For those who consider themselves global citizens and/or see the development of the “Third World” as a top priority, the fact US aid to Africa is a lower percentage of our Gross National Income than the percentage of what most European countries donate is a lack of commitment to development. For average Americans, however, the notion that the US is somehow in a competition with the rest of the world to serve the needs of the impoverished is both puzzling and often considered offensive. Given America’s unmatched military presence and efforts to subsidize global security, along with our overall efforts to bolster the economic, military, and social institutions of friendly nations, our exploding National Debt, and the growing issue of poverty at home, the emotional for case foreign aid still resonates, but Americans need to see more than taxpayer giveaways, whether successful or not.
Programs like George W. Bush’s PEPFAR AIDS initiative and Obama’s Power Africa initiative, among others, are certainly worthwhile projects that are changing lives and strengthening communities. Although it is true these initiatives do build support and trust for America, the use of foreign aid to bolster US soft power is largely rooted in Cold War thinking that is far less valid in today’s multipolar world where partnerships with multiple world powers like the US, China, and Russia come with few negative consequences, thus foreign aid is more about gilding the lily in terms of economic ties. At the same time, it is far easier to see the logic in reserving foreign aid dollars to address civil unrest and armed conflict in areas surrounding the Middle East, which lessens the urgency of nation building through foreign aid in African countries that are already more or less stable. Where domestic social welfare programs inside the US have long been losing support, and credibility, as they fail to actually adequately address America’s poverty problem, foreign development initiatives face even greater criticism. In terms of aid foreign programs, there needs to be a greater focus on incentivizing African governments to serve their People by investing what mineral royalties and taxes, which must include income, tariffs, and business taxes, they collect back into the needs of their societies, such roads, bridges, hospitals, power grids, water systems, and other critical infrastructure. Focusing on initiatives where the US and other nation donors match funds would help train governments to properly govern their societies and manage their national wealth to address the concerns of all citizens instead of just the elites. Furthermore, the notion that America engages in more trade with Brazil, which is the largest part of America’s “Africa,” than with all of sub-Saharan African as Obama noted during remarks given at his U.S. Africa Leaders Summit in Washington, D.C., is outrageous to the development community and an opportunity for capitalist minded businesspersons. What worries Americans about creating closer ties with even more foreign trade partners is our history of bad experiences with Free Trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA where greater outsourcing , as well as perverse tax benefits for so-called business inversions where American companies are able to avoid taxes by shedding their “US citizenship,” have helped nullify any gains for common Americans in terms of jobs and income. Although Africa has significant mineral deposits, as well as other natural resources to pay, for economic development within Africa and to purchase American goods, the essential question for Americans is what development of African industries will look like. In terms of manufacturing, simply shifting manufacturing capacity and production from America is not something the US can afford to support as we have in past decades, especially given such development would mean even greater global competition for American workers in era when States are abusing tax incentives to poach jobs instead of creating new ones through innovation. Consequently, the real challenge in all African development initiatives is creating well-paying, sustainable industries in Africa that create African goods that feed consumer demand rooted in African and global consumer needs while utilizing American production and goods, which is truly a challenged given countries like China serve as the discount option for mass production of industrial goods.
Comments
With Russian President Vladimir Putin’s efforts to amass forces along the Russian-Ukrainian border in preparation for a potential armed invasion of Ukraine and Western powers poised to intensify economic sanctions against Russia, the mechanisms are in place to transform Russia from a world power, which participants in world events and sees its interests largely addressed, back into a regional power that indirectly affects global events. In truth, Western NATO countries would be very unlikely to use force in order to respond to a Russian incursion into Ukrainian territory. The West would, however, be forced to isolate Russia for a protracted period, thus shutting it out of the International Community and the many benefits it offers, while long-term relations between Russian and the rest of the world would take decades to heal instead of years.
Strategically, the cost-benefit analysis of a Russian attack on Ukrainian territory and forces fighting pro-Russian separatists favors de-escalation on behalf of Putin. Unfortunately, the domination of Ukraine is a point of pride for Putin and support for rebels in Ukraine is an issue of patriotic duty for Russian nationalists. As such, Russian leadership is being motivated by emotion and restrained by logic. This means Putin needs a resolution to the Ukrainian Crisis that satisfies more than just the economics of the situation. A slow manipulation of Ukraine’s political system and economy would serve Putin’s ambitions, yet an armed invasion of Ukraine would do more to satisfy the special interests that appear to have leashed Russia’s most powerful leader. Of course, both options come at great costs for the Russian People and government, thus the better option is for Putin to manufacture a scenario where he can save face. One option may be to offer separatists amnesty in Russia or newly annexed Crimea. Certainly, Crimea will be a constant reminder of Russia’s deceit, especially for Ukrainians, yet transforming Crimea into a buffer state for pro-Russian rebels would help ease tensions with the West and save Ukraine from a war with Russia. Ironically, the supposed gain of Putin’s influence over Ukraine was the reestablishment of Russian influence. Just as support for Armenia over Azerbaijan in their territorial dispute over the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic would afford Russia greater influence over its neighbors, a takeover of Ukraine would do nothing for Russian influence on a global scale. In fact, Europe’s ties to Ukraine make any gains a negative as such behavior from Russia can only be seen as threatening. Now that the world has been alarmed by the Ukrainian Crisis, Russia’s efforts to reestablish its old sphere of influence are of concern to the International Community, thus the West will only intensify efforts to disrupt those ambitions. Russia may have the choice to attack Ukraine and take weak measures like banning the importing of Western agricultural goods, which undermines Western businesses and harms Russian consumers to the benefit of Western/global consumers who could see lower prices thanks to reduced global demand, but Russia faces a future of diminishing global influence as Putin attempts to force himself onto the unwilling. For those who consider themselves global citizens and/or see the development of the “Third World” as a top priority, the fact US aid to Africa is a lower percentage of our Gross National Income than the percentage of what most European countries donate is a lack of commitment to development. For average Americans, however, the notion that the US is somehow in a competition with the rest of the world to serve the needs of the impoverished is both puzzling and often considered offensive. Given America’s unmatched military presence and efforts to subsidize global security, along with our overall efforts to bolster the economic, military, and social institutions of friendly nations, our exploding National Debt, and the growing issue of poverty at home, the emotional for case foreign aid still resonates, but Americans need to see more than taxpayer giveaways, whether successful or not.
Programs like George W. Bush’s PEPFAR AIDS initiative and Obama’s Power Africa initiative, among others, are certainly worthwhile projects that are changing lives and strengthening communities. Although it is true these initiatives do build support and trust for America, the use of foreign aid to bolster US soft power is largely rooted in Cold War thinking that is far less valid in today’s multipolar world where partnerships with multiple world powers like the US, China, and Russia come with few negative consequences, thus foreign aid is more about gilding the lily in terms of economic ties. At the same time, it is far easier to see the logic in reserving foreign aid dollars to address civil unrest and armed conflict in areas surrounding the Middle East, which lessens the urgency of nation building through foreign aid in African countries that are already more or less stable. Where domestic social welfare programs inside the US have long been losing support, and credibility, as they fail to actually adequately address America’s poverty problem, foreign development initiatives face even greater criticism. In terms of aid foreign programs, there needs to be a greater focus on incentivizing African governments to serve their People by investing what mineral royalties and taxes, which must include income, tariffs, and business taxes, they collect back into the needs of their societies, such roads, bridges, hospitals, power grids, water systems, and other critical infrastructure. Focusing on initiatives where the US and other nation donors match funds would help train governments to properly govern their societies and manage their national wealth to address the concerns of all citizens instead of just the elites. Furthermore, the notion that America engages in more trade with Brazil, which is the largest part of America’s “Africa,” than with all of sub-Saharan African as Obama noted during remarks given at his U.S. Africa Leaders Summit in Washington, D.C., is outrageous to the development community and an opportunity for capitalist minded businesspersons. What worries Americans about creating closer ties with even more foreign trade partners is our history of bad experiences with Free Trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA where greater outsourcing , as well as perverse tax benefits for so-called business inversions where American companies are able to avoid taxes by shedding their “US citizenship,” have helped nullify any gains for common Americans in terms of jobs and income. Although Africa has significant mineral deposits, as well as other natural resources to pay, for economic development within Africa and to purchase American goods, the essential question for Americans is what development of African industries will look like. In terms of manufacturing, simply shifting manufacturing capacity and production from America is not something the US can afford to support as we have in past decades, especially given such development would mean even greater global competition for American workers in era when States are abusing tax incentives to poach jobs instead of creating new ones through innovation. Consequently, the real challenge in all African development initiatives is creating well-paying, sustainable industries in Africa that create African goods that feed consumer demand rooted in African and global consumer needs while utilizing American production and goods, which is truly a challenged given countries like China serve as the discount option for mass production of industrial goods. With the militant Islamic State, formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, pushing into Lebanon and Kurdish controlled territories in Iraq as they pick up allies on the way, what started out as a crisis for Iraq appears to spreading throughout the region, which is already in flux thanks to the failure of the Arab Spring Revolutions to produce adequate change for the Peoples of the region and suppress militant activities. Given the complex religious, social, and economic conflicts within all of the countries affected by this expanding militant threat, the situation looks more and more like a fight scene in an old Warner Brother’s cartoons where all the characters disappear into a ball of dust. Consequently, providing a meaningful analysis of the crisis, versus simply reacting to the events that are unfolding, requires a look at the overall picture instead focusing on the rapidly changing details.
Certainly, there is an emerging conflict between Sunnis and Shia Muslims within countries affected by the Islamic State’s expansion and this common rift throughout the region is likely to widen as the pain of sectarian violence in foreign lands aggravates persistent grievances. That said, there is a very sharp difference between extremists, who seek war against all other Islamic factions, and those who do not seek to dominate others, only defend their lives. As individuals like Lebanon’s Sunni Prime Minister Tammam Salam take stances alongside Shiite Lebanese’s leaders in support of Lebanon, it is clear nationality still divides Muslims and breeds loyalties that connect the various religious factions. That said, Iran backed Shia Hezbollah’s, which favors the Assad regime in Syria as well as Sunni Hamas, pledge to defend Lebanon against the Islamic State muddies the waters even more. In fact, it creates a situation where a rush to help Hamas by both the Sunni Islamic State militants and Shiite militants could help propagate the spread of violence as all sides struggle for influence across the region, especially factoring in spreading violence in places like Libya and Afghanistan/Pakistan. Considering these intertwining interests and more, e.g. those of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and Egypt, the overall picture looks like a massive tornado about to level the Middle East. Hindering this catastrophic wave of violence and instability, however, is the militaries and police of these countries as well as the majority of Middle Easterners whose lives are being destroyed. Anyone who has tried to maintain a way of life or organization of any kind understands building something is radically different that maintaining something. In many respects, preventing the ruination of something is harder than creating it. At the time, the Islamic State is rapidly expanding by destroying what other governments and groups are trying to maintain, i.e. peace, stability, and governance, but the Islamic State will have to solidify and maintain its gains at some point. Consequently, it can only expand so much before it must put itself in the position of defending its gains. Where the Islamic State fails to address the interests of those living in the areas it conquers, it will be weak, particularly if it’s more extreme members create too many riffs. This means the Islamic State is going to create a great deal of instability before it discovers its limits, i.e. it will burn a path of destruction like forest fire until it no do longer spread, so future stability in the Middle East will depend upon the ability of opposition factions to overlook their grievances long enough to rebuild some order, very quickly. Given the Muslim World has many grievances that have gone unresolved for decades to centuries, the best case scenario is a map of the Middle East divided along sectarian and other lines. On the one hand, the Argentinean government is in the wrong for defaulting on its debt obligations and undertaking public policies that put it in such a position. On the other hand, billionaire Paul Singer shares blame as he refused to accept a 70% reduction on the face value of debt he bought, just as all other Argentinean debt holders did. Although many argue Singer is just holding true to his principles when it comes to debtors paying their debts, the news coverage of the default has largely skimmed over the broader consequences of Singer’s true intent.
After Argentina’s 2001 default, Singer and others purchased Argentinean debt for pennies on the dollar from investors desperately looking to recoup some of their losses. Knowing the debt was worth a fraction of its face value, at best, he then sued the Argentinean government to make an obscene profit. If Singer were truly acting on principle, he would have filed his lawsuit as a representative in order to help bondholders, who invested in Argentina and were cheated. Clearly, capitalism is not about being nice or playing fair; it is about making money, so profiteering through litigation is perfectly fine in the eyes of businessmen, or even necessary. That said, law may be about enforcing the rules that prevent our society from ripping itself apart, but something that is lawful is not necessarily right. It is helpful to divide how people are motivated in terms of economic, i.e. the pursuit of one’s interests, social, e.g. in line with community and religious expectations, and emotional incentives. Where balanced people are motivated by economic, emotional, and social incentives throughout their daily lives, business decisions are based solely on economic motivations. This, of course, creates a real conflict when the capitalist ambitions of the affluent neglect or damage the interests of a society, which is filled with people who look at the consequences of such harmful decisions in economic, social, and emotional terms. As such, people see the actions of individuals like Singer as wrong, especially given Singer had intentionally gambled, and lost, on the wellbeing of 42 million people inside Argentina in order to make obscene profits at the expense of desperate bondholders he exploited. Mr. Singer’s actions are akin to asking a homeless man for his change to buy himself a coffee then suing the restaurant for it being too hot after he purposely spills it on his lap. This type of profiteering through litigation may be lucrative, legal, and perfectly reasonable under capitalist thinking; however, it is a practice that also undermines the social value of capitalism and law. Moreover, social institutions like capitalist markets and legal systems only exist, because people support them and have faith they will serve their most important interest s, but business dealings like profiteering through litigation at the expense of millions undermines that faith. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|