The U.S. Government is Not a Philanthropic Organization

When I was in college, we once had a visit from a high-ranking U.S. government representative (I kick myself every day for not writing down his name–I was stupid through most of college).  As college students do, some of us got negative, accusing the U.S. of not doing enough to stop hunger, save the rainforest, and other such things.  This aged representative got very quiet and let everyone finish.  Then, putting both hands on the podium, he leaned forward and boomed, “The U.S. government is not a philanthropic organization.” 

Some years later, I found myself in diplomatic training, a-100.  One day we were introduced to the political cone, and I learned that most entry-level political officers were human rights officers.  Being young and idealistic, I said, “Aren’t human rights a bit important to be left to the junior officers, after all, entry level econ officers deal with telecommunications.”  The officer explained that it’s different in countries with known human rights issues, and that every country had a congressionally mandated report that needed to be completed.  His answer satisfied my question.  After the session, however, one of my classmates asked me if I really thought human rights were more important than telecommunications.  Unsure how to respond, I simply pointed out that I doubted that the President gave many speeches on foreign telecommunication industries, but regularly addressed human rights.  The other officer reluctantly agreed, but said that he thought that was mostly rhetorical.

The U.S. in many ways acts as a de facto world government.  People demand we take action in Darfur, despite the fact that there would be a high cost and relatively no hard reward for doing so.  Citizens of developing countries accuse the U.S. government of not doing enough to help their countries develop, despite the fact that we do contribute billions of dollars in aid, with very little hard reward for the American people. 

In yesterday’s interview, Gerald Loftus said that the greatest foreign policy challenge facing the U.S. was the need to “normalize.”  It’s an excellent articulation of one side of this discussion.  [I don't want to put words in his mouth; he talks about it in a different context, so read his full interview yourself.]

Support for human rights, the fight against trafficking in persons, the fight against Cuban communism, and general support of democracy are all strongly favored in congress.  Indeed, people who don’t generally care about foreign policy care about hunger and democracy, they speak to core American values.  The executive branch, however, has to manage day-to-day relations with dictators and tyrants, an unfortunately reality of the world in which we live.  Of course, some presidents have made human rights core policy, and there are undoubtedly many in congress who would prefer to see the U.S. quit telling others how to run their countries.

My grandfather spent his entire career working for an aid agency.  He inoculated people, dug latrines and wells, and generally worked to develop Asia, Africa, and Latin America decades ago.  Unfortunately, while the U.S. has had some notable development successes (the eradication of small pox springs to mind), most of the world remains underdeveloped, standards of living throughout the world have stagnated, and tyranny continues.  Of course, Asia is quickly developing, and Latin America is (with one notable exception) ruled by elected leaders.

I know I haven’t made a point here, but it’s my blog, so I’m allowed to.  I hope you’ve enjoyed this tapestry of thoughts, please share some of your own.

Tagged as: Aid, Democracy, Human Rights