Americans aren’t as generous as they might think they are

Whatever one thinks about the premises that led us to war in Iraq, it is hard to be… Whatever one thinks about the premises that led us to war in Iraq, it is hard to be optimistic about the outcome of the conflict. Casualties mount by the day and Iran stands poised to emerge with growing influence as the hulking giant in a region where it is no longer checked by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Whether or not our mandate in fostering democracy ultimately prevails, I do have reservations about our country’s role in the immediate future. Not withstanding the decline of the United States’ moral authority by many allies in the global community, I fear that the chaos that has ensued from our involvement in Iraq will have a powerful impact on the American public’s will for international undertakings. The risk is that a public weary with meddling in the affairs of other countries will support candidates and policy endorsing an isolationist attitude.

I heard friends bemoaning why Americans sent so much aid to victims of disasters like the tsunami that rocked Southeast Asia in late 2004 when we have plenty of our own poverty to concern ourselves with (as Hurricane Katrina magnified to the world). “Take care of our own rather than wasting taxpayer money on those who don’t like us or help us anyway,” seems to be the refrain.

But just as the majority of domestic crime is carried out by those below the poverty line who have few options to turn to, the majority of terrorism and animosity toward the United States comes from anger at how much resources we consume versus how much we help the billion people in the world who live on less than $1 a day.

Studies have shown that many Americans believe that the country’s biggest expenditure is foreign assistance giving, when it actually is comprised of less than 1 percent of the United States’ complete Gross National Income. We rank second to last among the world’s 22 wealthiest countries in terms of percentage of aid given to assisting other countries. This hardly represents the promise of John F. Kennedy’s pledge “to those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required — not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”

Or in the words of another statesman, “We are remote from the scene of these troubles. It is virtually impossible at this distance merely by reading, or listening, or even seeing photographs and motion pictures, to grasp at all the real significance of the situation. And yet the whole world of the future hangs on a proper judgment. It hangs, I think, to a large extent on the realization of the American people, of just what are the various dominant factors.”

These are the words of Uniontown native George C. Marshall, who secured his legacy not with the titles he earned, but with the ambitious undertaking he implemented after the war – the Marshall Plan, a reconstructive effort to aid the European areas devastated by the war. The project came at great costs to American taxpayers already strained by the war — $13 billion in technical and economic assistance, roughly $130 billion in today’s currency. Marshall understood that an economically prosperous and friendly Western Europe was in the long-time interest of the United States. Today, Western Europe is home to most of our closest allies and remains the most popular and safe international traveling destination in the minds of most Americans. By giving to others, we gained an infinite amount of security.

President Truman went on to propose a form of the Marshall Plan for the countries of the developing world that was rejected by Congress. Such an undertaking represented far too much investment and work in the minds of the legislators — perhaps helping to foster the level of global inequality that we have today breeding contempt for the United States.

Our military might rightfully stands as the greatest in the world. I believe it would be in our greater concern for stability and peace to apply the same quality of excellence to our giving of aid — to create greater communication and sharing of resources between the military, the diplomatic resources of our State Department, the Peace Corps, the UN and the will of the American public to make combating poverty a greater priority. Just as it is easier to prescribe medicine than to create a cure, I believe that focusing on the root causes of war will benefit all of us in the future.

Got a plan? E-mail Daron at djc14@pitt.edu.