Three women awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this month demonstrate the lessons our Congress needs to recall as we debate issues of foreign policy and national security.
These three leaders -- President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and peace activist Leymah Gbowee of Liberia and Yemeni democracy advocate Tawakul Karman -- have changed our world. We in the United States should be thrilled by the Nobel Committee's choice, because their success demonstrates core values animating our foreign policy: that local, grassroots participation -- including women -- is a foundation of social progress, and that the demand for human rights can overcome even the most entrenched corruption. And our foreign assistance programs have been a support to all three laureates in their efforts to bring peace, democracy and justice to their countries.
Judging by the ongoing appropriations process, Congress may be losing sight of those values. Drastic cuts to our poverty-focused development assistance will make it much harder for us to extend a hand to the millions across the globe who would form the movements to change their world like Johnson Sirleaf, Gbowee and Karman are doing.
The moral imperative of supporting struggling communities around the world is self evident. The people of the United States have always understood this obligation, and their generosity is unequalled by the people of any other country. A recent poll showed that most Americans think that foreign assistance is one-fourth of our budget. They would like to see our assistance be at around 10-13 percent of the budget. In fact, our entire foreign affairs account is around one percent of the budget. Perhaps more significant, Americans donate hundreds of millions of their hard-earned dollars to private voluntary agencies working in some of the poorest communities in the world.
The fact is, foreign aid works.
First, it saves lives. Today, the number of Ethiopians at risk of starvation is estimated at five million, down from 13 million directly at risk during the 2002 drought. Why? Because U.S. government and non-governmental investments in water-shed management projects have helped to build community resilience to predictable droughts. With basic technology and education, communities can manage water resources to avoid the famine hitting Somalia, where such assistance and governmental support lacks.
Second, in fostering stronger, more resilient communities, our foreign assistance also bolsters our security. Research shows that for every five percent drop in income growth in a developing country, the likelihood of violent conflict or war within the next year increases by 10 percent. Poverty-focused development assistance supports economic growth, protects vulnerable people, and helps curtail desperation that may lead to violence. That is why former Defense Secretary Robert Gates has always been such a forceful advocate for development aid, once saying "development is far cheaper than sending in soldiers." According to some estimates, every dollar we spend on development and diplomacy saves from $15 to $100 in defense spending. As a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, that gets my attention.
Third, deep cuts to our foreign aid programs pose a threat to our economy. The business community recognizes that fact, and 50 leading U.S. businesses from Caterpillar to Walmart -- as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- have come to Congress asking us to support a strong and effective foreign affairs budget. They know that U.S. government programs that taught millions of African children to read will have enormous economic impact. The economy we're building requires literate customers, and our best exports -- like iPhones -- come with a whole value system that underscores the freedom America has always represented.
But the best reason to support a responsible investment in foreign assistance is moral. Our aid spreads human freedom. All three women who won the Nobel have worked with U.S. partner institutions from Harvard University to the American Jewish World Service. Tawakul Karman participated in the State Department's International Visitors Leadership Program (which has been cut substantially by Congress in two consecutive years). The value network of which these institutions are a part lift up every person struggling to achieve a more just world.
One such core value demonstrates that the selection of three women for the Prize is more than a symbol. In recent years, the international development community has come to a better understanding of the critical relationship between gender, justice and development. Research shows that when conditions improve for women, economies grow faster, children's health improves and institutions become less corrupt and more representative.
According to the UN Development Program, 6 of 10 of the poorest people on earth are female, and women and girls make up two thirds of the illiterate people in the world. We've got a long way to go.
I hate to see our Congress turning away from the rest of the world. That's not who we are as a people, and as a nation. Our values give hope to women and men struggling against poverty, discrimination and oppression everywhere, and we have an obligation to be a part of the solution.
Justin Hosker: EXCERPT: Nobel Prize Winner Leymah Gbowee's Mighty Be Our Powers
Balance the budget first, then if there is a suplus, it provides a ways to fund aid to other countires. Until then, let the NGO's do the work - they deliver services better, cheaper , faster, and deliver aid to the people who need it.
Our "values" are greed, selfishness and total disregard for the value of human beings and particularly women. Until we address these inequities on our own shores, we have no business spreading them anywhere else. For as much help as our aid has given, it is has also ruthlessly exploited others. The last thing, for example, most developing countries need is Wal mart.
Give a man to fish . . .
Sending money to the aristocrats in another country and hoping it trickles down to the poor is just, well, stupid. Oh wait, that's what we've been doing since reagan.
Democracy cannot be a gift any more than it can be imposed. We have failed at every effort. The people have to want it bad enough they are willing to die for it. The Libyan model is what we should be looking at, not the Iraqi model.
If we are going to give foreign aid, let's do it with teachers, and engineers, and scientists. Throwing money at a problem doesn't seem to work.
- Ron Paul
P.S. We borrow money from China, and then give it back to them as "aid". Is handing out cash and pretending to be the big man really so important to you?
The "poor" in America are WILDLY wealthy in world terms. More than half the globe lives on less than $2 per day.
The biggest threat to the social contract in the US is globalization. If we all believe that the US is just like everywhere else then why should I pay taxes at all? If we are all just individuals in a global market then I should be seeing everyone as competition. I should hope others kids fail in school because I'm only worried about my kids and they can speak three languages so they can work in more of the global market. To heck with the US.
That is the logic of globalization. And that is why nobody cares about helping the poor in America. And this is why we are becoming a third world nation.
If that is your idea of helping the world then lord help us.
===
Why do we have to do either one? The truth is we don't have to send in soldiers. There's no country in the world that really represents a threat to us. We should be friendly towards all nations, but not get involved in their affairs. Foreign aid is just a way of meddling and getting foreign governments dependent on us, a situation that always ends up with them hating us.
If the world needs relief, then there should be a world fund that wealthy countries contribute to, but I disagree with all direct foreign aid.
Start at home and then think about taking on the world.
I would argue that equality of opportunity is a good thing.
But there can never be equality of outcome because there are always people who work harder, work smarter and are more innovative than others who content themselves to do the minimum.
I guess if you are one of the ones who likes to sit on the couch and watch tv, then you might go for "equality" and redistribution of the wealth from those who have earned it to those who haven't. But that is certainly a quick way to de-motivate the over achievers, and we all lose when these people stop working.
Better, I think, to let the Red Cross, churches. and other private groups try to help. I suspect they get much more "bang for the buck' and the money is less likely to be intercepted by those in power.