Foreign Aid

Fire of Liberty

Aside from the President's inauguration, the Iraqi election, and the SOTU, the jet setters and the elites were partying down in Davos, Switzerland. During this extensive gathering of elites, talking heads, World leaders and the rest of UN crowd, the United States took its medicine of insults on our foreign policy, culture, and foreign aid contributions.

Its funny how the people who show up to these events to mutter insults on the United States and their "Cowboy" president fail to see that the US donates more money, manpower, medical supplies than some dozen or more nations combined. 1% of $11 trillion dollars GDP is a heck of a lot of money. Unfortunately, that's not enough for this crowd, who continue to cry for more and more. Such is the case on the various forms of aid in Africa, wether it's for aid on the fight of AIDS or debt forgiveness. When it comes to such aid, these elites complain about the US being stingy with the money it sends because we place certain stipulations or conditions on these nations recieving such aid. To begin with, the US requires these nations to either be a democracy or extending democratic reforms to the people. We also require that these nations provide the people with a transparent and honest government. Without such conditions, the US would be wasting its money and time by giving aid to these nations. For too many decades the nation has poured money into the bottomless pit which ended up in the pockets of the crooked leadership. People shouldn't have to worry whether or not their money is being used to aid needy people. The effort by the US is the right policy in dealing with foreign aid.

Following on such an argument is Professor Niall Ferguson in a opinion piece in The Daily Telegraph (London). Ferguson argues that the various leaders of the UK and other nations try to one-up the other in what they can contribute. He notes that they're writing large blank checks to regimes or nations that just pocket the money and zippo to the people. Here's a peek of what he's written on the subject:

"Nobody, least of all me, claims that British imperial rule was perfect. Elkins is not the first historian to expose the dark side of colonialism. But most sub-Saharan governments since independence have managed to treat their populations significantly worse than the British did. For all its imperfections, the Colonial Civil Service was not corrupt. When money was sent to build railways or schools, British officials did not simply pocket it."

Rather than giving money in the form of debt forgiveness and aid, these nations would be best served by micro-loans, agricultural trade liberalization (ending tariffs), rule of law, and the introduction of free-markets via free trade agreements. Such actions would be better solutions to the crisis in Africa than what these talking heads and anti-American elites suggest. If you don't believe me then look at the late Lord P.T. Bauer here , here and here.