Giving Aid in a Multilateral Framework

When it comes to giving foreign aid, a majority also prefers to give aid through the UN rather than doing so bilaterally. The benefits of making sure that other countries do their fair share and that efforts will be coordinated outweigh the benefits of the US having more control over how the money is spent and getting more credit and influence over the country receiving the aid.

Given two statements in a November 2000 PIPA poll, a solid majority expressed a preference for giving aid through multilateral institutions rather than bilaterally, even when the potential advantages of bilateral aid were pointed out. Fifty-seven percent agreed with the following statement:

When giving foreign aid, it is best for the US to participate in international efforts, such as through the UN. This way it is more likely that other countries will do their fair share and that these efforts will be better coordinated.

Only 39% preferred the statement:

When giving foreign aid it is best for the US to do so on its own because that way the US has more control over how the money is spent and will get more credit and influence in the country receiving the aid.[24]

In the context of a multilateral effort Americans even express a willingness to increase spending on aid-something they are not willing to do in purely unilateral context. This has been demonstrated in regard to increasing spending to meet the Millennium Development Goals and to reach the 0.7 percent of GDP standard.

In a June 2005 PIPA poll, respondents were told, "As you may know, the US and other wealthy countries have set for themselves a series of goals, called the Millennium Development Goals. These call for reducing hunger by half, providing basic sanitation in poor countries, and other goals by the year 2015." They were then asked to assume that the costs would either be an average of $15, $30 or $50 "a year per taxpaying household in the wealthy countries" and that "other countries were willing to give this much." [See note explaining these cost estimates.] Overall 71% said that the US should be willing to give the $15, $30 or $50. There was no significant difference in the level of support depending on the amount assumed. Democrats were only slightly more likely to approve than Republicans.[25]

Another similar idea is that wealthy countries should commit to spend seven-tenths of one percent of their GDP to address world poverty, especially in Africa. The 0.7 percent target was first established in a UN General Assembly Resolution in 1970, and it has been reiterated by other international agreements. However, the only countries that are currently meeting this target are Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. Sixty-five percent of Americans favored the US making such a commitment, provided that the other wealthy countries do so as well (PIPA, June 2005). In October 2005 GMF poll proposed the same idea and asked if "this level of development assistance [is] too high, too low or about right." A 59% majority said it was either about right (40%) or too low (19%).[25a]

Altruism, the Global Interest, and the National Interest

A large majority of Americans feel that US foreign policy should at times serve altruistic purposes independent of US national interests. Americans also feel that US foreign policy should be oriented to the global interest not just the national interest and are highly responsive to arguments that serving the global interest ultimately serves the national interest. Americans show substantial concern for global conditions in a wide range of areas.

Altruism

It is often assumed that most Americans feel US foreign policy should be tied closely to the national interest, narrowly defined, and are opposed to the idea of making sacrifices based on altruistic purposes. Polling data reveal quite a different picture. In numerous cases Americans show support for altruism in US foreign policy independent of any impact it might have on US interests.

In January 2000 Beldon and Russonello asked respondents to rate a list of reasons "for the US to be active in world affairs" on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 meaning "it is not at all an important reason" and 10 meaning "it is an extremely important reason to you personally." Altruistic reasons scored quite well.[1]

Generosity is part of Americans' national self-image. Asked in a September 2006 Public Agenda poll whether "people in other countries see the United States as generous towards other countries," two-thirds (66%) said they do, while just 29% said they do not. [2]

Giving Aid: Numerous poll results show that large majorities find convincing the argument that the US has a moral responsibility to provide aid to the needy. For example, in December 2001 Greenberg et al. presented a number of arguments in support of foreign aid. Seventy percent found convincing the argument, "The United States is the only remaining superpower and the world's wealthiest nation. We have a moral responsibility to help those who need it the most. America has always stood for justice, freedom, and opportunity for all people--a responsibility that has only grown since September 11th." [3] Other examples abound.[4]

A September 2006 Public Agenda poll asked "How important to our foreign policy should each of the following be?" and then gave a list of foreign policy activities. Altruistic functions received some of the highest ratings including "helping other countries when they are struck by natural disasters like the tsunami in Indonesia" (97% saying that it is important), "assisting countries with developing clean water supplies" (95%), and "helping people in poor countries to get an education" (89%).[5]

Americans have roundly rejected the argument, made by some legislators, that the US should only give aid when it also serves the US national interest. Asked to choose between two statements in a November 2000 PIPA poll, just 34% chose the statement "We should only send aid to parts of the world where the US has security interests," while 63% chose the statement "When hunger is a major problem in some part of the world, we should send aid whether or not the US has a security interest in that region."[6] When PIPA, in 1995, posed the argument in favor of the principle of limiting aid to security-related countries by itself, the percentage rejecting it was even higher-77%.[7]

Although Africa is a region that Americans tend to see as relatively less significant to US national interests, support for giving aid to Africa is markedly higher than it is for any other region.[see Africa: Aid to Africa]

Altruistic concern also prompts Americans to give poor countries preferential trade treatment. Americans have shown concern that poor countries do not get a net benefit from international trade.[see Globalization: Trading With Poor Countries]

Military Intervention: A majority of Americans also show a readiness to intervene militarily abroad for altruistic purposes, even if it is not directly tied to the national interest.

For example, in September 1999 Mark Penn asked:

Which is closer to your view of the proper role of the US in the world?...The US sometimes needs to get involved in regional conflicts that do not directly threaten US interests, because we are often the only country able to maintain world peace and prevent humanitarian disasters such as Kosovo and East Timor, OR The US should only act to protect our own national interests because it is not our responsibility to keep peace around the world. 40%.[8]

Fifty-six percent chose the humanitarian response and 40% chose the counterargument.

Numerous polls show a majority feels that the US has a moral obligation to intervene in the event of genocide. Most recently, a July 2005 Pew poll found that 69% agreed that "the US and other Western powers have a moral obligation to use military force if necessary, to prevent one group of people from committing genocide against another," nearly the same level found when the question was asked in March 2001.[9]

In PIPA's April 1995 poll, 66% agreed that "When innocent civilians are suffering or being killed, and a UN peace operation is organized to try to address the problem, in most cases the US should be willing to contribute some troops, whether or not it serves the national interest." [9a]

Pew in 1999, with three different samples, posed a question about the moral obligation to use military force to stop genocide in different regions. Majorities said that the US does have such an obligation to intervene in Europe (60%), Asia (58%), and Africa (58%). It is interesting that number affirming the responsibility to intervene in Europe (arguably more tied to US national interests), was not significantly higher than it was for Asia or Africa.[10]

Numerous polls have found majority support for the idea that the US had a moral obligation to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo.[11] Even a strongly stated argument rejecting intervention in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo on the basis of its marginal relevance to US national interests and playing on the concern for fatalities did not garner majority agreement. In an April 1998 PIPA poll only 35% agreed with the argument: "Bosnia is far from the US, and we have no real interests there. Therefore, it would be wrong to risk the lives of American troops in a NATO peacekeeping operation in Bosnia" (62% disagreed). This was virtually unchanged since 1994 when 37% agreed and 61% disagreed in a question using a UN peacekeeping operation. In a July 1994 PIPA poll that applied this argument against sending troops to Rwanda, the same low number, 37%, found this argument convincing, while 62% found it unconvincing.[12]

When a December 1995 CBS/New York Times poll presented four different reasons to send US troops to Bosnia, the one found to be a good reason by the largest number (64%) was based on "stopping more people from being killed in this war." Various PIPA polls on sending US troops to Bosnia also found strong support for moral arguments.[13]

Interestingly, support for using military force for such altruistic purposes can be as high or even higher than for purposes more directly related to traditional national interest concerns. In the Chicago Council July 2006 and June 2004 polls, respondents were given a list of possible purposes for using military of force. Altruistic reasons, such as "to deal with humanitarian crises" were endorsed by 66% in 2006 (72% in 2004). This was higher than some more self-interested purposes, such as "to ensure the oil supply," which was favored by 45% in 2006 (in 2004: 54%). Americans responded similarly in the Chicago Council's 2002 study.[14]

Serving Global Interests

Americans believe that US foreign policymakers should not only think about what is best for the US national interest but should think in terms of what is best for the global interest.

Respondents in the October 2006 WPO/KN poll were asked to choose between two principles for how the US should use its power. Only 16% endorsed the view that "the United States should use its power to make the world be the way that best serves US interests and values." Seventy-nine percent opted for the view that "the US should coordinate its power together with other countries according to shared ideas of what is best for the world as a whole." PIPA found similar responses in 2004.[15]

In the same October 2006 poll, 75% said that "sometimes the US should be willing to make some sacrifices if this will help the world as a whole," while only 22 percent say the United States should not make such sacrifices. In July 1994 84% favored making such sacrifices. [16]

Even just shortly after September 11, when Americans might have been particularly prone to think in terms of America's own interests, a majority showed a continued readiness to think in more collective terms. Asked "How should the US determine its policy with regard to the war on terrorism?" just 30% said it should "be based mostly on the national interests of the US," while 59% said it should "strongly take into account the interests of its allies" (Pew, October 2001).[17][see Multilateral Cooperation and International Institutions]

⇐ Предыдущая12345678910Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: