decided to admit as a Member of the United Nations the State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over its name.
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/55/12 of 1 November 2000.
Following the adoption and the promulgation of the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro by the Assembly of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 4 February 2003, the name of the State of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was changed to Serbia and Montenegro.
** The total remains the same because from 21 January 1958 Syria and Egypt continued as a single member (United Arab Republic).
*** The Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic were admitted to membership in the United Nations on 18 September 1973. Through the accession of the German Democratic Republic to the Federal Republic of Germany, effective from 3 October 1990, the two German States have united to form one sovereign State.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.