The Question of Transnational Aid

Question: Should powerful countries look after the interests of less-powerful countries?

It has often been characterized by outside observers that it is America’s “moral imperative” as the world’s sole superpower to assist in the development of poorer countries. Be it through economic aid, food aid, technological aid, or some other form of assistance, the burden has always fallen upon America, the world’s most capable and well-fed nation, to lend its own resources to those in need. But, the question remains whether or not America should acquiesce to these demands and use its resources in such a selfless manner. There is a clear argument to be made that, while we do possess more wealth than any other nation, we should use what we have to better our own society, since we have worked so hard to achieve such a stature.

In my opinion, such aid should be applied when it is politically beneficial to do so. I see here two possible scenarios wherein humanitarian aid can be coupled with political maneuvering to achieve mutual benefit. The first scenario involves one large power (in this case, the United States) dealing with several smaller and somewhat neutral powers. If these countries are in need of aid, the United States would be best served by lending such aid with certain political stipulations attached, possibly including military alignment. I’ll use a famous example: in the immediate aftermath of World War II, several European nations were reeling from effects of the fighting. The political situation was tense and fragile, and the regional economies were subject to massive debt and inflation. Much non-military production capacity was also gone. Now, into the scene come two competing power spheres: the United States and its allies, under the banner of capitalism, and the Soviet Union and its allies, under the banner of communism. At this point, the political will of these small battered European states was soft, and subject to quick change. Recognizing this, the United States moved to quickly institute the Marshall Plan, which provided civil and military aid to nations affected by the war with the promise that they would use part of it to fight off socialist influence. Under this plan, several nations were able to put down serious insurrections, and they remained in the American sphere of influence. This measure kept the balance of power from tipping the other way in Europe.

The other scenario in which to employ foreign aid is when dealing with rogue or opposing regimes that pose a threat to the wealthy country. In this plan, aid is distributed in exchange for certain measures being taken by the receiving side, ideally steps that reduce the perceived danger of the recipient. Such an approach is often called the “carrot-and-stick” method, and is instituted frequently in the world of diplomacy. Take North Korea, for example. Their populace is in dire need of food and other supplies, and the ruling party fears a challenge to their position if things get too out of hand. What they do have, however, is more than enough deterrence against threats from foreign powers, namely a ridiculously large army backed up by prototype nuclear weapons. Now, the United States, as well as the four countries located closest to North Korea (South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan) employ the carrot-and-stick method when attempting to negotiate a dismantling of North Korea’s defense capabilities. They offer ample food and medical aid, as well as tools and raw materials, to North Korea in exchange for the destruction of their nuclear capabilities and promises to keep their military in check. Such incentives, while not always successful in dealing with regimes like North Korea, nevertheless provide a better option than withholding aid and directly confronting the opposition.

With regard to a “moral imperative” to help third-world nations, it is understandable to hold this view, in light of unresolved historical grievances as well as the horrid nature of poverty when compared to the culture of overconsumption in the first world. However, I think, if anything, it would be irresponsible to the citizens of first-world countries for their leaders to simply give away their own earned wealth while asking for nothing in return. As handsome as the idea of straight charity sounds, it must be remembered that a government’s money is the result of the work of all of its citizens, many of whom may not be so altruistic.