Joerg of Atlantic Review has posted a very thoughtful comment in our ongoing friendly debate on the international community. I started to post a response but soon recognized that the response had reached post length. The three subjects I want to respond to are “stingy United States”, the US participation in international peacekeeping activities, and Louisiana.
Right up front I want to concede that it’s very possible to formulate definitions of international generosity or international peacekeeping by which the United States is stingy or uninvolved or both. Specifically, if you define “international peacekeeping” as contributing troops to UN peacekeeping activities and “international generosity” as government-to-government, NGO-to-government, NGO-to-NGO, corporation-to-government, or corporation-to-NGO contributions for “development assistance” then the United States is uninvolved and stingy, respectively. However, if you use broader definitions the picture is somewhat different.
The United States is allergic to placing our soldier under foreign command and the aversion stems from our experience in World War I and World War II in which our troops were, indeed, placed under foreign command. An army reflects the society it serves and its values in organization, structure, and approach. In most countries in the world—including many European countries—the officers and enlisted soldiers belong to different social classes. This is not true in the United States. This influences how we (and they) think about the relationship between officers and enlisted. We expect different things and different responses from our enlisted soldiers than is true in many armies of the world. Our soldiers from general to private are expected to display initiative. That is not universally true in the rest of the world.
I think that one example that bears consideration in this context is the experience of Canadian general Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda. The rules of engagement in Rwanda drove the man to a nervous breakdown. What would the reaction of an American general, American soldiers have been in Rwanda? Many possible conclusions may be drawn from the experience but the conclusion that I draw is that the relationship between our military and UN peacekeeping activities can be uneasy at best.
There are also technological reasons for the aversion. We have a 21st century army. Most European countries have 20th century armies. Some countries in the world have what amount to 19th (or even 12th) century armies. The American way of war has become different from that of the world’s other armies, even those of our closest allies.
All of that having been said the United States contributes 27% of the financing of UN peacekeeping activities, our military frequently participates in side-by-side operations with UN peacekeeping forces, and we frequently participate in NATO peacekeeping activities. To my knowledge we have contributed troops at least twice to UN military activities: in Korea and Iraq during Desert Storm.
On the subject of foreign aid, when you take the broadest possible definition of the term including not only the modalities mentioned above but also individual-to-individual aid and include foreign military aid the United States is as large a contributor of foreign aid as any country in the world. This is consistent with the diversity of interests in our country and our national values.
Now, Louisiana. Louisiana is, perhaps, the most European state in our union. The Code Napoleon is a basis for state law; English common law much less so. Until Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco the most famous Louisiana politician was Huey Long, whose socialist policies suggest he would have been quite comfortable in today’s European Union. And one of the conflicts in the discussion of the fate of Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina has revolved around the client attitude displayed by the victims of the hurricane (and Louisiana politicians), particularly those in New Orleans. This appears to differ markedly from the reaction in Mississippi which was damaged at least as much as Louisiana by the hurricane, possibly more so. It will be interesting to see how this unfortunate social experiment unfolds.
I don’t want anything I’ve written above to be construed as criticism of European nations. I don’t have any interest in telling the nations of Europe how they should manage their societies. I don’t think it’s my role. I believe that they have the right to manage those societies in any way that suits them. I also believe that they should extend that right to us, as well.
What I do want to emphasize is my conviction that, as far as any “international community” is concerned, the United States is an outlier and is likely to remain so for some time. And that’s not a bad thing.
Great post, Dave — one of your best. Now if only the Europeans would take as “fair and balanced” view of the way we contribute to the international community, the pond that separates our two continents would cool off. I’m afraid that’s expecting too much, however, as their politicians have learned that they can increase their popularity by damning us.
Dave,
thank you for this post and for linking to the Atlantic Review!
If you don’t mind, I would like to continue this discussion here.
“our experience in World War I and World War II in which our troops were, indeed, placed under foreign command.”
This is new to me. Would you care to elaborate? During what time in those wars? Under who’s command? Why? How many? And above all, why was that a bad experience?
I have not studied US history.
“In most countries in the world—including many European countries—the officers and enlisted soldiers belong to different social classes. This is not true in the United States.”
Do you have some facts? Can you recommend a study in comparision?
I am not saying you are wrong. I simply don’t know anything about it and I need facts in order to be convinced by your statement.
“Our soldiers from general to private are expected to display initiative.”
I am sure this is similar in the Scandinavian militaries and others, who participate in UN peacekeeping.
“We have a 21st century army. Most European countries have 20th century armies.”
You need a 21st century army for fighting terrorists, but not for preventing genocide in Rwanda and Darfur.
I agree with you re the lack of funding and R&D in the continental European military.
“The rules of engagement in Rwanda drove the man to a nervous breakdown.”
I agree, the RoE need to be changed. The UN failed. In particular, Kofi Annan, who was head of peace-keeping operations failed. I don’t understand, why he got the noble peace price in 2001.
The US used to be Kofi Annan’s bigggest supporter after the Rwanda genocide. The US wanted Annan as UN head rather than give Boutrous Ghalis a second term as is standard. Ghali was not ideal either. Or do I mix something up?
“the United States contributes 27% of the financing of UN peacekeeping activities,”
Thank you for pointing this out!!!!!!!!
This is an incredible amount of money. It should not be forgotten, but be honored and appreciated!!!!!!!!!
“To my knowledge we have contributed troops at least twice to UN military activities: in Korea and Iraq during Desert Storm.”
Desert Storm was authorized by the UN, but was it a UN peacekeeping mission?
You could include the failed Somalia mission:
Operation Restore Hope – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
“In August 1992 the United States (USA) initiated Operation Provide Relief (UNOSOM I) to provide humanitarian relief for the people. Other Western nations also contributed to this airlift and the UN sent some troops to oversee the operation. However most of the food was looted directly on landing of these planes. This made the operation a failure and the UN therefore asked its members for assistance.
In December 1992 as president Bush of the USA was preparing to leave office, he proposed to help under the restriction that the US Combat troops would lead the operation. After the UN accepted this offer 25,000 US troops were deployed to Somalia and the mission was renamed to Operation Restore Hope and became UNOSOM II.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNOSOM_II
Does this mean that the US was leading a UN peace-keeping operation? Leading this operation into failure?
Or is wikipedia wrong?
“when you take the broadest possible definition of the term including not only the modalities mentioned above but also individual-to-individual aid and include foreign military aid the United States is as large a contributor of foreign aid as any country in the world.”
Dave, I have linked to a Foreign Policy article. The article was written by someone who worked for President Bush as deputy assistant secretary of the treasury from 2000 to 2002…. Here’s a quote: “Combining public and private donations puts total U.S. development assistance in the range of $35 billion per year, or about 0.32 percent of U.S. income. In other words, for every $3 of income, the United States provides about one cent in development assistance. Even with this broader measure (and using the larger estimate of U.S. private assistance without making a similar adjustment for other countries), the United States ranks, at best, 15th among the top donors.”
15th is still pretty good. But most Americans think that they are much more generous. Same article: “Surveys show that most Americans believe the federal government devotes 15 to 20 percent of the country’s expenditures to aid. The actual figure is far less than 1 percent; that’s less than one fourth of the budget share of 1965.â€
Apparently Americans misperceive their contribution. They think that their government spends up to 1/5 of its money helping people around the world. Americans think they do a lot for the international community, but they don’t do as much as they think they do.
Americans are angry that other countries do not support their international policies and they think that the world is not grateful for the large amount of foreign aid they think the US government is spending…. The fact is that the government and the private charities do not spend THAT much money. The US does not support sooo many international policies.
Dave, again, I have no interest in making the US role smaller than it is. I know the US is providing a lot of aid. And other countries are not perfect either. All I am interested in his a thorough debate based on facts.
However, please provide some facts! Please support your claims with some reference to surveys, studies, statistics etc. I always link to respectable sources for my arguments. Regarding US foreign aid, follow the links here:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/74-To-alleviate-extreme-poverty-the-G8-have-to-make-international-trade-more-fair-and-increase-aid.html
but don’t forget this one, which is more positive on the US contributions:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/76-The-US-helps-poor-countries-more-than-the-amount-of-aid-suggests.html
However, even the last one only says: “The United States has a slightly better score than Germany! Denmark and the Netherlands earn the top spots. Sweden, Australia, the UK and Australia rank better than the US and Germany.”
Even with this positive study you cannot support your statement the “United States is as large a contributor of foreign aid as any country in the world.” Four countries have a better score. Still, this is pretty good!
I don’t understand why you include foreign military aid as development aid. The US has been paying one (or two?) billion of military aid to the Mubarak regime for the last 30 years. What good has it done? Is Egypt a democracy now? Is it a developed country?
US military aid during the cold war has done a lot of bad stuff in Africa, i.e. supporting dictators, insurgencies, corruption etc.
Last but not least, I don’t understand what your paragraph on Lousiana has to do with this debate on the international community.
“I don’t want anything I’ve written above to be construed as criticism of European nations. I don’t have any interest in telling the nations of Europe how they should manage their societies. I don’t think it’s my role. I believe that they have the right to manage those societies in any way that suits them. I also believe that they should extend that right to us, as well.”
I agree and I don’t want anything I’ve written above to be construed as criticism of the US! Let me make this absolutely clear: I don’t want anything I’ve written above to be construed as criticism of the US!
I just want an honest debate based on facts.
I think one of the goals of international dialogue is to bust any myths we have about each other. I took issue with the myth on US contribution to foreign aid: “Surveys show that most Americans believe the federal government devotes 15 to 20 percent of the country’s expenditures to aid.” A former deputy treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration wrote that: http://atlanticreview.org/archives/74-To-alleviate-extreme-poverty-the-G8-have-to-make-international-trade-more-fair-and-increase-aid.html
You write: “as far as any “international community†is concerned, the United States is an outlier and is likely to remain so for some time. And that’s not a bad thing.” That’s fine with me. I only have a problem with exaggerating one’s contributions. I am even more angry at the French, who exaggerate their work.
Having said all this: I do believe the US is contributing a lot. And I know that the public in other countries believe in a lot of myths as well. We are all here to learn. Besides, you and the readers of your blog are not “the public,” but you are much more informed.
P.S. I have written all this very quickly. I might have made some mistakes, both in grammar and in my arguments. Please correct any factual mistakes. I am here to learn.
P.P.S.: I would appreciate any links to the questions I have raised here.
Another excellent comment, Joerg.
The subject of the US experience in World Wars I and II with foreign command is too long for the comments section. I’ll begin assembling the necessary references and writing a post. I’ll try to include some info on the respective officer corps. Thanks for reminding me about Somalia. I’ll see if I can incorporate that, too.
What I was trying to achieve in pointing out the technological differences between the U. S. military and, say, the Pakistani military was to highlight a key reason that we’re reluctant to participate in UN peacekeeping missions. And, BTW, I don’t see a real distinction between a peacekeeping mission and any other military activity in which shots may be fired. Pure aid performed by our military—as in the case of relief of tsunami victims—fits into an altogether different classification.
I recognize that many Americans don’t realize how small our government’s foreign aid budget is. I’m not one of them.
My point, which apparently I’m not making too articulately, about aid is that subdividing the different modalities by which the government, corporations, non-profit organizations, and individuals in the US help people in other countries without recourse to the effectiveness of the particular modality in achieving that end intrinsically has an agenda (I’m not necessarily saying that you have such an agenda).
There’s a perception in this country that foreign aid is poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries.
As far as I’m concerned military aid, development aid (public and private), and remittances are all aid. I’ll produce some statistics for you. That, too, is probably good for a complete post.
But, even more importantly, trade is aid. I happen to be one of those who believe that removing the various barriers to free trade both direct and indirect (especially agricultural trade) should be a much higher priority here than it is (and a much higher priority than increasing the amount of grants for development aid). But, as you know, it’s politically difficult—powerful interests oppose such reforms with every resource at their disposal.
You write:
Part of what I’m reacting to is the portrayal of the US in the European press which I see as an absurd caricature. I don’t see a comparable lampooning of European countries in the mainstream American press. Perhaps I have blinders on.
The reason I mentioned Louisiana is that you mentioned it in your comment at American Future.
I’ve got my work cut out for me. Stay tuned. It will take some time.
Thank you, Dave!
I now understand what you meant with the technological differences and 21st century vs. 20th/19th century military. I read that European armies have more and more difficulties to keep up with technology and therefore some European troops might loose the ability to cooperate efficiently with US troops, simply because their (communication) systems do not work with each other anymore. Something like: Windows XP meets MSDOS…
I agree, trade is aid and much better than the normal development aid, which many Germans as well see as “poor folks in rich countries helping rich folks in poor countries.”
The US made a bold proposal at the WTO negotiations to cut agricultural subsidies. Unfortunately the EU rejected it:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/150-EU-rejects-bold-US-proposal-to-cut-farm-subsidies;-progress-on-open-skies.html
I can’t remember if some compromise was found in the end. More real free and fair trade is needed to help poor countries. Often poor countries have to pay more import tariffs to sell their products in the EU or the US, than they get in foreign aid. That is insane.
I am looking forward to your next posts in this series!
I don’t think you have blinders on.
The Atlantic Review often writes about Anti-Americanism:
http://atlanticreview.org/plugin/freetag/Anti-Americanism
I don’t really want to defend the European media, but if I have to I could point out two things:
a) The US media does not write that much about Europe. Some people generalize that the European media is obsessed with the US and writes a lot of anti-American stuff, while the US media is ignorant of Europe. Europe is only in the news, if someone country disagrees with a US policy.
b) The big guys are always watched more closely by the smaller guys. The Austrian media or the Polish media writes more about Germany and is more critical of Germany, while the German media does not write THAT much about Austria/Poland. We are quite ignorant of their policies, unless they disagree with us.
Likewise the German media writes more about the US than the other way round. Therefore, don’t take it personal. If Poland were the most powerful country in the world, we would all make a fuzz about their policies.