In 1919, the failure of President Woodrow Wilson at Versailles caused diplomat Harold Nicolson to relate the following account of United States’ actions: “America, eternally protected by the Atlantic, desired to satisfy her self-righteousness while disengaging her responsibility.” It is lamentable to think that we have made little improvement since then.
This regret stems from the outcome of the annual Group of Eight summit, held three weeks ago in the luxurious Gleneagles Resort in Scotland. As a result, aid to developing countries will be doubled by 2010 to approximately $50 billion per year, at least half of which will go to Africa. Though the summit has since vanished from media coverage, its effects will be felt by millions of people worldwide for many years to come.
Although aid is generally considered a good thing, neo-liberals will argue that it is in fact a rather unwieldy crutch for impoverished nations. Whether this is simply old-fashioned American isolationism rearing its proverbial head, or the instinctual reaction of fiscal conservatives to reject anything resembling welfare handouts, it is a valid point.
Sustained economic growth requires much more than simply well-meaning donations to poor countries. Press these neo-liberals a bit further, and they will likely expound the seemingly limitless virtues of a competitive market. However, despite the public image we have created, the United States is not the world’s largest proponent for global free trade.
In fact, the United States maintains major barriers to free trade, inflicting serious damage on the struggling economies of the developing world. An example is our recent generosity to the ravaged coastal nations of South East Asia. The United States pledged $350 million in tsunami relief, after collecting $1.8 billion in duties on imports from Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and India in 2004. A reduction of tariffs would do a great deal more to help these nations than the comparatively small sum of relief.
The donation appears to be nothing more than a shallow show of concern to appease international media. If the United States is genuine about its desire to spur development in impoverished nations, it should consider revising its detrimental trade policies. It isn’t charity; it’s justice.
The United States, Japan and those in the European Union pay $47 billion, $49 billion and $100 billion yearly in agricultural subsidies, respectively. Most of this money goes to large agribusiness, not the mom and pop operations that linger so romantically on the collective American imagination. Agriculture is one of the few markets in which poor countries have a relative advantage, an advantage which is being undermined by agricultural subsidies in wealthy nations. Poor farmers simply cannot compete with cheap American imports.
In the final statement put forth by Tony Blair, this year’s chairman, the G-8 “reaffirmed [their] commitment” to free trade and the reduction of domestic subsidies by “a credible end date.” No end date was actually set. President Bush claimed to be ready to work with the EU to discuss the abolition of farm aid, and that this could be conceivable by 2010.
French President Jacques Chirac, however, claimed that the commitments made by Bush to the media did not align with those made during the summit. This is a prime example of the United States creating an image of self-righteousness while deceitfully abdicating responsibility. If past actions are any indication, the U.S. government will be extremely reticent to reduce agricultural subsidies, despite public statements.
In the meantime, 10 million farmers in West Africa will continue to suffer in silence, lacking the power to demand justice from a world in which national self-interests trump all else.
Stevenson is a third-year international development studies and economics student.