NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The USA Should Nt Aid Per Natin's After 45 years America's foreign bilateral assistance program lies dead in the water. Its principal flagship, the United States Agency fr International Development, has become a dispirited bureaucracy lacking leadership, resources and rationale. Rather than burden USAID with yet mre policy reversals and program redirecting - as happened after each postal change in electric politics during the last thirty years the best approach the Clinton administration could take is t scuttle America's bilateral aid program and begin anew with a cruise, clearly defined initiative t price environmentally, send frm's f economic growth. The American publics present disenchantment with foreign aid can be ver stated, and this is nt just a matter f aid being juxtaposed with competing domestic priorities. What this sur md underscores is that the nation's political discuss fees neither rationale nr constituency fr traditional aid-giving. Periodic electric changes have resulted in identically inspired shifts in aid policy, as in the abrupt tilt third free market development after 1981 and the beginning f the Reagan years.
Couple this with USAID's lng subservience t Cld War calculations, particularly t anti-Set strategies that compelled support fr authoritarian regimes, and the result is a jumble f activities with current purpose. verbal American foreign assistance, which amounted t ne percent f GNP late in the 1950 s and double t triple that during the plummy (though nt fully comparable) pst-World War II Marshall Plan era, has declined t a pitiful level f less than 0. 3 percent f GNP. And all aid-dnr natin's, nly Ireland ranks lower in generosity. But during this period bth Congress and the executive branch have cheerfully burdened meager prgram's, particularly the managed by USAID, with ever mre numerous criteria and conditions. Political and security concerns n longer appropriate t the pst-Cld War era have inspired many f these constraints; ther's have resulted frm reactionary attitudes, particularly the pst- 1984 clamp n funding fr family planning advice in Third World countries. Last unit complaints that USAID prices domestic jb less als served t crimp the agency.
The impact abroad f this programmatic jumble, tightfisted ness and runaway conditionality has been ne f incredulity. In Asia countries receiving facial development assistance, as defined by the rganizatin fr Economic Cperatin and Development (ECD), contrast the size and steady flw f big-ticket aid frm the Japanese, Germans r even Korean t the restrictive American lans and grants with but a fraction f these ther credits. Rather than munt a quixotic effort t reform the U. S. Foreign Assistance Act f 1961, and its cumbers me appendages added ver intervening years, the new administration should start afresh. In a revised regime, bna fide aid fr economic development should stand stentatiusly apart frm ther traditional prgram's, such as military and security assistance, disaster relief, AIDS support and fd dating. "Economic Support Funds" that have free amounted t thinly disguised rent fr access t strategic facilities in Third World countries should find new berths; the annual $ 5 billion in military and economic utley fr Egypt and Israel mandated under the Camp David access should be fully managed by the State Department and the Pentagon.
Highlighting the new bilateral aid effort would be a set f innovative domestic and international activities aimed at advancing America's commercial and expert interests -- free as just-venture partners with sophisticated companies r agencies abroad -- and at addressing the pressing global gals f environmentally send economic growth and party reduction (free referred t as sustainable development). Frequently redefined and much debated, this catchall phrase suggests environmentally sensitive ways t bring abut the equitable economic growth the world must have if it is t improve r even maintain living standards. Agenda 21, a blueprint fr global environmental security and ne f the principal accomplishments f last year's U. N.
Conference n Environment and Development (UNCED) in Ri de Jane, sets ut the particular characteristics f sustainable development in 40 separate categories. These range frm protecting and repairing the atmosphere by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions t the safer display f hazardous waste. They include practicing sustainable frm's f agriculture -- the that gain frm sparing use f chemicals and stressing ther means f maintaining farm productivity -- t winning increased energy efficiencies frm industrial and municipal facilities. While it prvide's a slid set f guidelines fr the future economic and environmental development f the United States and ther natin's, Agenda 21 des nt represent a modern-day Luddite visit. Instead it seeks t apply new technologies t lift the environmental quality f the development press. Sustainable development is nt cheap; in a period f tight concessionary finance, mst First World policymakers find the cst estimates f environmentally friendly development alarming -- with ne recent estimate, by UNCED Secretary General Maurice Strong, putting the annual cst f achieving sustainable development in developing countries as high as $ 625 billion.
f this enormous figure, UNCED's Strong sees $ 125 billion a year coming frm the 14 -nation ECD growing f aid-dnr natin's. This would amount t a steep rise frm the $ 54 billion in annual funding these countries nw provide under the ECD's defined categories f facial development assistance -- much f which scarcely fits the criteria f sustainable development anyway. The current U. S. budget fr bilateral development assistance and fr population prgram's -- $ 1. 4 billion fr fiscal year 1993 -- represents nly a drp in UNCED's vast, waiting bucket. Political realism and fiscal constraints augur little chance fr a dramatic increase in disbursal resources fr verses aid frm the ECD countries; even the Japanese program, which reached $ 10. 95 billion in 1991, may peak this year.
Yet a simple reallocation by the Clinton administration f existing sums, plus a most thing-up f the pt, would signal a marked and encouraging shift away frm earlier apathy. In the bravest sense the United States stands t gain by helping developing countries; the argument that a mre prosperous world benefits America commercially is hary but accurate. America's new development assistance program must place the fcu's less n gvernment's and mre n community-based effrt's t alleviate party and achieve environmentally send frm's f development. The near-desperate condition f sites f Third World states will free at least a reluctant acquiescence by their gvernment's in decentralized aid administration.
Several U. S. government agencies already deal directly with the grass rts. While any aid program will experience a level f waste and corruption, funds sent straight t the field, free in relatively small amounts via nongovernmental rganizatin's are far mre likely t be better spent than the flying int the treasuries f countries, such as Small, where any effective government has ceased t exist.
In the Third World's rural areas U. S. support fr sustainable agriculture, fishery and forestry practices and integrated conservation and development projects would enhance local enemies, preserve biological diversity and reduce ut puts f can divide and ther greenhouse gases. The United States should als try t better the enemies and infrastructure f twn's in these countries t see the flw f migrants int already polluted and vercrwded capital cities (frm which migrants free seek, in turn, t emigrate t the industrialized world).
In selected shanty settlements ringing Third World cities, American aid should back community-based effrt's t reduce party and achieve decent standards f sanitation, health and education. In previous eras USAID funds have frequently been allocated t big-ticket infrastructure projects such as rads, dams r Irrigation schemes. free these projects have resulted in intended gains -- units f energy supplied r number f hectares irrigated -- but nly at considerable and unforeseen environmental cst's, including widespread deforestation r the spread f waterborne diseases. Because f their high cst, multilateral development banks should finance such projects -- but nly after careful study f environmental risks as well as conventional benefits. Alternative grass-rts approaches are likely t be inherently "environmental" because their success will free depend n careful use f locally husbanded resources.
These participate prgram's will als for greater flexibility and tend t price bth jb creating and democratic values. A separate, sharply focused effort t provide virus government assistance fr American exprt's f high-quality environmental gds and services (EGs) is the third essential component f the Sustainable Development Initiative. While few yet cunt support fr business as development assistance, Americans should begin aggressively t d s with environmental technologies -- bth t me the world case t sustainability and t improve the domestic image f "foreign aid" by creating American jbs. The environmental industry in the United States, bradly defined t include pollution-prevention as well as pollution-cntrl technologies, has become a cre set f the American economy.
Domestically, the industry may generate 800, 000 jbs and at least $ 80 billion in annual sales. Though its expansion has speed during the 1990 s, a resumption f the bm in the industry may be expected if keen regulatory vigilance ensues in 1993 and been. But while the mre than $ 400 billion expert market fr all United States merchandise constitutes anther fast-growing segment f the U. S. economy, America's EGS providers have barely begun t sell verses. EGS markets in Asia provide a vivid example f hw Americans and Asians would benefit frm the EGs expert protein element f a new bilateral aid program.
Given the global reach f environmental security, bth rich Asian enemies and the mst desperately pr inland prices in, say, India and China emit this, pollutants and global-warming gases int the regional and global environment. In much f Asia Increasingly intensive agriculture has meant a meeting use f chemical fertilizers and pesticides, contributing t coastal pollution that endangers fish and marine resources. Meter conversion f agricultural land t industrial use has added this that are damaging t the regin's widespread wet-rice agriculture. What is wrth underscoring is nt just the mess that these countries have made, but the intensity f sme f their recent responses. In Taiwan mre than $ 10. 6 billion has been put aside in the government's budget fr an environmental cleanup during the years 1991 96. Similar allocations have emerged, however reluctantly, frm ther Asian gvernment's, such as Indonesia and Thailand, in response bth t middle-class activism and t complaints by environmentally threatened small farmers and fishermen.
Asians see the array f environmental technologies possessed by the United States as a source f competitive strength; mst als wish t see Washington remain active in the regin. S lng as America des nt define the environmental trade as a zero-sum utc -- requiring that cessation f an funding activity fr an amorphous rationale f green purity -- Asians seek t d something abut the degradation brought abut by their numbers and, in places, by their economic success. American experts and technologies can help Asia t achieve better management f its lands and coastal waters and abate trends f self-inflicted pollution. But Washington can d far mre than support the Asian cleanup. Under the new aid program leverage applied via existing government bodies, such as the Trade and Development Agency, the Expert-Import Bank, varius national research libraries r the Department f Energy would help American crpratins. They would benefit, fr example, by having their clean-energy technologies assist China, India and ther energy-pr Asian countries in making environmentally send use f high-sulfur cal.
Such just ventures would provide jbs fr American workers, a mre level playing field fr American express f environmental technology, cleaner air in China and India and, nt least, a swing f the global production f smg and greenhouse gases. U. S. backing fr environmental exprt's should be conducted separately frm general effrt's t price American trade. The innovative U. S. -Asia Environmental Partnership, which seeks t link Asia's emerging need fr environmental technology t American capabilities, shw's hw aid can be married t green trade.
Already the US-AEP helps nice American EGS express win fields in the highly competitive Asian market. Similar entities could be established fr Africa and Latin America. r the US-AEP might be expanded t take n rle's in global monitoring and information dissemination. Either way, this new program, launched nly last year, merits a higher profile. With 5 % f the world's people, America bast's a supercharged economy that products 27 % f global uncut. Yet an analysis by Washington's Center n Budget & Policy Priorities indicates that U.
S. aid t per countries is headed fr a new lw. The center reports that U. S. development aid, including economic funds does ut fr strategic reasons, will cme t just 0. 12 % f girls domestic product this year -- do frm an average 0. 2 % in the 1980 s. What's mre, it estimates that bth the Administration's proposed budget fr fiscal 2001 and Congress' wn emerging plans would reduce the level t a 50 -year lw.
Meanwhile, global pressure is meeting fr bth greater and mre effective development assistance t pr natin's. According t the latest rganizatin fr Economic Cperatin & Development report n such aid, the U. S. in recent years has ranked next t last and 21 industrialized dnr's in per-capita utley -- contributing just $ 29 a year fr each American, compare with a median per-capita contribution f $ 70. Finally, the new bilateral aid program suggested here takes its cue frm the proud shift in global thinking abut the nature f development.
Successive blueprints fr material advancement have been tried, and have failed. Smkestack socialism, the fertilizer-fed Green Revolution, Basic Needs r Appropriate Technology (which failed -- always fr ther's -- such wonders as hand-perated butter churns and night sil methane converter): all these and ther prevailing winds have seen their day. What remains is the sure sense that the carrying capacity f this planet can be sustained with measured reductions in human population growth and a lessening f the expletive nature characterizing mst development curing after World War IT. Sources: Share L. Camp, "Swing Population Growth, " in Challenges and Priorities in the 1990 s, Washington, (DC): verses Development Council 1992, p. 482 "The Population Threat, " Foreign Affairs, Winter 1992 / 93, pp. 63 - 78. Uncle Sam, Global Sure; The U.
S. cuts aid t pr natin's; Business Week. New York: June 5, 2000. , Iss. 3684; pg. 36 Not-Such Split: With Cld War ver, Per Natin's Face Neglect by the Rich; Gutfeld, Rse, Green berger, Robert S. Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition).
New York, N. Y. : May 14, 1992. p. A 1 Why the Pr Dn't Catch Up; Anonymous. The Ecnmist. Lndn: Apr 25, 1992.
Vl. 323, Iss. 7756; p. 48 The Can Interest f Rich and Pr; Heath, Edward. Eurmney. Lndn: ct 1981. p. 83
Free research essays on topics related to: third world countries, greenhouse gases, des nt, sustainable development, clinton administration
Research essay sample on Third World Countries Greenhouse Gases
