|
Report Sections
1) Altruism
2) Developing Trading Partners
3) Preserving the Environment
4) Limiting Population Growth
1) Altruism Back
to top
When asked to consider possible reasons for giving foreign
aid, most Americans embrace altruistic or moral ones in and of themselves.
Sixty-eight percent agree that: "As one of the world’s rich nations,
the United States has a moral responsibility toward poor nations
to help them develop economically and improve their people’s lives"
(PIPA, October 1999; 67% in January 1995).
Explaining why giving foreign aid to poor and needy countries was
important, many focus group and interview participants simply said:
"It’s the right thing to do." Many described giving foreign aid
as essential to the nation’s self image. A Minneapolis woman said,
"Alleviating suffering in the world is the most important thing
a country can do, domestically or internationally." Commenting on
the possible elimination of foreign aid, a Columbus, Ohio woman
said, "It would be hard to do. There’s too many people [abroad]
that are starving to death, and we’re such a good nation that we
feel sorry for other people." A woman from a Baltimore focus group
protested: "If [you] were to take that away, then what would you
have to be proud of as an American?"
In polls, overwhelming majorities reject the idea that the US should
only give aid when it serves the national interest. Seventy-seven
percent disagreed with the statement that:
We should only make commitments to send aid to parts of
the world where we have security interests. These include the former
Soviet republics and Eastern Europe where we want to prevent the
reemergence of the Russian empire, and the Middle East where we
want to ensure access to oil. We should not send aid to other parts
of the world, such as Africa, Asia, or Latin America, because we
do not really have vital security interests there.
In addition, 76% agreed that: "We should send aid to starving people
irrespective of whether it will promote the national interest."
Consistent with these attitudes, when CCFR's
November 1998 poll asked whether respondents wanted to increase,
maintain, decrease or eliminate foreign aid to Russia, Poland, Israel,
Egypt, and "African countries," African countries got
the strongest preference, with 62% wanting to maintain (38% ) or
increase (24% ) aid (decrease: 16%; eliminate: 13%). (In none of
the five cases did a majority or a plurality want to cut aid.)
In focus groups, participants frequently stressed that giving foreign
aid was a moral imperative above questions of self interest. Commenting
on the famine in Somalia, a Baltimore man said, "The US has no strategic
interests in Somalia—it does not affect our borders, economy, or
our defense. Yet it is a place that we should be providing food
because there are people who are starving." Another Baltimore man
made the point more generally:
I guess I disagree with the proposition that foreign aid
must be directly related to strategic interests. In a sense, it
goes back to what Barry Goldwater said about foreign aid: "Foreign
aid is bribery." I guess I’d like to think not—that as a citizen
in a community of nations, there are objectives that may or may
not be linked to American strategic interests, [like] feeding the
starving.
It seems that when Americans respond to suffering, they are not
greatly influenced by national boundaries.
When in October 1999 PIPA asked part of the sample how much they
were troubled by hearing about hungry children inside the US, on
a scale of 1 to 10, the average answer was 8.7 (8.6 in 1995). When
a different part of the sample was asked about hungry children outside
the US, the average answer was only slightly lower—7.6 (7.2 in 1995).
In a similar experiment in the same poll, respondents were asked
how much they were bothered by hearing about police brutality in
the US and gave an average answer of 8.0; for police brutality in
other countries, a different sample gave 7.6.
2)
Developing Trading Partners Back
to top
Most Americans see giving foreign aid as serving American self-interest,
or the national interest, not merely as humanitarian. In PIPA’s
January 1995 poll 63% agreed with the statement:
The world economy is so interconnected
today that, in the long run, helping Third World countries to develop
is in the economic interest of the US. Many of these countries will
become trading partners that buy our exports, so eventually our
aid will pay off economically.
Similarly in the September 1996 PIPA poll, 68% found merit in the
argument that: "The world is so interconnected today that, in the
long run, helping Third World countries to develop is in the economic
interest of the US." Even among those who said they had a negative
opinion of foreign aid, 55% said they found merit in the argument.
In an October 1999 PIPA poll 74% thought stronger
Third World economies would be good for US business opportunities;
63% thought they would be good for jobs in the US; and 70% thought
they would be good for the US economy.) A focus group participant
in Nashville remarked, "I do think that most of that money we spend
comes back to us, many times over. Because it’s a good investment."
4) Preserving the Environment
Back to top
This perception of the world as interdependent also leads many Americans
to view environmental aid as serving American interests. PIPA’s
1995 poll found strong support for environmental aid to poor countries—79%
wanted to increase spending or keep it the same—and in the 1992
Belden and Russonello study, a large majority (70%) thought that
a good reason for foreign aid is that "We can help save the global
environment by helping governments to stop destroying rain forests,
[and] retool polluting industries."
The importance that Americans place on addressing global environmental
challenges is evident in a 1994 Belden and Russonello poll, which
asked respondents to rate the seriousness of international problems
on a 1-to-10 scale. "Threats to the global environment" were rated
at 6.9—the same as "the threat of civil wars and international regional
conflicts" and just below "the spread of nuclear weapons" (7.1).
It was also rated the same as the domestic economy and higher than
immigration and race relations.
5)
Limiting Population Growth Back
to top
Americans’ support for spending on family planning to limit population
growth may also be related to the public’s perception of global
interconnectedness. Seventy-four percent of PIPA respondents wanted
to increase or maintain spending on family planning for poor countries
(January 1995). A 1992 Gallup poll found that 54% favored "an increase
in US economic aid and technical assistance to help developing countries
slow their population growth."
Insights from focus groups suggest that some Americans link overpopulation
with global environmental problems. A Portland woman commented on
the amount of money spent on population control: "That’s not enough,
and that’s the crux of the whole problem! The world is finite. The
poor in Brazil are burning forests so they can support their families,
which is destroying our air. It’s an enormous problem."
|
