The U.S. is history's greatest good heart

Opinions

U.S. benevolent imperialism far better than despotism Iraq
By Gerald Plessner

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - THE last few weeks have given us dramatic examples of two kinds of imperialism the benevolent and the despotic.

The efforts of the people and the government of the United States in helping victims of the tsunami perhaps the biggest natural event of our lifetime are in the finest tradition of American benevolence.

The United States has been a Pacific region imperial power for more than a century. During its despotic phase, our Pacific international policy produced our invasion of the Chinese mainland, our colonization of the Philippines and other territories, and our tragic anti-Communist effort in Vietnam and the rest of southeast Asia.

When in the late 1930s, Japan expanded its own imperialism by invading and colonizing Manchuria and other countries, we began to understand that the freedom of those occupied countries was important to American interests.

Then the Japanese foolishly attacked our bases in Hawaii, an American colony. (Call it a territory if you wish but that was and is just our name for a colony.)

America's declaration of war on Japan and our unconditional victory opened a new era of American imperialism. Under the direction of the brilliant but difficult General Douglas MacArthur, we guided Japan into a future of personal freedom and democracy, enabling its development of a strong industrial sector. All the while we secured for ourselves a loyal friend and bases for our military forces in the region.

Then in 1950, the North Koreans attacked South Korea and China later entered the war against the South. This forced us to establish a stronger presence over the entire Pacific Rim, both on land and at sea. Except for the tragedy of Vietnam, our imperialist efforts in the region were mostly beneficial. We kept the mainland Chinese Communists from attacking the Nationalists on Taiwan, we have restrained the North Koreans from again attacking the South, and we have done what we could to support the development of democracies. Now we are working to combat terrorism in the region.

All of that might be called benevolent imperialism. While all the actions were positive, they served our interests in keeping friendly nations strong and safe, in safeguarding transportation and manufacturing and, not insignificantly, enabling the development of oil production in one of the richest oil fields in the world in Indonesia.

Our response to the tsunami can become yet another achievement of benevolent imperialism. Our presence in the region enables us to show our finest side the one that demonstrates caring for the individual and mercy as their own rewards.

Some misguided Americans say that we are doing too much and more than other countries by using our military to aid the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims. They are both morally wrong and ignorant of reality. There are many compelling reasons why we should help the victims of such a huge calamity.

First, it is the right thing to do. Second we have the capability to do it, because our capabilities enable us to move relief supplies at a rapid rate. Third, because our military is always training for conflict and its aftermath, their work helping the victims is training in its own right. Finally, the efforts of individual Americans in helping individual Sri Lankans, Indonesians or Laotians is the best possible demonstration of our country's highest goals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.

Compare this opportunity for benevolent imperialism to our despotic imperialism on the other side of the globe, and the righteousness of our actions in Southeast Asia becomes crystal clear.

Our efforts in Iraq, no matter what anyone says, have the same objectives. They are an imperialistic action designed to protect resources that are vital to our immediate and long- range interests.

Our politicians can talk about the pre-emption of nuclear weapons or the protection of the state of Israel or the persecution of the Iraqi people and the possibility of their future freedom. But none of these are honest reasons for a rational nation to send its citizens to die in a foreign land. Nor do they justify expending billions of dollars the nation does not have. All national leaders, including the Israelis, must understand this.

The only true reason for our war on Iraq is the presumed need by our country for a safe and reliable source of fuel for our economy, our military and our industry. As part of the ideology of the current administration, it makes sense to secure control of that region at this time.

The long-term problem created by our unilateral and incompetent implementation of despotic imperialism is that American generations not yet born will suffer the world's hatred and resistance to all of our imperialistic actions, both benevolent and despotic. Our grandchildren will have to sacrifice because of the damage to the American economy that will result from our country's hubris at the beginning of the 21st Century. Gerald Plessner is an Arcadia businessman who writes regularly on issues of politics and culture. He can be contacted at [email protected] .

The funds - a dramatic jump from the $80 million already pledged - brings Canada's contribution almost even with that of the United States, which currently stands at about $427 million Cdn.

Leading the charge against American generosity were, among others: the United Nations' Jan Egeland: "It is beyond me why (the U.S.) is so stingy, really."

France's Jacques Chirac: "Washington is deliberately circumventing the United Nations and wants to compete with the international organization."

Vermont's Sen. Patrick Leahy, disparaging an early administration commitment of $35 million in tsunami aid: "We spend $35 million before breakfast every day in Iraq."

My bad...it looked to me like another self-congratulatory, self-righteous, America trumps all post.
I shall henceforth retract my earlier comment and wish you all to dismiss it as irelevant, as no other nation has a heart like the US.

Here's what The Wall Street Journal said in a Dec. 31 editorial:

When it comes to this sort of giving, nobody beats Americans. According to a 2003 report from the U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. international assistance to developing countries in 2000 was $56 billion. Yet just 18 percent of that was 'official' government assistance. Some $33.6 billion - or 60 per cent - came from the private sector. Corporations shelled out nearly $3 billion. Religious groups weighed in with $3.4 billion. Individuals provided $18 billion. To say nothing of funds from foundations, private and voluntary organizations, or universities.

The U.S. does disaster relief and reconstruction better than any country in history. [..] In 2003, U.S. development aid was nearly twice the amount from No. 2 giver, Japan. [..] Others talk about doing something; America acts.

Leading the charge against American generosity were, among others: the United Nations' Jan Egeland: "It is beyond me why (the U.S.) is so stingy, really."

Reporter: "When you were talking about donor countries that in a growing economy were giving less, are you prepared to name them?"

JE: "No - I would say that - I'd rather say that it is remarkable that we may, we have - no country up to the 1% line of foreign assistance in general and we have, I think, three Scandinavians that have exceeded, and Holland, the 0.7% line of cross national income for assistance. We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries. And it is beyond me why we are - why are we so stingy really?

When we are - Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least, how rich we have become and if actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2% of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really, I don't think that is very generous....

And I have an additional point. Politicians do not understand their own populations, because all the populations, in the United States, in the European Union, in Norway which is number one in the world [in terms of official development aid], we want to give more as - as voters, as taxpayers. People say we should give what we give now or more."

The controversy is mainly about what numbers to look at. While it is the largest donor in absolute amounts, the US isn't doing so great per capita. According to the Center for Global Development and Foreign Policy Magazine, the US government spends $0.13 per person per day on humanitarian aid. In comparison, front-runner Norway spends $1.02.

Further, and contrary to popular belief, the amount of American private donations don't nearly compensate for the relatively low government spending on aid. Although with $0.05 per person per day the US ranks third among developed countries, the combined results ($0.18) still put the country near the bottom of the list.

I can dig this much up - watch:

Quote:

Leading the charge against American generosity were, among others: the United Nations' Jan Egeland: "It is beyond me why (the U.S.) is so stingy, really."

Coinsider the pure gall of this.

Egeland literally said: "it is beyond me why we are - why are we so stingy really". WE.

And this quote is then transformed by replacing "we" by "the US" - in order to make the UN guy look like an America-hater.

The moral bankrupcy of it all.

Here's the full Egeland quote from that press conference:

Quote:

Reporter: "When you were talking about donor countries that in a growing economy were giving less, are you prepared to name them?"

JE: "No - I would say that - I'd rather say that it is remarkable that we may, we have - no country up to the 1% line of foreign assistance in general and we have, I think, three Scandinavians that have exceeded, and Holland, the 0.7% line of cross national income for assistance. We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries. And it is beyond me why we are - why are we so stingy really?

When we are - Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least, how rich we have become and if actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2% of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really, I don't think that is very generous....

And I have an additional point. Politicians do not understand their own populations, because all the populations, in the United States, in the European Union, in Norway which is number one in the world [in terms of official development aid], we want to give more as - as voters, as taxpayers. People say we should give what we give now or more."

"No.. er... ah....I would say that ..er....I'd rather say that it is remarkable that we may, we have ...um...no country up to the 1%...um..line of foreign assistance in general and we have, I think, three ....um...Scandinavians that have exceeded, and Holland, the 0.7% line of cross national income for assistance...em....We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries. And it is beyond me why we are. Why are we so stingy really? When we are ...and even at Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least, how rich we have become and if actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2% of their gross national income. I think that is stingy really, I don't think that is very generous.... And I have an additional point. Politicians do not understand their own populations, because all the populations, in the United States, in the European Union, in Norway which is number one in the world, we want to give more as...as voters as taxpayers. People say we should give what we give now or more. Politicians [?? upon ??] their belief that they are really burdening the taxpayers to much and the taxpayer wants to give less, that's not true. They want to give more."

candidone1 wrote:

My bad...it looked to me like another self-congratulatory, self-righteous, America trumps all post.
I shall henceforth retract my earlier comment and wish you all to dismiss it as irelevant, as no other nation has a heart like the US.

You expected us to wait until this post to dismiss your previous post as irrelevant?

SO, the US is a Western country and the author is discussing his view on the US. That is why he wrote (the U.S.) instead of western countries. He wasn't talking about western countries, he was talking specifically about the US.

It's not "moral bankrupcy", its literary license. It a means for the author to bring the readers attention to the authors viewpoint.

Rimh gets up in the morning and reads an editorial in an American newspaper. The editorial is pro-US and suggests the US is a generous nation.

Angry, Rimh writes a editorial to his own newspaper. "Have you seen the Americans putting down the European nations?", he writes, "They are calling us 'crap,' and I'm not going to sit still for it. I am outraged."

Look at this latest screed from an American, railing against Europe and the rest of the world: "America gives more money in international spending than any other country (and therefore Europe is crap, Japan is crap, and the rest of the world is crap.)"