.We have 5% of the world's population; we consume 22% of its energy resources. We expect other countries to go along with our global and national designs. We are obese while other nations struggle with starvation.
We think we are generous. According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2004, we were the largest dollar donors in the world -- we gave .2 of our GDP. 5 times less than we were giving in the 1970s. Our income in that time has increased 5 times. Half of our 20 billion dollars in aid went to the poor -- the rest went to foreign militaries. We give the most to Israel.
Germany gives twice as much as we do in aid; France gives three times more of its GDP and Denmark seven times more.But, American individuals are generous, leading many foreigners to like Americans but not the USA. In 2000 we gave away -- as individuals -- 33.6 billion dollars.
How did you respond to this sketch (and it comes from Hamilton, and some might quibble with the facts)? Did you say, "It's not our job to solve the world's problems?" Or, "America, take it or leave it!" Or, "It's unpatriotic to talk like this." Or, "You sound like a European!"
Hamilton sketches a Christian way -- a Third Way -- of responding. One that gets beyond the "who gives a rip?" of isolationism and individualism as well as beyond "Red, white and Blue, God, and Jesus are all the same."
First, the Christian understanding of sin. If we as individuals struggle with sin, so also our nation.
Second, the Christian community is to witness to an alternative world and alternative kingdom voice. We are to be a conscience to the nation and not its mirror or its mouthpiece.
Third, critique is not unpatriotic.
Fourth, we are to be a blessing to other nations; we are to be the salt and light; true greatness is not power but loving service.
"The only hope for creating lasting peace is for the United States to claim the biblical ideas of blessings, compassion, humility, and servanthood as defining characteristics of our nation and our foreign policy" (224).
"We are," he adds, "in need of a vision, as a nation, that will call us to true greatness -- defined not by how much we have but how much we give ... defined not by how many people we can coax to do what we want but how well we listen to the needs, opinions, and thoughts of others in forging a way forward; defined not by the fear inspired by our military might but by the admiration inspired by our compassion and generosity" (225).
Compassionate conservativism in the last decade gave way to neo-conservatism. Will Christians fight hard enough to change the direction in the next decade? Will they avoid the dangerous trap of centralizing it all into a neo-socialism, thinking that the Feds can do it all? It matters for our world.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Chris,
Actually, the biggest issue is debt relief, which does not go through the UN's grubby hands. And the point of the goals, as I understand it, is to provide measurable targets for the programs, for accountability.
Even for UN programs, I assume you don't think that they are wholly ineffective. For me, the problem of waste or corruption is outweighed by my desire to love my neighbor and take Matthew 25 seriously. The MGDs have already done a lot of good (see some of the various report cards for specific countries), and I think that meeting the funding goals we already agreed to can make things much better.
In all events, it sounds like we agree that individuals and churches should do much more. But such funding toward poverty in the third world has been minimal. Because of that, I think our government should also step in, even as we encourage our churches to do more. If we are willing to lobby government on issues like abortion, I think we should also be willing to get the government involved in promoting life in foreign countries too.
As for the legal issue, Congress has broad power to regulate commerce with foreign governments (Art. I, Sec. 8, para. 3), which covers foreign debt relief and similar things. And the Executive branch has broad powers to deal with foreign governments (Art. II).
(I wrote the following with inserted links and it has yet to appear. Thought I’d try again without the html links.)
Eric #26,
We may not have encountered each other here at Jesus Creed but I’m the self-appointed rabble-rouser on these issues. :)
I live in an urban core, I’ve been heavily involved with micro-business development, I’m passionate about microfinance, I have friends working for economic development with the poor around the world. There is no longer a Third World as there was thirty years ago but rather a gradation of nations from very poor to very wealthy. I deeply interested in the plight of those who are being left behind. I just did a series at my blog called “Cycle of Prosperity” (http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/cycle-of-prosperity.html) that lays out my views in some detail. It concludes with a few posts the riff on Paul Collier’s “The Bottom Billion”.
Yes I agree with the Millennium goals but aid, while an essential component, is not a silver bullet to achieve them. Aid frequently becomes the left’s counterpoint rallying cry against the right’s cry of free markets. Both aid and trade are essential for lifting the poor nations out of poverty but poor nations vary considerably in the specific challenges they face. Aid has also its inherent challenges.
In the past, developed nations did business with some poor nations on the basis of free market exchange. Yet in many of these poor nations, governance was so bad that only 10% of the population lived and worked in the formal economy. There was minimal rule of law or protection of property rights for the masses and therefore there could not possibly be free trade. Only the 10% benefited and they used it to tighten their oppression of the poor. It was crony capitalism. Direct aid to governments runs precisely the same risk. It ends up in the pockets of an oppressive elite. Call it crony aidism.
Furthermore, Collier points out that when direct aid begins to exceed about 8% of a national budget it begins to have a destructive effect on government. Government officials begin to divert their attention away from the nurturance of their indigenous industries as a means of economic growth and turn toward developing projects that will bring them more direct aid.
More aid delivered to NGOs (from U. S. government or charitable entities) that can document actual outcomes should be a priority. Direct aid to governments for specific projects, particularly things like infrastructure development, where results can be measured than non-specific transfers. William Easterly also makes that case that very often local villages have a better sense than “experts” of what specific aid is needed in their context. Something along the line of aid vouchers could be given to villages, where the community decides which aid they will purchase, forcing aid agencies to be competitive and responsive.
But at the end of the day, if these nations can not become economically productive and stable, all the aid is for naught. Nurturing trade has to be a centerpiece. That is going to include everything from government reforms that protect private property and bring capital into the formal economy, infrastructure investments that facilitate the movement of goods, and reduction in trade barriers by wealthy nations against the products of poor ones. And in some cases, elimination of barriers by emerging against foreign competition that protects local stagnate industries.
Aid? Yes, but it is no panacea.
Eric,
1. Whose debt are you relieving? How will the average poor person benefit from our forgiving the debts of their corrupt goverments? At the very least, shouldn't we require measurable improvements before forgiving their debts?
2. A desire to love your neighbor is commendable, but "loving" him by throwing money in the toilet is not showing him love nor being responsible with the resources with which we've been entrusted.
3. The power to regulate international commerce can only be turned into authority to engage in international charity by the greatest feats of eisegesis.
Michael -- thanks for the clarification. Sounds like we are on the same page: give aid, but do it with your eyes wide open, realizing it won't solve all problems, and that you should be careful about how you do it. Accountability is key. I will check out the string on your blog, which sounds interesting. What I don't have a good grasp on is how we stimulate trade, as you suggest, which I agree is important.
Chris B --
With all respect, I get the sense that you haven't looked into the MDGs. "Throwing money in the toilet" is not a very good description of what has been happening. There are all sorts of reports out there on this. Progress has been different in different countries, but your "toilet" comment makes no sense. And the point of the MDGs is measurable improvements for accountability, so what you demand is what the MGDs are about.
And as for the legal argument, foreign debt is foreign commerce. Although there are limits on the related inter-state commerce clause (see, e.g., the Lopez decision re: guns in schools), it is interpreted broadly; the foreign commerce clause is similarly interpreted. I am fairly confident that even the most conservative Justices on the Supreme Court would not go along with what you are suggesting.
No. 30 is me.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.