The Free Press, Mankato, MN

Editorials

Related Photos

  • 24toon-eggs 8-26.jpg

    24toon-eggs 8-26.jpg

August 25, 2010

Our View: Don’t be too frugal with foreign aid

The Free Press

Consider U.S. foreign aid stimulus money for overseas development. We use it to encourage unstable democracies, provide humanitarian assistance and help prevent dangerous elements from causing mischief at home and abroad.

The U.S. is the world’s most generous nation in delivering aid to foreign countries. But what would happen if that aid were to be cut back, through a pullback of will or a lack of available funding? Though most Americans understand the need for foreign aid, with our present financial constraints in mind they will almost certainly question in growing numbers how it is spent, and whether we are getting an acceptable payback. Therefore, it is especially important that we dole out the dollars wisely.

Currently, Americans are being reminded of how crucial it is that we contribute liberally to Pakistan lest that disaster-ridden country’s nominally America-friendly government fall to militants. Such a scenario would be truly disastrous for the world, we are told.

And indeed that would be the case. It frustrates us that Pakistan, whose record as an ally on the war on terror has been mixed, must siphon away more and more precious U.S. dollars. But Pakistan is not alone — not in need, or in unreliability.

Consider the top ten beneficiaries of U.S. aid in 2010, according to a report by the U.S. State Department. It begins with a solid ally, Israel, and follows with Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Kenya, Nigeria, Mexico, South Africa and Ethiopia. No wonder, then, why so many Americans continue to question the overseas spending policies of the U.S. government.

And yet, it behooves the State Department, President Obama and members of Congress to remind America — especially in these economically troubled times — what would happen in the world if the U.S. were not so generous. First off, we should wonder which country (if the U.S. were not taking the leadership role) would pick up the ball and run with it. Europeans have proven neither to have the will nor the military presence to provide leadership. China is ascendant, but do we want that nation to assert itself as the world’s moral arbiter?

A new book, “The Frugal Superpower: America’s Global Leadership in a Cash-Strapped Era,” by Michael Mandelbaum, opines that America’s energetic foreign policy initiatives are about to be curtailed through exploding deficits and entitlements. Among his assessments is a reminder that America’s powerful role in the world will diminish.

It is a sobering analysis. Whatever one believes about the giant footprint America has left in the world since the World War II era, it is cause for concern that a diminished U.S. role creates a vacuum that threatens to make the world a more dangerous, less stable place. Though the United States often cringes at its role as the world’s policeman, we have every right to the consider the consequences of turning a blind eye toward Pakistan, where without our diplomatic and financial contributions the alternatives might be much greater suffering in that region; or in Haiti, where the people there still feel the effects of a debilitating earthquake; or our neighbor Mexico, where government efforts to combat powerful drug cartels require our own constant vigilance.

It may be true that economic realities will force us to re-think how we spend our foreign dollars. Therein lies the danger. Today, we are warned that Pakistan’s future depends that we assume the role of protector lest the Taliban regroup. Yes, it is a thankless, troublesome job. But the alternatives are worse.

Text Only | Photo Reprints
Editorials