As a young idealist, I have a number of qualms with current trends in globalization. Particularly, I feel at odds with the United State’s approach to international assistance. As stated by USAID, the federal government agency responsible for most ‘non-military foreign aid’ (I won’t delve into the question of whether military foreign aid truly constitutes effective ‘aid’), “Our work supports long-term and equitable economic growth and advances U.S. foreign policy objectives by supporting: economic growth, agriculture and trade; global health; and, democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance” (http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid). On the surface, supporting economic growth as a means of foreign aid makes sense considering that economic freedom is associated with better health outcomes. However, after evaluating the situation more deeply I can’t help but feel slightly disgusted that the purpose of USAID’s strategy is to “help American business succeed in foreign markets and help developing countries create conditions for investment and trade” (http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/content/1/1/6). I think to myself: there are millions of people dying and suffering needlessly every year and America reason for helping them is to establish flourishing markets for import and export. Logically, the approach makes sense: if people aren’t healthy, they can’t work and if people don’t work they won’t have the means to buy and sell. But I would like to think that humans have some intrinsic value that is being ignored in this equation. Dr. Shahi’s response to this line of questioning was comforting. He argued that true leaders can use economic speak but their primary motivation is public health. Indeed, there is a tie between economic development and human development. Admittedly, I think I’m just sorrowful that this sort of speak needs to be implemented at all when the topic is mortality and morbidity. I guess I just wish this world wasn’t so financially driven…
1 comment:
I agree, David. I have serious issues with USAID's strategy to "help American business succeed in foreign markets and help developing countries create conditions for investment and trade" as well. It's right in the mission...help American business succeed...man...how do we do that? By "creating profitable situations in developing countries?" Sounds too much like the Iraq war (yes, I went there...). I mean, we went in there, overthrew the country, killed the tyrant, and now we are creating conditions that would profitable to the US (Iraq oil). As it was presented, many of these interventions were based on speculation of WMD, and the fact that Saddam Hussein killed so many people. However, based on those reasons, let's look at Darfur. There is so much genocide going on in Darfur and much political unrest (perfect for harboring terrorists?) and are we going in there to take over the government? The fact that Saddam Hussein killed many people and the idea that Iraq may have been harboring terrorists may not have been a reason why we went in there (just being completely cynical). I guess I have issues with the US going into countries and imposing our strategies onto marginalized places and expect that these tactics will be beneficial to all involved. Or, maybe we should be more open with our intentions when we do go into poor countries. On any note, I agree with your comments and happy to hear them! Because of your reflections I was able to have my rant for the day about the war. Thank you!
Post a Comment