Hospitals & Asylums    

Empirical US Foreign Assistance Statistics at the Close of the American Imperial Century: An Act to Secure a Voluntary 1 percent ODA Tax on Income HA-31-9-10

By Anthony J. Sanderssanderstony@live.com

I. Unified Accounting for Public and Private US Foreign Assistance…………………..2

II. The Legacy of the American Century…………………………………………………...7

III. Limiting US Military Assistance under Law…………………………………………..11

IV. The Futility of Sanctions and the Sanctity and Sovereignty of Humanitarian, Disaster and Development Assistance for Individuals in Need………………………………………..13

V. Recovering from USAID Pandemic of 1980…………………………………………...22

VI. Food Aid is Needed for those Pushed into Hunger by the Global Recession……….30

VII. Developing Nation Currency Appreciation, the Free Market Approach to Compensating for the Industrialized Currency Basket Case………………………………..36

VIII. Actual Analysis US Foreign Assistance and Statistical Direction to achieve Funding and Equity for MDGs Target for 2015 and 1% Social Security Tax by 2020……………..42

APPENDIX An Act to Secure a Voluntary 1 percent ODA Tax on Income…………….56

Section 1 The Empirical Master Table of US Foreign Assistance…………………………..57 Section 2 FR-ee, CC, MECA and SEA, and UNCLE………………………………………...58

Section 3 Voluntary International Development Payroll and Corporate Income Tax……59

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….59

Fig. 1: Map of the US Military Bases Worldwide 2001-2003………………………………..11

Fig. 2: 25 Nations Receiving US Military Assistance in Excess of $3 million……………….13

Fig. 3: International Assistance: Global Official Development Assistance 1990-2010……………..24

Fig. 4: PEPFAR Funding and Progress, 2009………………………………………………..26

1

Fig. 5: Food Aid Funding under the Farm Bill 2002, 2002-2006…………………………...31

Fig. 6: Exchange Rate Arrangement of a Few Nations………………………………………38

Fig. 7: Application of the Formula for Devaluating to Offset the Cost of a Bailout, 2008..40

Fig. 8: Regional Demand for Appreciation, 2009…………………………………………….41

Fig. 9: MDGs for 2015 Progress Report 1990 & 2005……………………………………….43

Fig. 10: Population, GDP, per capita, Aid Flows, ODA 2008, US Aid 2007, by Region…..48

Fig. 11: Foreign Assistance Related Statistics, by Nation 2007……………………………..50

I. Unified Accounting for Public and Private US Foreign Assistance

US foreign assistance aiming to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals is the hope and focus of US foreign policy and international relations. While sun may have set on the American Century, the Secretary of the UN (SUN) has not yet risen to be democratically elected under a UN Charter Legitimate Edition (UNCLE) that would establish an international social security style payroll tax and benefit administration for the world’s poor. The US has a considerable amount of apologizing to do for the liberties they stole in the latter half of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century and under the Draft Statute on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts of 2001 States may not merely apologize, but must make promises of non-repetition and pay compensation to the victims of human rights abuses. It is theorized that by the end of the 21st century global income will have been eradicated and everyone will equally enjoy the benefits of industrialization and social safety nets. This is a noble goal and must be the focus, pride and joy of US foreign relations as we move into a new Millennium. We must be cautious that in a liberal democracy the people are sovereign and the government is the enemy of the economy and therefore must keep fiscal intervention limited to the fulfillment of the human right of the individual and family not to be poor, or face the irrational consequences of market subsidies. The psychosis of subsidizing corporations and well paid workers, known respectively as fascism and communism, is nowhere more evident than in US Foreign Relations law, that is what must be censured, as directed in the conclusion to the following section on the legacy of the American Century. The main focus of this article, like US foreign policy in general, is however to fully analyze U.S. Census Bureau Table 1263 U.S. Foreign Economic and Military Aid by Recipient Country 2000 to 2007 that has already been incorporated into the development statistics of Book 5 on International Development.

Foreign assistance is what we want from foreign relations, not war or sanctions. We cannot run our foreign policy on either war or intelligence failures in the law, nor can we delay for an instant to redress the fatal flaws in the law, that undermine all our good intentions. Thanks to the empirical statistics of the US Census Bureau that deviate only slightly from the estimates of the Organization for Cooperation and Development (OECD) it is now possible to redress the

2

inequalities in foreign assistance law and improve our confidence in its administration. We can now eliminate imperial favoritism and military finance and create an equitable flow of relief to all the world’s poor, without cutting economic assistance to any but the richest states, because US foreign assistance, as a whole, must be dramatically increased to achieve the 0.7% of GDP contribution target for 2015. By nearly all metrics, the U.S. government has long been the most influential donor, and in absolute dollars the most generous. When public and private American support for global health, development, and humanitarian assistance are combined, the US ranks at about the middle range among donor nations for the EU target of giving 0.7 percent of its GDP for ODA (Garrett ’09). Without taking into consideration private donations, which do not formally qualify as ODA and are not accounted for as such by either the OECD or UNDP or sadly the US, the US is actually the most miserly in the industrialized world, contributing less than 0.2 percent of its GDP. If the US is to achieve the 0.7 percent of GDP target the US must dramatically increase their funding for international development, both by increasing the amount of assistance flowing through government channels and by accounting for and impressing upon OECD and UNDP that the US’s unique private assistance does indeed qualify as Official Development Assistance. For a belligerent nation craven to the most insane war propaganda ever translated from Arabic and intent upon torturing and degrading every expression of sovereignty by their citizens and citizens of other nations, this is impossible. On the other hand, if US government officially accounts for on the Internet, and steadily increases public and private international development assistance, to achieve the goal of 0.7 percent of GDP contribution by 2015, it can be done.

In addition to the $22 billion in ODA provided by the federal government, private U.S. philanthropic donors give more than $13 billion a year to overseas efforts, bringing the nation’s contribution to international development close to $35 billion, or roughly 0.25 percent of total U.S. GDP for 2007 ($13.7 trillion). The European Union has committed to a 2013 target of 0.7 percent of GDP foreign assistance spending (Garrett ’09). The US needs to commit to the 0.7 percent of GDP goal by 2015 to achieve the MDGs and get the US foreign assistance program on track. In FY ’07 total U.S. federal budget spending in FY07 was $2.7 trillion, U.S. GDP was $13.7 trillion however US ODA spending was $22 billion, or 0.16 percent of total U.S. GDP, only 0.8 percent of the federal budget. Total U.S. foreign assistance spending was $36 billion in FY07, or 0.26 percent of total U.S. GDP, however only 61 percent of US government foreign assistance was credited as ODA by the OECD and UNDP. To be credited as ODA, which is the foreign policy goal, specifically to contribute 0.7 percent of GDP to ODA by 2015, US foreign assistance spending must stop financing terrorism and tyranny and focus upon the uncontroversial goal of relieving poverty. On the other hand, tax deductible private contributions to nonprofit charitable corporations and missions dedicated to international development are technically government subsidies and the government must account for them to achieve the statistical goal for ODA and better coordinate the delivery of benefits to those most in need.

The United States theoretically executes foreign assistance under the terms of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act, which was partially rewritten and reauthorized in 1985. As originally conceived during the Kennedy administration, the FA Act was less than one hundred pages long and represented a fairly straightforward strategic mission. Over the subsequent half-century, the FA

3

Act has been amended so many times that it is now an incoherent document two thousand pages long, with at least thirty-three different goals, seventy-five “priority areas,” and 247 directives, and is executed by twenty-two implementing agencies that operate without any overarching strategic vision. It is an unwieldy piece of legislation that is frankly impossible to implement in its current form. The many amendments of the FA Act over the forty-seven years of its authorization have typically reflected the variant policies of different U.S. presidents and congressional leaders, not shifts in overseas needs and conditions (Garrett ’09). The original 1961 language of the Foreign Assistance Act states, “United States development cooperation policy should emphasize five principal goals: (1) the alleviation of the worst physical manifestations of poverty among the world’s poor majority; (2) the promotion of conditions enabling developing countries to achieve self-sustaining economic growth with equitable distribution of benefits; (3) the encouragement of development processes in which individual civil and economic rights are respected and enhanced; (4) the integration of the developing countries into an open and equitable international economic system; and (5) the promotion of good governance through combating corruption and improving transparency and accountability.

The congressional process of recrafting the FA Act should reflect a twenty-first-century strategic vision of why the United States engages in this exercise and to what end. Reorganizing how foreign assistance is administered, which agencies properly play a role, and which health and development issues and world regions it targets cannot be done properly until the very purpose of foreign assistance is determined (Garrett ’09). The original mandate of the FA Act is as true today as it was when it was written. The UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for 2015 have been highly effective at uniting international donors to achieve a set of concrete goals whose achievement is easily measurable. The MDGs however expire after 2015 and the goal of policymakers must be to apply the principles learned thereunder and therefrom to guide 21st international development strategies. The primary lesson is that extreme poverty is easily measured for the purpose of welfare eligibility to be less than $1 or $2 a day. Furthermore, dramatic improvements in health statistics arise from the combined forces of ethical epidemiologic surveillance and the implementation of agricultural infrastructure, schools, clean water and sanitation services. Wherefore foreign assistance must provide equitable cash relief of all individual poor persons who must be enabled to collectively invest a portion in hospitals, schools, transportation, agricultural, water and sanitation infrastructure, as well as the luxury of electrical and fuel power.

Though the United States of America faces its toughest budgetary and economic challenges since the Great Depression, it cannot afford to eliminate, or even reduce, its foreign assistance spending. For clear reasons of political influence, national security, global stability, and humanitarian concern the United States must, at a minimum, stay the course in its commitments to global health and development, as well as basic humanitarian relief and terminate their military adventures. The Bush administration sought not only to increase some aspects of foreign assistance, targeting key countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) and specific health targets, such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI), but also executed an array of programmatic and structural changes in U.S. aid efforts. By 2008, it was obvious to most participants and observers that too many agencies were engaged in foreign assistance, 22 separate government agencies are involved in the administration of foreign

4

assistance, half of which is administrated by USAID, and that programs lacked coherence and strategy. Well before the financial crisis of fall 2008, there was a strong bipartisan call for foreign assistance reform, allowing greater efficiency and credibility to US efforts, enhancing engagement in multilateral institutions and programs, and improving institutional relations between US agencies and their partners, including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), recipient governments, corporate and business sector stakeholders, faith-based organizations (FBOs), academic-based implementers and researchers, foundations and private donors, United Nations (UN) agencies, and other donor nations (Garrett ’09). The prospects for reforming foreign aid are heightened by a combination of factors - a new presidential administration, growing pressure for fiscal prudence, and a mounting awareness among aid experts, especially in health care, of the cluttered nature of US aid programs. There is a sense throughout the government that dollars spent during a time of financial crisis have to be spent wisely. We no longer can have duplicating programs, policy redundancies, or contradictory programs. To rationalize U.S. foreign assistance policy by appointing a single official to direct aid efforts currently shared among twenty-two separate agencies is a good idea (McMahon ‘09).

There is a general consensus that the administration of US foreign assistance needs to be reformed. Many advocates in this arena favor immediate creation of a US cabinet department, this however does not offer a satisfactory solution to the vast architectural and coherence problems of US ODA and assistance efforts at this time. The suggestion of Laurie Garret Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations is that although department creation may represent a suitable aspiration for long-term planning, far more rapid and fundamental improvements in foreign assistance can be achieved by creating an office within the National Security Council that both advocates on behalf of development, health, and humanitarian responses inside the NSC and has statutory authority to coordinate and oversee all ODA and assistance activities executed by federal agencies, including DOD. Critics of this proposal argue that the NSC would logically seek to link development and aid too tightly to U.S. national security concerns. The appropriate guidance from the president’s office, coupled with congressional reexamination of the strategic goals of issues covered by the FA Act, can prevent inappropriate use of the foreign assistance apparatus for national security purposes. A parallel civilian panel should also be established that has statutory advisory authority over all ODA activities, roughly in the manner that the Joint Chiefs of Staff oversees the branches of the armed forces. Writing in the November/December 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs, three former USAID administrators made a strong case for both the expansion of foreign assistance, and the reorganization of ODA programs: To ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent on a single, coherent foreign aid bureaucracy under one chain of command, the next president will have to push national reforms through major institutions. The White House–based director of foreign assistance should have the flexibility to move resources and funds as exigencies require. Further, innovative research and development should be encouraged, with an agile USAID administrator capable of putting proven ideas into practice rapidly (Garrett ’09).

Institutional functionalism is well and good, but it must be paired with functional literacy, of their own and also an institutionalized respect for the literacy of the people who analyze and sue the government for equitable relief to sustain their functional family. Participatory democracy is self-explanatory and cannot be pre-conceived although authors must be protected against covert

5

attacks on their honor and family as the result of copyright infringement without respect for their moral and material interest to paid and informed of secondary transmissions of their work and not abused to launch armed attacks that will bring them into disrepute. The literacy requirement of a foreign assistance administration is simply to set a table of all regular US official development assistance to developing nations around the world and explain the administration of extraordinary disaster and humanitarian relief missions. As the section in this essay on military assistance termination shows the US Census Bureau Table 1263 on Foreign Assistance does the job. As for a position on the National Security Council it would be so much efficient to merely demand that US foreign assistance and UN Official Development Assistance statistics be accounted for in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook who has already been prohibited against assassination and publishes a regularly updated report everyone can access on the Internet. Therefore it would seem that the foreign assistance administration is complete – the Secretary of State in cooperation with USAID and +/- 22 government agencies involved in the administration of foreign assistance shall collectively keep accurate up to date statistics of the amounts and kind of relief they administer to foreign nations – officially with the US Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce that is cross-examined by the CIA World Factbook and reported to the UN Development Program. The unique circumstance is that these statistical tables must take into account the eccentric American phenomenon of private philanthropic contributions. For the government to account for this private assistance, without corrupting it, there is room for both a director of foreign assistance role in the Department of State and forms for private relief organizations to file with the Foreign Service declaring the humanitarian and developmental purposes of their private relief missions, that would be transmitted as statistics to the proper US Census Bureau account, without any need for disturbing the corrupt Democratic and Republican (DR) bipartisan system – a table for the bounty of US Foreign Assistance, OECD, UNDP and scholars would use.

While the elusiveness of the table of US Foreign Assistance might be frustrating to scholars this may be a blessing in disguise. Similar to other publicly available accounts regarding the embezzlements, swindles, bamboozles, sanctions and iniquities of public officials, foreign assistance statistics are jealously defended against equity, balance and fairness. If US foreign assistance is the same as UN Official Development Atlas (ODA), particularly viciously defended. For instance, the Great Recession can be entirely attributed to the extra-judicial reactionary coup against the balancing of global ODA. While it is a rather simple matter to levy more money for foreign assistance it is quite another to iron out the wrinkles and administrate aid on a per capita basis to the world’s poorest people. What exactly occurred is that when the Assistance Atlas was balanced, in part, to empirically enforce criticism of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for the excessive cost of their jail and military occupation and extremely punitive sanctions that had impoverished the traditionally wealthy Yugoslavian territory to be the poorest in Europe, the Tribunal killed the last two of four detainees represented. Then the day before the WHO Director General Lee Jong-wook, would have theoretically condemned the tribunal for overtly denying medical treatment to their prisoners, he was assassinated. No response or apology was made, nor was any disciplinary action taken. The entire non-respondent yet persecutory UN was seized by the “national” causes of death in the form of a Korean Secretary-General and now a Swiss President. So to protect a small personal fortune and unjust sanctions on a small nation, now doing well after Kosovar

6

independence, the entire world economy was paralyzed. This extra-judicial reactionary coup must not occur again to spite this analysis of US foreign assistance, or on any regular basis or other form for that matter. It is hoped the US will lead the UN ODA by example, and there is sufficient moralizing in this prose document regarding the often disturbing inequality that is so strong in the world Atlas, to forestall the fatalism of even the most psychotropic ally impaired judge, general or parliamentarian, who should not be served.

II. The Legacy of the American Century

Before the 20th century foreign assistance went entirely to finance direct colonialism in the form of foreign military campaigns and occupations or indirect colonialism in the form of subsidies and military backing for the corporate exploitation of the natural and human resources of non-Western countries. The purpose of empire building has historically been for the conqueror to exact taxes on the conquered people. Christian missionaries, were not much of an exception, and are best construed as a form of indirect colonialism in that nearly all of their funds went to the construction of churches and for the proselytization of the faith and conversion of the heathens (Go ’08). Occupied with the slavery issue and Western expansion, with the exception of the Spanish-American war of 1898, wherefrom the US gained colonial control of Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam, while letting the feisty Cubans, so skilled at shitting in the well, go, until the 20th century the US strictly adhered to the Monroe Doctrine of non-entanglement in European affairs, protection of American states against European domination, non-colonialism and non-intervention. As a fight to expel a European colonial power from the Americas and Pacific, the Spanish-American War was more of a conflict under the Monroe Doctrine, whereas the US-Philippine War 1898-1904 was the beginning of America’s reluctant imperialism that became the dominant, but never uncontested, world superpower of the 20th century, the so-called American century (Sanders ’09).

Having embarked on a progressive and scientific century based upon the accurate accounting of disease and vital statistics by the US Census beginning in 1900 the US set the stage for a more insidious, patronizing breed of colonial national interest, vacillating between compassion and conquest, more akin to a psychiatrist than a general, definitely the pathological liar of the century. Bi-polar affective disorder is evident in the half-wit totalitarianism of the Democratic and Republican (DR) bipartisan system, that has throughout the 20th century usually been unsuccessful in levying the 2/3 voter participation needed to qualify as a democracy, let alone uphold the principle of a sovereign people, with an increasingly sado-masochist tendency for perversity and cruelty written in the law and censured from the DSM-IV to enable the seizure of high office by progressively crueler and more abusive incompetents. It was not until the post–World War I tradition of Woodrow Wilson, and the League of Nations, Wilson’s brainchild the US refused to join, that the US became engaged in combating disease all over the world, and sought to use early schemes of foreign assistance to advance world peace and stability. Fleeing prohibition, the private sector began its unique involvement in global philanthropy. John D. Rockefeller set out, through his foundation, to scientifically understand and ultimately quite successful to eradicate a long list of infectious diseases from the Americas. In 1921 the Council on Foreign Relations was founded. The unease with the isolationist decision not to join the League, so soon after the victory in Europe, was marked in the codification of the civil law in

7

1924 at Title 22 Foreign Relations and Intercourse (a-FRaI-d), the US, it would seem, is a lover not a fighter, a deadlier battlefield by far, as science proves, and the first of a series of fatal flaws in the foreign relations law that must be redressed.

The Great Depression is usually attributed to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act whose barriers to trade devastated the global economy already weakened by Herbert Hoover, a great international humanitarian’s, legal vulnerability to the multiple personality disorder of J. Edgar Hoover’s fascist prohibitionist FBI sabotage established in 1924, the same year as the codification of the civil law. In his four terms as President, polio crippled Franklin D. Roosevelt created a social safety net that nearly led to a full economic recovery before he fought and won the bloodiest war in world history, from the safety of American soil, that claimed his body months before the end of the war and years before the eradication of polio (Sanders ’10). Following World War II, the United States signaled, again, willingness to generously support reconstruction and economic stability through the Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods agreements and the United Nations, that the US undermined at the San Francisco conference on international organization to draft a US dominated international military dictatorship. Important features of that era were the creation of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), both of which enjoyed strong U.S. support, particularly for successful campaigns to eradicate malaria, polio, smallpox, diphtheria, typhoid fever, and measles from Western Europe, the Americas, and Japan (Garrett ’09). Although the Marshal Plan (1948-1951) was cut short by the Korean War (1951-1954), Marshall won the Nobel Prize, the concepts of foreign assistance, reconstruction and humanitarian aid were proven successful in Europe and Japan.

As the Cold War, a sort of nuclear winter, came to dominate the international landscape, John F. Kennedy ushered the formal age of overseas aid, creating the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act (FA Act), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Peace Corps, and a powerful American commitment that by 1962 represented 3 percent of the entire federal budget. The worldwide ideological and military conflict between forces of communism and capitalism formed the backdrop to the congressional discourse over foreign assistance in 1961, Congress stipulated that the reason for taking part in overseas health and development programs was obvious and entirely separate from military motivations; stating: The Congress finds that fundamental political, economic, and technological changes have resulted in the interdependence of nations. The Congress declares that the individual liberties, economic prosperity, and security of the people of the United States are best sustained and enhanced in a community of nations which respect individual civil and economic rights and freedoms and which work together to use wisely the world’s limited resources in an open and equitable international economic system. Furthermore, the Congress reaffirms the traditional humanitarian ideals of the American people and renews its commitment to assist people in developing countries to eliminate hunger, poverty, illness, and ignorance. Therefore, the Congress declares that a principal objective of the foreign policy of the United States is the encouragement and sustained support of the people of developing countries in their efforts to acquire the knowledge and resources essential to development and to build the economic, political, and social institutions which will improve the quality of their lives (Garrett ’09).

8

The FAA and USAID, great inventions, were sabotaged by the creation of a USAID Bureau for Asia and the Near East (ANE) that has served as the battlefield for all subsequent wars since, casting into doubt the efficacy of foreign assistance. This inanity, like Title 22 after WWI, must have been sabotaged by a large residual presence of military intelligence infiltrating and dominating the Foreign Service, in that region following the Korean War, abusing the precedence of sabotaging well-intentioned foreign relations law. Acting quickly military intelligence did manage to fabricate a crisis in Vietnam in the early ‘60s before the assassination of the young, peace loving Kennedy brothers, and Vietnamese President. After helping to sabotage a vote on Vietnamese unification, Johnson escalated the conflict in Vietnam to a full scale war and to crush the domestic opposition created what he called a Great Society with Medicare and Medicaid as the centerpiece, to enforce the federal ill will. By the end of the Vietnam War a new even more insidious role was found for intelligence officers to wage a so called war on drugs under the supervision of an inappropriately named and unjust Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) that infringed deeply into all sectors of society, bio-medical, legal, theological, education and economic, to create a deep and widening income gap between the oppressed young idealists and a very toxic, realistic ruling class of socially dysfunctional illiterates. Hash smoking Arabs immediately attacked Israel and sore losers, jacked up the price of oil in retaliation, causing global economic slowdown, inflation and armed revolution, setting the current world stage. In 1978 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed, it would be a peep show. By 1980 judgment was so impaired the Customs Court Act established the Court of International Trade of the United States (CoITUS) a sexist capitalist pig, that plunged the world into recession and bears responsibility for the HIV/AIDS epidemic that has subsequently taken 25 million lives and infected more than 50 million people mostly in Southern Africa (Sanders ’10).

The end of the Cold War occurred in 1991, seemingly overnight the Soviet Union peacefully, and of its own volition, dissolved. Liberal democracy has won the Cold War. But the victory was a hollow one. The former Soviet Republics had a very bad economic performance and their economies backslid. The HIV/AIDS epidemic went unchecked and the neo-liberal trade policies of the colonial powers, using China as an example of successful devaluation, devaluated developing world currencies, exacerbating already great inequalities of income, ruthlessly exploiting natural and human resources, and intermittently engaging in military and judicial interventions in developing countries. Foreign relations law fell into disrepute during this time. USAID funding and staffing diminished dramatically. In 1991 President Bush Sr.’s rewrite of the Foreign Assistance bill was rejected by Congress. In 1994, Clinton introduced the Peace, Prosperity, and Democracy Act (PPDA) which would have repealed the FAA and substituted in its place a radical new account structure for foreign assistance programs, but it too was rejected. The civil law was so bad the only thing Congress could agree on was war, eg. NATO intervention in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and penal servitude, eg. the Cambodian and Yugoslavian Genocide Tribunals. President Bush Jr.’s full scale occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which took the lives of over a million Iraqis, reinvigorated foreign assistance efforts unified under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Both hawks and doves thought to neutralize the extraordinarily detrimental effects of unjust war with international economic cooperation aiming to achieve the MDGs. They were particularly successful in the questionable field of global health assistance, achieving Goal 6 to halt the spread of the AIDS epidemic, at a

9

cost of many billions of dollars. As history proves, so long as military intelligence manages to infiltrate civilian relief efforts, no good deed goes unpunished. International economic cooperation, unified under the MDGs, that drove a vibrant economy with laundered war funds, broke down when the Blair and Bush Administrations stepped down, sabotaging their exit to avoid prosecution, with the blessing of their incompetent successors, fatally compromised by the retention of the predecessor’s Defense Secretary, terrorist surveillance abusing statistical surveillance, analysis and administration, and the unique criminal responsibility of the US Vice President for CoITUS, the HIV/AIDS epidemic and economic sabotage that set the stage for a socio-pathologic administration of bio-medical torture perverting health (theology) and economy.

The legacy of the American century creates a pressing problem – the flaws in the law are fatally corrupt. The best intentions of American foreign assistance cannot be trusted because the flagrant errors of the past century have not been redressed. We do not know for certain whether or not foreign assistance even does any good or if it just makes developing nations dependent on the corruption that is keeping them poor in the first place. No law can pass through the Congress and White House that made these errors without fully redressing these incitements to genocide. For the most part, the only laws that do pass are either reauthorizations of old laws or new ideas, subverted by military or medical finance. Military finance has been subjected to limitations under foreign relations law and is subjected to its own account by the US Census Bureau. The dangers of bio-terrorism posed by medical finance indicate that medical finance, whether accepted as official development finance by the UN or ignored because it is private, needs its own separate account balance in order to subject it to the same sort of scrutiny military finance is, in this article. Going forward the good intentions of foreign assistance and international cooperation under the MDGs is clearly the way, however the unique, bizarre and extremely corrupt flaws in the law, from the American century, must be redressed. The list should be short and concise. The reason is self-explanatory and its enactment is mandatory. Unless the US can redress these technical errors the Democratic and Republican (DR) bipartisan system cannot be trusted to legislate, the UN should take up this condemnation campaign and accept the safer alternative of private donations from US philanthropists as Official Development Assistance (ODA), there is no room for debate – the flaws of US foreign relations law must be immediately corrected. There is poetic justice for everyone in the American Century Legacy Amendment Act:

1. Title 22 Foreign Relations and Intercourse (a-FraI-d) needs to be amended to Title 22 Foreign Relations (FR-ee). 2. The USAID Bureau for Asia and the Near East (ANE) needs to be completely dissolved into the Bureaus for the Middle East and Central Asia (MECA) and South East Asia (SEA).3. All international offices of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) need to be closed before the agency name is changed to Drug Evaluation Agency (DEA) and transferred to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with a new charge of prohibiting all disease pathogens known to bio-medical research.4. The Court of International Trade of the United States (CoITUS) needs to change its name to Customs Court (CC).

10

5. Having performed these amendments the US would have the standing to publicly apologize for sabotaging the UN Charter at the San Francisco Conference with military dictatorship and begin the process of ratifying the UN Charter Legitimate Edition (UNCLE) to establish a legitimate democratically elected tax administration.

III. Limiting US Military Assistance under Law The US Department of Defense (DoD) administrates an estimated $50-$100 billion abroad annually to support US military bases and foreign military assistance, not including war time surges. In 2005 the US Military has around 737 bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are normally 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide, not including war time surges, with a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipment. DoD is authorized to administrate only $800 million of foreign military assistance every year under 22USC(32)§2312 on the stipulation that; No defense articles shall be furnished on a grant basis to any country at a cost in excess of $3,000,000 except under 22USC(32)§2314 whereby defense articles under the Arms Export Control Act 22 USC(35)III§2751 will not get into the hands of people who are not employed by the government and that defense stockpiles are kept at US bases and value less than $50 million. The primary distinction between military assistance and deployment overseas is that foreign military assistance is given as a grant or loan to the government of a foreign nation for the development of their self-defense capabilities. At $13,025 million in 2007 the US clearly administrates more than the $800 million limit on foreign military assistance this section analyzes US Census Bureau Table 1263 estimates of US foreign military assistance administrated in 2007 is analyzed with particular attention to those nations receiving assistance in excess of $3 million.

Source: Dufour, Jules. The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases. 2007

11

The primary goal of US military assistance is to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries. Gross violations of internationally recognized human rights include mass murders, killing prisoners of war, torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, and other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of person. Countries determined to be in gross violation of human rights are not eligible for military assistance from the United States under 22USC(32)§2304. Essentially the US is prohibited against financing warfare in third countries, and explicitly against fighters of dirty, unethical wars that breech the laws of war. The US conflicts with this law for two reasons. First, the US military has been found guilty of all of these offenses in the War on Terror and with most and highest concentration of prisoners in the world cannot to be trusted to judge human rights. Second, of more relevance to this article, many of the primary grant recipients of US foreign military assistance, namely Israel but many others throughout a tarnished history, have been officially convicted human rights abuses. The projection of human rights issues on the rest of the world by the US is the utmost in hypocrisy, the US really needs to publicly and statistically free and compensate their own false arrestees and torture victims. Furthermore, countries receiving military aid shall participate in collective measures requested by the United Nations for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security, or for the purpose of assisting foreign military forces in less developed countries, or the voluntary efforts of personnel of the Armed Forces of the United States in such countries to construct public works and to engage in other activities helpful to the economic and social development of the country under 22USC(32)2302. We would definitely like to see militaries occupied in public works and engineering projects, but see far more intelligence failure triggering military assaults taking civilian lives, and the invasion of Iraq was without UN approval. The US and their allies need to uphold these standards of human rights and development or find their moral and material support terminated.

Of 67 nations receiving US foreign assistance 43 received military assistance, 64 percent. 26 nations received US foreign military assistance in excess of $3 million, 39 percent. If all recipients were limited to $3 million or less, total US foreign military assistance could be limited to $106 million; this would give some nations some leeway to receive tens of millions or one or two, up to a hundred million dollars, without infringing upon the arbitrary $800 million limit. Among the sharpest changes made by the Bush administration involve the dramatic increase in the role of the Department of Defense (DOD) in foreign assistance programs. In 2000, the DOD received 3.5 percent of the US foreign assistance budget, around $1.3 billion, not too much more than the $800 million limit, easily explained by the delivery of humanitarian assistance and work of the US Army Corp of Engineers. By FY08 however the DOD allotment increased to 22 (31) percent of total US foreign assistance (Garrett ’09) a little more than $13 billion. In 2007 $41,940 million in total US foreign assistance, was administrated by US government agencies. $28,915 million was economic assistance, 69 percent of the total, only $21,787 million of which was credited by the OECD DAC as ODA, 52 percent of the total, or 75 percent of so-called economic assistance that should be credited as ODA. $13,025 million was military assistance, 31 percent of the total, none of which, even that contributed to official UN peacekeeping or UN Security Council authorized International Security Missions, can be credited as ODA. Foreign

12

military assistance is generally not popular in either the US or the receiving countries, is not a source of credit in international economic cooperation and is in fact frowned upon and looked upon with considerable suspicion. US foreign military assistance and foreign military bases, in general, really need to be eliminated to relieve pressures on the budget and foster a just and lasting peace.

25 Nations Receiving US Military Assistance in Excess of $3 million

# Country Military Assistan

ce2007

% of

Total

Military Assistan

ce2015

# Country Military Assistance 2007

% of Total

Military Assistance 2015

1 Iraq -4,143 32% -3 14

Turkey -18 0.1% -3

2 Afghanistan

-3,642 28% -50 15

Romania -16 0.1% -3

3 Israel -2,340 18% -0 16

Morocco -14 0.1% -3

4 Egypt -1,301 10% -3 17

Ukraine -11 0.08%

-3

5 Pakistan -312 2.4%

-3 18

Georgia -11 0.08%

-3

6 Sudan -254 2% -0 19

Bosnia & Herzegovi

na

-10 0.08%

-3

7 Jordan -211 1.6%

-3 20

El Salvador

-9 0.07%

-3

8 Russia -112 0.9%

-50 21

Indonesia -9 0.07%

-3

9 Colombia -87 0.7%

-3 22

Azerbaijan -5 0.03%

-3

10

Liberia -56 0.4%

-20 23

Kazakhstan

-4 0.03%

-3

11

Philippines

-43 0.3%

-3 24

Albania -4 0.03%

-3

12

Poland -31 0.2%

-3 25

Macedonia -4 0.03%

-3

13

Bulgaria -24 0.2%

-3 0 United States

13,025 100%

211

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Foreign Economic and Military Aid by Recipient Country 2000 to 2007. Table 1263

Afghanistan with $3,642 million, 28 percent of the $13,025 million total, and Iraq with $4,143 million, 32 percent of the total, are the primary recipients of US foreign military assistance. The

13

reason is that Afghanistan and Iraq have been the primary battlefields of the so-called war on terror and both nations have been invaded by US led international security assistance forces and had their governments overthrown. As the result of the overthrow of their governments the occupying powers have been responsible for reconstituting military and police forces in these countries with the objective of maintaining their own security independently and without any need for foreign assistance. At the prevailing wages in these nations a billion dollars could pay the wages and equip 100,000 troops. This is a mighty contribution by a third party to the national security of a sovereign state with only around 500,000 military and police officers in nations of around 25 million people each. While there is definitely conflict in these states, 500,000 military and police officers, 20 per 1,000 residents, is a higher concentration than one would find in nearly any other State. Iraq has been making a killing on high oil prices and should be able to pay their own security forces. There has also been a drawdown in US forces in Iraq so foreign military assistance should be dramatically reduced to $3 million or zero. Afghanistan poses a different problem because they are so poor, and to pay the wages and equip their military and police forces, to secure their territory independently Afghanistan must create a National Opium Agency, the nonexistence of which is their entire economic and security problem, being the world’s largest producer of black market opium, with which to finance their government and tax their wealthy. Opium is however not quite enough to run a social safety net and regime on, so some foreign assistance will be needed. Military assistance is the most subversive of foreign finances and should be limited by law. Military assistance to Afghanistan and Iraq should probably be folded into Veteran’s Benefit programs and terminated. The less money we spend in these conflicts, the less responsibility we have for the violence that is probably more the result of our own tyranny and anti-colonial reaction, than any domestic failing. An Afghan Opium Agency, 25-50% of their shameful economy, promises far more peace than force of arms.

The spiritual, psychological and theological underpinning of the conflict of the West with the Muslim world is definitely the Palestinian struggle for statehood with Israel. It is so important to peace in the region that Article 6 of the Treaty of Peace between the United States of American and Afghanistan calls for the creation of a Palestinian Supreme Court to fulfill Arafat’s Constitution. President Obama, in his otherwise nicotine withdrawal laced speech to the 65th General Assembly promised, “The Holy Land has become a symbol of our differences, not of our common humanity. The Arab Peace Initiative should help to normalize relations with Israel and politically and financially help Palestinians to build the institutions of their state. Those who long to see an independent Palestine must stop tearing Israel down. We should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions. Next year we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations, an independent sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel”. Polls conducted shortly before 9/11 suggested that throughout the Middle East more than 60 percent of respondents viewed the plight of the Palestinians as the most significant regional challenge. In Jordan, the IAF backs abrogation of the 1994 peace treaty, while in Egypt, twenty years since the passage of the Camp David Accords, the public remains deeply antagonistic to the Israeli state. Egyptian professional associations still forbid their members from having contact with their Israeli counterparts, and the level of commerce and dialogue between the two societies remains nearly nonexistent. The prevailing cold peace between Israel and the Arab states will likely be transformed into a cold

14

war, with its own corollary suspicions, tensions, and arms races. The American and Israeli dream of normalization and integration of Israel in a democratic Middle East does not appear to be rooted in reality indeed, all indicators suggest that democratic Arab regimes would find it even harder to participate in a peace process closely scripted by Washington. Only 0.3% of all Egyptian imports come from Israel (Takeyh & Gvosdev ’03).

On the issue of U.S. aid, Egypt’s leading secular and Islamist parties strike a similar chord in their call for Cairo to forgo American assistance. While the president of the Wafd Party, Noaman Gomaa, calls on financial experts to ‘‘establish a program so that Egypt could dispense with American aid,’’ the spokesman of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, Maamoun al-Hodeiby, notes that ‘‘any aid from the United States is not in our benefit”. Egypt’s opinion leaders certainly find the public on their side: a 2002 Pew survey revealed that only 6 percent of Egyptians had a ‘‘favorable’’ view of the United States. In March 2003, the Press Syndicate issued a statement denouncing U.S. policies ‘‘designed to maintain a grip on the region’s resources, temper its sovereignty, and eliminate the Palestinian resistance and Arab rights’ (Takeyh & Gvosdev ’03). US foreign military assistance to Israeli, Egypt and Jordan has triggered an arms race in contravention to 22USC(32)§2314 and at $2,340 million for Israeli, 18 percent of total military assistance, $1,301 million for Egypt, 10 percent, and $211 million for Jordan, 1.6 percent, is ridiculously high. The elimination of US foreign military assistance to the region must be a major issue in the US President’s talks regarding Palestinian statehood. Israel, although the US’s ally, was recently convicted of human rights atrocities by the High Commission for Human Rights, for the increasingly barbaric assaults on Palestine leading up to Winter of 2008-2009 and as a result is no longer eligible for military assistance under 22USC(32)§2304. Eliminating this ridiculously large amount of military assistance to a wealthy state would greatly reduce the intelligence failures that precipitate these assaults on Palestine. The presence of an arms race with Egypt and to a lesser extent with Jordan is however evident and the unpopular military finance to these states must also be eliminated to maintain the balance of power without force of military finance. To ensure the security of the religiously divided region the US, Israel, Jordan and Egypt should eliminate US military finance by the signing of a non-aggression pact that taking into consideration Arab hostilities, promises to defend Israel against any military assault, and if permitted construct a military base there to keep the promise, and to assure the region that the US will not take part in, nor condone, any offensive actions of Israel whatsoever, against the territorial integrity of Palestine or any other neighboring or foreign State, or obstruct or in any way detract from the primary regional objective of Palestinian statehood.

Military finance to Pakistan valued at $312 million, 2.4 percent of the total, needs to be eliminated whereas it is unpopular and subversive in a powder keg nation recovering from Islamist totalitarianism and human rights abuses (Durna ’01). The Lahore High Court Bar Association issued a statement in November 2002 claiming that “America is not an enemy to any specific Muslim state but it is after the whole Muslim community everywhere in the World”. It further claimed that the United States is using terrorism as a pretext to ‘‘destroy the whole Muslim world.’’ In January 2003, the Association took the lead in organizing seminars to protest what it perceived as the Musharraf government’s surrender of ‘‘sovereignty’’ to the United States, when he first engorged on US military assistance to the current level. Benazir Bhutto, a

15

leading representative of Pakistani secular democracy, assassinated in 2009, rejected the MMA’s more radical positions but insists that her party, the Pakistan People’s League, is ‘‘pro-American.’’ Hamid Mir, a Pakistani commentator, has opined, ‘‘The future politics of Pakistan seem to evolve around the opponents of the United States, not around its friends” a sentiment borne out by the March 2003 debate in the Pakistani parliament after the war commenced in Iraq. Islamists and secularists alike joined forces to call on the government to clearly oppose American ‘‘designs’’ on the region, with Pakistan People’s Party leader Aetizaz Ahsan opining that ‘‘a friendly regional country or neighbor was much better than a far off ally” (Takeyh & Gvosdev ’03). Besides the military assistance that is used to bribe the Pakistani military into acquiescence regarding covert drone strikes and other operations against northern the presence of a US military logistic and supply center for the supply of Afghanistan and the DEA office are detrimental to Pakistani security and intelligence, and need to be removed from the country, for a just and lasting peace, that seeds the monsoon clouds of neither the northern countrymen, Court, nor God. The US cannot continue to finance a cover up of the drone strikes, nor the psychotropic substances and suicide vests; the US has abused the power they bought from the Pakistani military and must leave (Sanders ’10).

Military assistance to Sudan, valued at $254 million, 2 percent of 2997 disbursement, is controversial but seems to have been successful in establishing a tenuous peace. Military finance for the Sudanese government should be completely prohibited for the crimes of genocide committed against the Darfur region, for which the President Bashir has been indicted at the International Criminal Court under 22USC(32)§2304. However Professor Bingu Wa Mutharika, President of the Republic of Malawi and Chairman of the African Union stated to the 65th Session of the UN General Assembly, “The situation in Sudan has seen some progress toward the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the African Union eagerly awaits the referendum in January 2011. Prevailing peace and stability in Sudan needs to be consolidated. While efforts to secure a lasting peace are ongoing, the International Criminal Court continues to push for a pound of flesh by insisting upon the arrest of the President Omar Bashir. There is general consensus in Africa that this will negatively polarize the different positions of stakeholders, thereby driving them away from a peaceful settlement”. The US should definitely eliminate military financing for the government of President Bashir. Closer inspection of the law would however find that it is the ICC that is most in violation of the due process protections of 22USC(32)§2304 while President Bashir may have committed, aided and abetted, mass murder in Darfur, the violence has stopped and a democratic peace is near, the ICC on the other hand threatens great injustice to the peace maker. The military finance to Liberia valued at $56 million, 0.4% of the GDP, should wind down. While the military might need some improvements after Charles Taylor was imprisoned and paraded before the European powers. Liberia, established by freed American slaves, is probably the best place for a first US African Command base to be located.

Americans’ limited interest in history may prevent them from appreciating how the region’s inability to fully extricate itself from successive global empires has conditioned its political culture. Arabs’ objections to the United States stem not from a rejection of Western values and institutions, but from a desire to escape the domineering grip of yet another great power. If represented in the councils of governments, most Middle Eastern governments would place a

16

higher priority on national issues than on accommodating great-power considerations. Beyond the issue of U.S. influence, a more representative Middle East is also likely to disappoint Washington in other key areas. The dilemma faced by American statesmen is that the imperial structure in the Middle East is seemingly contingent on unresponsive dynasties and lifetime presidents who use petrodollars and great-power patronage to shield themselves from their restive constituents, provoking their own insurgents, rebels, and terrorists. Yet the instruments of American empire—its military bases, its espousal of regime change, its desire to bind the region in a web of peace compacts with Israel—are all resented by a hard-pressed Arab populace. The average Arab may have disdained Saddam, but is even more deeply disenchanted with the Western power that displaced him. The problems of poverty, underdevelopment, institutional decay, and the demographic explosion are beyond the ken of the current rulers, as the 2002 Arab Human Development Report vividly described. Indeed, there is enormous value in the claim that the prevailing regimes’ corruption, inefficiency, and mismanagement led to the rise of a disaffected generation easily deluded by the false pledges of radical Islam. The Turkish military is a little different in that the armed forces will not permit anything that potentially jeopardizes the connection to the West, particularly the United States. The coups d’etat of 1960 and 1980 and the intervention that brought down an Islamist government in 1997 were all done to keep Turkey firmly within the Western camp. The critical question is how the United States should proceed in crafting new governing arrangements, given the risks of democratization and the untenable nature of the status quo (Takeyh & Gvosdev ’03).

Besides some scattered finance in Russia $112 million, Columbia $87 million, Philippines $43 million, US foreign military finance is otherwise not a very big deal. Russia does pretty well disarming their nuclear arsenal in cooperation with the US but should divide their focus to prohibit the biological and chemical weapons that are shortening the male life expectancy to 50 years. Columbia needs to end its drug war and should probably legalize indigenous coca growing. All would do better without fear that their US military financing is subverting their democracy, or worse faith a foreign military power can save them against their neighbor, and reduce their spending to the arbitrary limit of $3 million or wiser yet $0. Osama bin Ladin has completely destroyed the already bad reputation and integrity of US military assistance. Bin Ladin was a military assistance recipient during the Afghan-Soviet War of 1979-1980 and when his funding was terminated, labeled the US, the Great Satan. The devastation of the 9-11 attacks and even greater devastation of the Afghan and Iraq wars upon the morality of the colonial powers, threatens to end Western power as surely as the Afghan-Soviet War led to the dissolution of the USSR. Muslim countries and others, such as Sudan where bin Ladin did considerable business and plotted an embassy bombing, are in a prime position to extort military finance; for fear that they also rebel if the assistance stops (Durna ’01). Hunting Al Quaida, the base, and Taliban, the students, is the most psychotic and hypocritical propaganda to incite colonial military bases and increasingly illiterate professors and militant bio-terrorist university research laboratories to violence, tyranny and terrorism, we have ever heard. Let a criminal be treated as a criminal, the ICC has failed to prosecute their own homicidal judicial officers or condemn the infinitely corrupt drug cops torturing on the colonial militancy, so we must forge a just and lasting peace in an age when the truth, that justice is criminal, is ascendant. Without any legal system to rely upon we cannot tolerate any illegal or abusive activity on the part of the government. Foreign military finance creates an intelligence failure of the ready and willing to

17

launch pre-planned assaults at the slightest drop of peace treaty. All military finance in excess of $3 million must be terminated. The total should be swiftly brought below the $800 million limit. When African nations are impressed by the zero violence, the US military learned from the Arabs, they will welcome African Command bases, and accept US military finance.

IV. The Futility of Sanctions and the Sanctity and Sovereignty of Humanitarian, Disaster and Development Assistance for Individuals in Need

The devastating effect of sanctions has been witnessed by the two most recent Secretary-Generals of the United Nations who have observed that sanctions on trade tend to harm the innocent and vulnerable members of the nation’s population rather than the people in power who the sanctions are intended to dis-empower. Therefore the President is required to abide by the Security Council’s very specific description of the programs and/or commodities that are to be restricted by the sanction under 22USC(79)§7202, he or she must demonstrate that these sanctions will directly affect only the “terrorist” organizations making breaches in internationally recognized human rights and must be approved by a joint resolution. Sanctions are therefore authorized for 1 year to prohibit a state from supplying lethal arms to a terrorist organization under 22USC(32)§2378. Under 22USC(79)§7204 any universal sanctions on agricultural, medical or trade commodities imposed shall terminate within 2 years of the issuance of the sanctions unless the President issues another sanction request to Congress and it is approved by a joint resolution to be enacted as law. Specific Sanctions against states alleged to support terrorism have been permanently codified such as Cuba, Taleban Afghanistan, Syria under 22USC(79)§7205 and Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Cuba under 22USC(79)§7207 prohibiting the furnishing of relief or exports without the waiver of the president for national security or humanitarian reasons. Relief programs to these countries must be approved by the President and be reviewed every year.

The lesson of sanctions for all humanitarian and development assistance programs is that donors of foreign assistance must always be careful to give humanitarian and developmental aid directly to the poor people or the collectives thereof, for needed industrial development projects, such as water, sanitation, hospitals and schools. The Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo argues, the concept of foreign aid is flawed -- not just because corrupt dictators divert aid for nefarious or selfish purposes but also because even in reasonably democratic countries, aid creates perverse incentives and unintended consequences (Bhagwati ’10). As the Great Recession shows, market subsidies for corporations and rich are inherently unpredictable, however as the Iraq Reconstruction Fund, Haitian Earthquake Relief and Pakistan Flood Relief show fulfilling the need for humanitarian assistance to those people in need is stabilizing to an economy of a nation whose government has been invading the privacy of its upstanding citizens, particularly petitioners, with its illiterate, torturous and oppressive security apparatus. Governments of developing nations, who have no precedence of good governance, are not any more trustworthy than governments of industrialized nations, even in the best of circumstances. It is important that international assistance take a critical view of states because in a democracy the people are sovereign and all assistance should go directly to those people in need, and not be lost in the corruption and greed and persecutions of government and corporate officials. Because many development projects are out of the reach of the individual, be they wealthy or poor, it is

18

important that democratic safeguards are imposed so that international assistance is the property of the people in need who by grace of community planning have the right to participate in public meetings and vote on community development projects such as school, hospital, water and sanitation and electrification projects that would take a portion of their cash assistance, no matter how corrupt the government, unless it is too dangerous for people to peaceably assemble, exactly like tax levies at home.

Andrew S. Natsios, U.S.A.I.D. director under George W. Bush, now teaches at Georgetown and is a fervent believer in using aid to sway minds. He said “To suggest people won’t have a reaction when they see us feeding our enemies and our friends at the same time is silly”. Before the 2004 tsunami, only 28 percent of Indonesians admired the United States, while 58 percent admired Osama bin Laden. Three months later, after Navy helicopters had flown rescue missions and delivered thousands of aid packages, “and after there was a big debate in the papers about where ‘our friend bin Laden’ was,” he said, approval of the terrorist leader had fallen to 26 percent and approval of Americans was at 63 percent. Every aid package, he pointed out, bore a “From the American People” label his local mission chief had printed. The United States had stopped branding its aid in the 1990s because charities wanted to use only their own labels. “I found that a little hypocritical,” Mr. Natsios said. Now an “American People” label must be used unless it puts a charity’s workers in peril. Other American agencies, he said, envy USAID’s friendly blue clasped-hands logo, which it inherited from the Marshall Plan. J. Brian Atwood, President Bill Clinton’s chief of USAID, the United States Agency for International Development, who is now dean of the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, warned “We shouldn’t be using aid to proselytize. Helping others has always been an American value.” Overall, the Pew polls tend to bear out what aid officials believe: that help wins friends. Countries that steadily get lots of American aid with few strings attached — African nations, South Korea, Israel — tend to top the charts of pro-American feelings. And one nation really stands out. Ever since Barack Obama was elected, Kenyans have loved the U.S. In fact, they like it even better than Americans do (McNeil ’10).

Existing sanctions that have been codified in the law need to be repealed as under 22USC(32)§2374, now repealed, whereunder the government of Afghanistan had to apologize for the death of Ambassador Adolph Dubs. The prohibition of imports from Cuba under 22USC(79)§7208 515.204 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations of all products that 1) is of Cuban origin; (2) is or has been located in or transported from or through Cuba; or (3) is made or derived in whole or in part of any article which is the growth, produce, or manufacture of Cuba. Travel to Cuba is restricted by regulation published by the Secretary of the Treasury under 22USC(79)§7209 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations. Libya has paid reparations to victims in the Lockerbie bombings at the UN Compensation Commission and Col. Gadhafi was never personally involved in the bombings although people in his administration were. The Libyan leader’s daughter was killed in the US retribution, complicating dialogue. Syria continues to maintain a military presence in Lebanon but it is a peacekeeping action and Syria makes no claims to being a supporter of terrorism. Sudan, once a supporter of Al Quaeda, no longer is, and expelled all affiliated terrorist and charitable organizations from Sudan. The President of Sudan offered to extradite Osama bin Ladin to the United States after an embassy bombing but was refused by President Clinton who later issued an illegal request to assassinate bin Ladin. Sudan’s

19

Islamic rhetoric renounced money for their compliance and they missed their day in grace to be removed from this list of sanctions. The Darfur region of Sudan has been subjected to government sponsored terrorism by the Janjaweed militia and the nation has been subjected to new sanctions therefore, and is also a major recipient of aid. North Korea is currently non-compliant with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but appears very scared that the Korea will be next to fall before the Americans as it was at the end of World War II. They require a non-aggression treaty from the US President to forfeit their claims to nuclear weapons and also requires significant financial assistance to unite with South Korea. Prohibitions prevent the PLO from opening any offices or providing any support other than information in the United States or the United States from opening any offices with money from the United States under the FA Act. The elected Palestinian Authority is not under any such sanctions but must create a Palestinian Supreme Court to bring its militants to justice. Arms embargoes, on the other hand, should be continued and extended.

The United States needs to make better use of relief dollars, to make friends helping those in need. First, the number of people affected by disasters is on the rise. By the end of last year, some 43 million people were displaced by conflict -- the highest figure in over a decade. Others have been impacted by natural disasters, including millions of Pakistanis displaced this month due to torrential downpours and flooding. Victims of war, medical and natural disasters all need the same thing compensation and burial costs for the families of the deceased, compensation and medical treatment for the injured, and relocation in the initial emergency package and more expensive reconstruction grants and loans when the area is secure and alternative considered. Second, US humanitarian assistance is a sound investment, aid not only saves lives, but promotes security and well-being where despair and misery threaten, this undeniable fulfillment of rights is always a stabilizer to the insane economy. After the initial death and destruction caused by the January earthquake in Haiti, US -provided food, shelter and medicine was critical in enabling Haiti to avert further large-scale loss of life and has helped to permit the country's leaders and civil society to focus on the recovery process ahead. After a month in economic free-fall relief for Pakistan helped normalize the US economy. In Africa, US funds have played an important role in the return home of more than 3.5 million African refugees over the past decade, now there is a black man in the White House. Third, we must transform our efforts to prevent disasters, caused either by war or natural hazards, we must do our war criminals justice be they conventional, biological, and chemical or environment modifying. When disaster strikes civilian populations in nations that cannot afford the costs therefrom, the US has always set aside their sanctions to help those people in need and usually walked away a friend. Ironically the nations the US pays the most are nations the US is at war. This needs some care because in tense situation where there is armed or ideological conflict between the US and the developing nation, the only form of assistance that should pass is basic welfare benefits for poor individuals (Schwartz & Reichle ’10).

The history of disaster relief goes back at least to 226 B.C., when an earthquake struck the island of Rhodes. Ptolemy III of Egypt, according to the Greek historian Polybius, offered “300 talents of silver and a million artabae of corn,” plus help rebuilding the famous Colossus. Such aid doesn’t always stem from charity alone, said Carol J. Lancaster, dean of Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service. England helped Portugal after Lisbon’s 1755 earthquake, tsunami and fire. Both

20

were rivals of Spain, she said, “and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Americans who wanted to help Ireland during its potato famine had to use their own money because President Polk wouldn’t use tax dollars, Dr. Lancaster said, though he let the Navy carry grain to Cork. American Protestants ran soup kitchens, but pressed diners to convert. (Irish Catholics sneeringly called those who did “soupers.”) The most generous gesture may have been $710 sent by the Choctaw Indians, who knew starvation from their own Trail of Tears. After World War I, taxpayers did feed shattered Europe. That included Russia in its famine of 1921; the two-year American mission fed and vaccinated millions. But, however many hearts they won, Lenin’s was not one. The Soviets pushed the mission out before the famine ended (McNeil ’10). World Humanitarian Day, which the UN established on August 19 of every year, to pay tribute to aid efforts for victims of conflict and natural disasters, and to honor the memory of more than 700 humanitarian relief workers worldwide who lost their lives in service during the past decade (Schartz & Reichle ’10).

As the military clearly demonstrated in its extraordinary mobilization to Aceh in response to the 2004 tsunami, DOD ability to move supplies and personnel anywhere in the world is unrivaled. No NGO or civilian agency has ever shown an equivalent capacity for rapid response to humanitarian catastrophe. But since September 11, 2001, the armed forces have tackled issues previously considered the exclusive domain of civilian agencies, prompting concern about what many NGOs and civilian agency personnel call the growing militarization of foreign aid. Controversies regarding the appropriate roles for military personnel in humanitarian and development arenas are being debated all over the world, and are hardly exclusive to the U.S. discussion. Since the early 1990s, pressure has increased inside the United Nations and the European Union for military action to prevent genocide and famine. The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, or R2P, has been cited as justification for placing military personnel in the Darfur refugee camps, and French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner invoked R2P following Cyclone Nargis when calling for a massive international military intervention to bring food and medical supplies into Myanmar. However, the UN Security Council has never endorsed an R2P intervention. Some advocates would go further, calling for a sort of Responsibility to Prevent. In this view the militaries of the world must play a direct role in constructing the peace, engaging in a broad array of development efforts with the goal of undermining support for terrorism and oppression. Whether the military actually builds bridges or surrounds and protects civilian bridge-builders is almost immaterial. The reasoning, argue institutions and individuals as diverse as the World Bank, the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), and noted author Paul Collier, is that desperate poverty and genocidal oppression go hand in hand, and must be confronted simultaneously. The Nobel Peace Prize–winning humanitarian aid organization Médecins Sans Frontiers (also known as Doctors Without Borders) counters that the increased presence of combat-ready armed forces personnel in humanitarian operations blurs the line between the civilian and military “foreigners” and therefore puts unarmed civilian actors at increased risk of violence. General Anthony C. Zinni and Admiral Leighton W. Smith Jr. retired from the Marine Corps and the Navy, respectively, and are co-chairs of the Center for U.S. Global Engagement’s national security advisory council. They argued in March 2008 in USA Today that “the U.S. cannot rely on military power alone to keep us safe from terrorism, infectious disease and other global threats that recognize no borders” (Garrett ’09).

21

The sanctions against members of the African Union and the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) have caused great hardship especially to the poor and more vulnerable people in these countries. The African Union feels their ideological justification, if there ever were any, have outlived their time. The African Union therefore appeals for the immediate lifting of sanctions against the Republic of Zimbabwe and the Republic of Cuba (Mutharika ’10). Zimbabwe in particular has suffered a reduction in their per capita income from $1,300 to $100, the lowest ever reported by the CIA World Factbook for any nation, since they appropriated the land of white farmers and incurred the wrath of the recession stricken West. While it is important to monitor and keep track of the human rights situations in foreign and developing nations and to express displeasure with the actions of the government or terrorist organizations there, it is however even more important that the illegal and oppressive actions of the government or non-state actors does not succeed in demoralizing and impoverishing the general populace. Ultimately international development assistance is the same as domestic welfare programs. Although the States engage in all sorts of slavery, oppression and violence the social safety net continues to help people in need with food, cash and medical assistance. Programs must however be careful that they are representing the sovereign people and not using welfare dependency as an instrument of oppression and identity theft for the State or worse, involuntary biological experimentation. The goal of foreign assistance programs, in other than humanitarian crisis where emergency supplies such as food, tents and medicine are needed, should be increasingly to give poor individuals the cash assistance they need to live at the poverty line. This cuts out the middle man, the dealer in moldy bread, and allows consumer demand to foster a vibrant free market, like food stamps and ideally social security that provides beneficiaries with the cash to afford their own subsistence.

V. Recovering from USAID Pandemic of 1980

During the Cold War, the United States took its foreign assistance efforts very seriously, building up a professional corps of health and development expertise that largely resided within USAID. By 1980, USAID had more than four thousand permanent employees, representing a range of skills that included engineering, hydrology, agronomy, financial management, logistics, and supplies planning and medicine. Struggling with the stigma of the AIDS pandemic, today the agency is whittled down to merely 2,200 employees, most of whom spend their days managing an array of contractors and NGOs that, often at great cost, implement programs akin to those once done by government employees. To accommodate drastic cuts in its budgets every year, USAID has closed down offices in twenty-six countries and transformed into a bureaucratic management organization to perform most of its work through contractors, collective and NGOs. Recognizing the lack of strategic direction for foreign assistance as well as its structural incoherence, the Bush administration tried to repair matters without confronting the legislative language of the FA Act. During the two terms of the Bush administration, US foreign assistance underwent multiple changes, including the creation of a host of entirely new programs, an enhanced role for the secretary of state, the merging of USAID under the direction of the Department of State in the “F process,” and a striking increase in the role of the Department of Defense. The absolute dollar commitment has increased from $11.4 billion in 2001 to $27.5 billion in 2005. The majority of that $10.2 billion increase went to Iraq, Afghanistan, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI). The selection of Obama’s Vice as one of the architects of CoITUS scandal that

22

devastated the international economy was a major setback for the global economy but properly played can give rise to the redress of a century of corruption in the law. Despite the increase in absolute dollar commitment to foreign assistance, the 150 Account’s share of the total U.S. budget has not risen above 0.5 percent, and its apportionment has shifted radically:

1. In 2007, net ODA by the United States was $21.8 billion, representing a fall of 9.9 percent in real terms from 2006. 2. In FY1998, the Department of Defense garnered about 3.5 percent of U.S. ODA; by FY05 about 22 percent of ODA was channeled through the DOD, second only to USAID, which provided 39 percent of ODA assistance in FY05. 3. Between FY06 and FY08 the USAID budget was cut by 30 percent, with most of these funds being shifted from traditional development assistance accounts (DAA) to economic support funds (ESF), intended to be used by the secretary of state to advance U.S. strategic objectives. Overall, USAID has experienced a 37 percent funding reduction since FY01.4. Of total estimated spending on global health issues, the HIV/AIDS pandemic was the object of about $236.1 million of U.S. foreign assistance in FY00 (approximately 2 percent of FY00 foreign aid budget); by FY07 PEPFAR and HIV/AIDS programs were a primary target of all U.S. aid, receiving $3.3 billion, or about 15 percent of all U.S. foreign assistance and 60 percent of total U.S. funding for global health. 5. In 2000, Iraq and Afghanistan combined received less than one percent of U.S. ODA; by FY07 ODA for Iraq and Afghanistan exceeded 24 percent of the total U.S. ODA budget (not including traditional military expenditures). 6. Since passage of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act, each administration has tried to walk a careful tightrope with ODA, using it to win friends and stability in the world while striving to separate aid from U.S. national security and strategic foreign policy efforts. This separation was long considered essential not only for the safety of aid workers, but also as a moral principle. The creation of the Office of the U.S. Director for Foreign Assistance in the Department of State, however, led to the Strategic Framework for Foreign Assistance, a five-point plan, tightly linking provision of health, humanitarian, and development assistance to U.S. security interests. Among the sharpest changes made by the Bush administration involve the dramatic increase in the role of the Department of Defense (DOD) in ODA and foreign assistance programs. In 2000, the DOD received 3.5 percent of the ODA budget, and by FY08 the DOD allotment increased to 22 percent. In addition to receiving 150 Account funds, DOD now also receives so-called Section 1206 funds for provision of security services, funds that previously were solely administered by the Secretary of State (Garrett ’09).7. Aid under the Bush Administration took on a decidedly Christian feel and could be criticized for its Christian foibles, namely the Crusade against Muslims, but also for its lack of transparency, persecution and wrath of god approach to State responsibility.

In the twenty years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, political leaders in Washington, and in other donor nations, have struggled to identify agreed-upon rationales for foreign assistance as well as strategic priorities. As globalization and open markets have increased prosperity in much of Asia and Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa’s desperate struggles with old obstacles to development have been exacerbated by rising national debts, wars, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, resurgent malaria, and widespread famine and malnutrition. Africa has become the gravitational pull for

23

much of the world’s foreign assistance efforts. It however took the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq to get national concern out of prison and back onto the diplomatic circuit, but the unauthorized invasion of Iraq did the trick. Hospitals & Asylums drafted a treaty to prevent the war, that was bombed, the US paid the full price, $20 billion, that went up to $33 billion for international donors at the Madrid Conference of 2003, the largest reparation in history, with the possible exception of Saddam Hussein’s Kuwait war debt. Defense Secretary Robert Gates struck a similar chord in September 2008, saying, “funding for nonmilitary foreign affairs programs … remains disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military. Why?” Gates continued, “Diplomacy simply does not have the built-in, domestic constituency of defense programs”. This was however inequitable being only slightly less than total international development assistance, at the time little more than $50 billion. Therefore $1 trillion development decade was called for and public and private spending for achievement of MDGs, the Gleneagles G8 commitments, universal access to anti-HIV treatment, and stability improvement in some of the world’s hot zones has skyrocketed. New players on this field have become leaders in the wars on poverty and disease: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), Roll Back Malaria, the White Ribbon Alliance, and rock stars Bono and Bob Geldof, to name a few (bribe payers). Hundreds of millions of young people in industrialized nations embraced global issues of poverty, disease, climate change, and economic development (Garrett ’09).

International Assistance: Global Official Development Assistance 1990-2010

Source: Organization for Economic Co-operation in Europe DAC News April 2007

24

ODA had fallen out of use during the neo-liberal 1990s, growing only 10.5%, from $52.7 billion to $58.3 billion, over the 12 years till 2002, 0.8% annually. Then, awakened to international responsibility by the global conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, ODA grew rapidly, with the objective of achieving the MDGs, to $69.1 billion in 2003, 18.5% growth, plus $33 billion from the Madrid Conference on the Iraq Reconstruction Fund - $97.13 billion annual total. In 2004, ODA rose to $79.4 billion, 14.9% growth, to $107.1 billion in 2005, phenomenal 35% growth. In 2004 commitment to a $1 trillion decade for 2015 was reaffirmed and in 2005 regular assistance rose to $105 billion. In 2005, donors committed to increase their aid at the Gleneagles G-8 and UN Millennium -5 summits. The pledges made at these summits, combined with other commitments, implied lifting aid from $80 billion in 2004 to $130 billion in 2010. Aid however dropped 5.1 per cent from $106.8 billion in 2005 – a record high – to $103.9 billion in 2006 and went down to $103 billion for 2007 an 8.4 percent drop. United by the economic crisis and obligated to fulfill the 2015 goal of contributing 0.7% of GDP to ODA as collateral for IMF loans ODA picked up to $119.8 billion, 15.7% growth in 2009. The G-8 is calling for $154 billion ODA in 2010, 17.1% annual growth, but is unlikely to secure much more than $120 billion. Commitments need to increase to achieve the estimated $200 billion annual cost of achieving the MDGs by 2015 and 0.7-1% of GDP rate. While the slowdown in ODA 2006-2009 makes it difficult to levy a $1 trillion decade 2001-2010 as was thought possible in 2004 stimulating great increases in development from $55 billion in 2002 to over $105 billion in 2005, if growth in ODA would only continue. After miserable showing in 2006-2008 $195 billion would be need in 2010 for a $1 trillion decade 2001-2010, as this is unlikely but actually achievable taking into consideration such spending as the Carbon tax, $10 billion for Haiti, $3 billion for Pakistan etc., we can just take for granted the greater than $1 trillion decade of 2005-2015 will fulfill the poverty related MDGs to cut in half the number of poor since 1990.

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was launched in 2002, and by October 2008 had disbursed $6.4 billion worth of grants for country-designed programs in a mechanism that is both without precedent and empirically demonstrably successful in achieving its targets some 80 percent of the time. By fiscal year 2007 (FY07), health commanded 7.6 percent of U.S. foreign assistance spending. About a third of the people in poor countries that need daily medicine to control HIV/AIDS are now receiving antiretroviral drugs with the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the major provider of treatment. Mother and neonatal child survival has increased; more than a half million women died of childbirth related causes in 1980, while by 2008 that number was down to 343,000. PEPFAR had by March 31, 2008, started 1.73 million people on antiretroviral treatment for HIV infection and provided antiretroviral prophylaxis for more than one million pregnant women to prevent infant in utero infection. Globally, funding for malaria control and treatment programs soared from $0.3 billion in 2003 to $1.7 billion in 2009, with the U.S. responsible for the lion's share of the effort. Worldwide, 1 million people died of malaria in 2000, while 860,000 died of the disease in 2008, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The combined donor, GFATM, and UN efforts to tackle malaria had, by the end of 2008, pushed down deaths due to malaria by 50 percent in crucial African and Asian countries, in large part due to disbursements of pesticide-treated mosquito nets and insecticide-spraying campaigns. According to UNAIDS, global contributions in support of HIV prevention and treatment increased six-fold between 2001 and 2007. The U.S. PEPFAR program was the key to that surge in support. Over that period, three

25

million people living in poor and middle-income countries started anti-HIV treatments, and the number of people dying from AIDS declined for the first time since the epidemic commenced in 1981. On average, sub-Saharan African governments also increased spending on the health of their populations. According to the World Bank, in 1990 the average sub-Saharan government spent $6 per capita annually on health, with spending ranging across the region from a low of $2.27 per capita to $21 per capita, $12 is the minimum recommended amount. Fifteen years later, Abt Associates found that per capita government spending on health in the region averaged $16 to $20 annually, with high-end spending reaching $40.

PEPFAR Funding and Progress, 2009

Country

FY 09 Funding

# People Living with HIV/AIDS2007

# of Individuals in Anti-retroviral Treatment

HIV + Pregnant Women ReceivingARC Prophylaxis

Estimated Infant HIV Infection Averted

Global

$3,859,200,00

0

2,485,30

0

509,800

96,862

1 South Africa

$551,400,000

5,700,00

0

647,000

172,100

32,699

2 Kenya

$541,500,000

1,200,00 (‘03)

297,800

58,600

11,134

3 Nigeria

$442,300,000

2,600,00

0

286,400

34,000

6,460

4 Ethiopia

$346,000,000

980,000

163,100

8,300 1,577

5

Tanzania (United Rep. of)

$311,200,000

1,400,00

0

197,400

39,200

7,448

6 Uganda

$285,900,000

940,000

175,400

45,900

8,721

26

7 Zambia

$270,400,000

1,100,00

0

229,200

57,700

10,963

8Mozambique

$226,400,000

1,500,00

0

116,000

33,100

6,289

9Cote d'Ivoire

$124,800,000

480,000

49,700

7,800 1,482

10 Rwanda

$123,000,000

150,000

46,300

5,000 950

11 Namibia

$107,100,000

200,000

70,600

5,000 950

12 Haiti $105,500,000

120,000

24,400

1,900 361

13 Botswana

$92,100,000

300,000

0 0 0

14 Viet Nam

$89,000,000

290,000

23,400

1,100 209

15 India $30,500,000

2,400,00

0

8,900

800 152

16 Zimbabwe

$26,500,000

1,300,00

0

40,000

17,700

3,363

17 Malawi

$25,200,000

930,000

05,400 1,026

18 Guyana

$20,500,000

13,000

2,700

200 38

19 Cambodia

$18,000,000

75,000

10,300

300 57

20

Congo (Dem. Republic of)

$16,200,000

1,100,00

0

1,300

900 171

21 Swaziland

$14,300,000

190,000

29,800

N/A N/A

22 Lesotho

$13,200,000

270,000

30,800

7,300 1,387

23 China $10,300,000

700,000

6,000

300 57

24 Angol$9,000, 190, N/A N/A N/A

27

a 000 000

24 Indonesia

$9,000,000

270,000

0 0 0

25 Sudan$8,800,000

320,000

N/A 100 19

26

Dominican Republic

$8,300,000

62,000

0 100 19

27 Ukraine

$8,200,000

440,000

N/A N/A N/A

28 Ghana

$8,100,000

260,000

17,200

N/A N/A

29

Russian Federation

$8,000,000

940,000

4,500

300 57

30 Thailand

$5,500,000

610,000

7,100

0 0

Source: Global Health Facts; US Department of State 2010

The secretary of health and human services (HHS) should give very careful consideration to appointments to the Office of Global Health Affairs (OGHA). The OGHA is the face of the United States in international health, intended to provide coherent diplomatic and global policy advice to the secretary of HHS. In addition, the OGHA is pivotal to coordinating health-relating activities with the departments of State, Commerce, and Defense, and the White House. OGHA advises U.S. trade negotiators regarding intellectual property issues relevant to drugs, vaccines, and medical products. OGHA has historically played a vital role in negotiations related to the Biological Weapons Convention. Finally, no office in the U.S. government has as much influence as OGHA with the leadership of WHO, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, GAVI, UNICEF, and other multilateral global health players. The Foreign Service must work closely with U.S. trade negotiators to find ways to protect pharmaceutical patents without imposing unjust burdens on developing countries. They should work with the Commerce Department and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop better incentive mechanisms for pharmaceutical and medical devices investments in research and development of new tools for health in poor countries. Such efforts will go a long way toward winning over skeptics in emerging market countries that have insisted America only cares about the health and profits of Americans. From a national security standpoint it is imperative that the United States vigorously reenter debates over modification of the Biological Weapons Convention, with special attention to issues of verification and international intervention. In an effort to improve international transparency over diseases and outbreaks, the United States should encourage research and development of high thru-put rapid assays (primarily high-speed genetic tests that can handle thousands of samples daily) for a broad range of microbes, and encourage private industry to mass produce such screening devices in forms that are affordable and can be used by minimally

28

trained individuals in resource-scarce settings. As a corollary of this improvement in local disease surveillance, the United States should lead G8 nations in supporting profound improvements in WHO capacity to detect and respond to outbreaks (Garrett ’09).

In its 2025 forecast, the National Intelligence Council ranked a global pandemic among its leading security concerns. The massive HIV/AIDS pandemic, which had by December 2007 claimed nearly thirty million lives, demonstrates the folly of decoupling a disease outbreak from the notions of global solidarity and shared risk. By failing to react with an early and powerful response to the epidemic in the 1980s, largely because of the view that the virus would only afflict small minority populations that were of little concern to the majority populations, the twenty-first-century world is saddled with a disease catastrophe unlike any seen since the Great Plague of the fourteenth century. In 2007, twelve million children were orphaned by their parents’ deaths to AIDS and about two million people died of AIDS. The National Intelligence Council (NIC) estimates that if treatment and prevention strategies for the AIDS pandemic remain roughly status quo until 2025, some fifty million people will be living with the disease, and about thirty million of them will require daily treatment with antiviral drugs. Amid a global crisis in the emergence of drug resistant microbes—especially untreatable forms of tuberculosis—the United States cannot afford to reduce efforts to control and treat bacterial diseases properly. The rapid global spread of XDR-TB—a nearly incurable form of highly drug-resistant tuberculosis—offers clear evidence of the risks America shares with the rest of the world. Support for disease surveillance activities aimed at early detection of outbreaks is an obvious first step. But the World Health Organization and Bush administration have discovered that even when the microbe’s identity is clear, as in the case of H5N1 influenza, surveillance, laboratory confirmation, reporting, and response are difficult, if not impossible, in countries that lack scientific and public health development. Prevention of contagious disease inside the United States requires, among other things, sustained support of robust laboratory, surveillance, veterinary, medical, and public health capacities in poor countries all over the world. It is no coincidence that so many leaders on the stage of humanitarian crisis intervention and foreign policy are physicians, as the experiences of medical responders in Rwanda, the Balkans, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Darfur, and dozens of other crisis points have provoked outrage and indignation in their ranks (Garrett ’09)

The large epidemic of drug-resistant cholera and shigella dysentery that arose among victims of the 1994 Rwandan genocide and the long siege of Sarajevo offered special insight for responding physicians. They came to believe that their actions were frustrated by larger political forces. And the illnesses and deaths they witnessed were preventable through those same channels—not by medical intervention. The humanitarian responses, in this algorithm, are simply band-aids placed on deep wounds that have roots in political and economic issues that can be mitigated through political diplomacy and well-conceived development and health interventions aimed at preventing conflict. The concept of “health diplomacy” has perhaps been best realized by Cuba and Venezuela within Latin America and the Caribbean. By deploying thousands of physicians and nurses to treat the poorest citizens of the region, and by opening Cuba’s medical schools to train legions of Latin American doctors, the two countries have garnered outsized allegiance. Medical and public health diplomacy were once critical features of US activities in Latin America and the Caribbean, and foci of activities for the US Armed Forces, Peace Corps, and

29

USAID personnel working in the region. The successful eliminations of yellow fever, malaria, and polio, to name a few, from most areas stemmed largely from close U.S. collaboration with counterparts in the region. We cannot however forget how much we have hated every malpracticing quack we ever met and found their propaganda to be so counterintuitive and dangerous, with particular disdain for their obsession with money they understand so poorly and so distracts them from the complex medical equations they are supposed to present to the patient, in an unbiased fashion. In sum, global health is good because we can unload our quacks on developing nations combating diseases there is medicine for. To reflect both skepticism of medical assistance, that is often registered as ODA, and to sustain significant levels of medical aid, without giving taking too much from the truly life prolonging interventions of clean water and sanitation and social assistance for individuals in need of relocation, clean bedding, clothes and nutritious food, because they have had the misfortune of falling prey to a quack, it is highly recommended that the US Census Bureau keep a column on health assistance, as they have done for military assistance, monitor relevant statistics pertaining to global health interventions and ensure they are not doctored.

Many of the United States’ largest corporations, in addition to financing the health of their own employees, back health and development programs overseas, seeing them as essential components of company goodwill. Philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates have often spoken of what motivated them to commit the majority of their personal wealth to tackling health, poverty, and education issues worldwide: equity. A striking trend of the post–World War II era has been rapid increases in the life expectancies of most Europeans, northern Asians, Latin Americans, and North Americans, but stagnated, even declining life spans in the poorest nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. A gap in life expectancy appeared and then widened steadily over the decades, now exceeding forty years between the longest and shortest-lived societies. For the Gateses and many other Americans, this is an appalling state of affairs. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, USAID, UNICEF, and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) have pushed back mortality and sickness caused by diseases like polio, measles, diphtheria, rotaviruses, mumps, meningitis and the like. The WHO estimates that 4 million children were spared death from three diseases (Hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b and Pertussis) from 2001 to 2009, thanks to these vaccine efforts. Over the next five-years PEPFAR spending is authorized at $48 billion. Pleased with the success of the program, the Institute of Medicine’s December 2008 report, called for a doubling of annual U.S. commitments to global health between 2008 ($7.5 billion) and 2012 ($15 billion). The committee recommends that the U.S. government commit to $13 billion for the health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and an additional $2 billion to address the challenges of non-communicable diseases and injuries” (Garrett ’09). Global health is a rare opportunity for health spending to be a good thing instead of endless finance for the torture of a system that has extorted more than 16 percent of the US GDP, the most in the world. Global health inspires because it does not finance insurance but purchases goods and services whose performance and quality are statistically monitored and evaluated.

VI. Food Aid is Needed for those Pushed into Hunger by the Global Recession

30

The world is in an unparalleled time of economic crisis, and as always has hit the poorest populations hardest. Fearfulness and uncertainty abound. As the global marketplace retrenches, there is great danger that the poorest billion people will be abandoned, their hopes for escaping poverty and disease forgotten by all but themselves. They have turned their eyes to the United States, hoping for leadership that can both resolve the economic catastrophe and commit the wealthy to ensure that the developing world does not pay the price of global recovery with its people’s health, welfare, safety, and lives. Since the credit crisis of 2008 unfolded, $6.9 trillion has disappeared from the global economy, according to the World Bank’s final December estimate. Countries and small companies in the developing world have found it more difficult to obtain loans for programs such as road construction and business development and to offset declining revenue streams to cover the costs of essential public goods. According to the World Bank, global trade grew 9.8 percent in 2006; it will contract by 2.1 percent in 2009. The most severe contractions will be in trade and investment for developing countries, falling from about $1 trillion in 2007 to merely $530 billion in 2009. Even China, the fastest-growing economy on Earth, will witness sluggish movement, falling from a nearly 12 percent rate of economic growth in 2007 to 6.6 percent in 2009, according to Deutsche Bank forecasters. Well before the impact of the financial meltdown was felt, donor support had declined. Aid dropped 8.4 percent in 2007, after a 4.7 percent drop in 2006. “We are running out of time,” warned UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon. In November 2008, the OECD called upon all of its member states—which include the United States— to take an “aid pledge,” promising to fulfill all foreign assistance commitments, despite the worsening global economy (Garrett ’09).

In October 2008, World Bank president Robert Zoellick warned, “While people in the developed world are focused on the financial crisis, many forget that a human crisis is rapidly unfolding in developing countries. It is pushing poor people to the brink of survival.” Several countries have experienced double-digit food inflation, contributing to a global increase in malnourished people from 44 million to 967 million. The World Bank and the United Nations AIDS Programme (UNAIDS) issued stark warnings to African nations regarding external support for their HIV/AIDS treatment programs. World Bank representatives have told the most affected nations that they must work hard to reduce the annual incidence of HIV through aggressive prevention programs, as there is no assurance that economically reeling wealthier nations will continue supporting expansion of HIV treatment efforts. Similarly, when the Ugandan government announced that it “expected” donors would come through with their promised $2 billion over five years in support of the country’s HIV prevention and treatment programs, UNAIDS warned that the emphasis had better be on prevention, as treatment funding might not be supplied at promised levels (Garret ’09). The food crisis is severe. The number of people living below the international poverty line of $1 a day has risen from 700,000 to 1.2 billion and as the World Bank President said, nearly a billion people are suffering the medical consequences of malnutrition and hunger. The developmental effects of child malnutrition can lead to a lifetime of infirmity and learning disability. Investing in the world’s poor and protecting them from disease and famine are simply the right things to do. The right thing to do is also the right thing to do for the global economy. Food aid, agricultural and development assistance must be provided but what is also needed is to appreciate the purchasing power of developing nation currencies so their food prices will go down and they could afford the industrial technology they

31

need for agricultural and financial infrastructure, this will expand the consumer base and stimulate trade and therefore the economic growth worldwide, by doing the right thing.

International food aid is the United States’ major response to reducing global hunger. In 2006, the United States provided $2.1 billion of such assistance, which paid for the delivery and distribution of more than 3 million metric tons of U.S. agricultural commodities. The United States provided food aid to 65 countries in 2006, more than half of them in Sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the food aid — $1.2 billion or 57% — was provided as emergency food aid. About one-third is used in non-emergency or development projects carried out by U.S. private voluntary organizations (PVOs) and cooperatives. The US Agency for International Development (USAID), which administers the largest U.S. food aid program, estimates that from 50-70 million people benefit from US food aid programs annually. The number of people needing food during this crisis is twenty times this amount. Much of U.S. assistance is provided through the World Food Program (WFP), the United Nations’ food aid agency. The United States is the largest contributor to WFP. Its contribution in 2006 was $1.125 billion or about 40% of total donor contributions to WFP that year. On average since 1995, the United States has provided WFP with about 50% of the food aid it distributes. The United States provides U.S. commodities as international food aid through eight programs. These are Titles I, II, and III of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-480), known collectively as P.L. 480; the Food for Progress Program; the John Ogonowski Farmer-to-Farmer Program; the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program; Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949; and the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (BEHT) (Hanrahan ’08).

Food Aid Funding under the Farm Bill 2002, 2002-2006

Program Average FY 2002-2006 ($mil) FY 2006 ($mil)Total Food Aid 2,234 2,087P.L. 480 Title I 136 123P.L. 480 Title II 1,550 1,706P.L. 480 Title II 0 0Farmer-to-Farmer 10 10McGovern-Dole 97 97Section 416(b) 157 20FFP 131 131Emerson Trust 153 0

Source: USDA

Under P.L. 480 Title I, USDA uses long term, low interest loans to finance government-to -government purchases of U.S. agricultural commodities by developing countries and emerging markets with the potential to become commercial markets for U.S. agricultural exports. No funding was requested by the Administration for Title I in FY2007 or FY2008 budget requests to Congress.

32

P.L. 480 Title II, the largest U.S. food aid program, provides for the donation of U.S. agricultural commodities to foreign countries to meet humanitarian needs arising from emergencies or for use in non-emergency or development projects. USAID administers this program which is carried out by private voluntary organizations (PVOs), cooperatives, or intergovernmental organizations such as the World Food Program (WFP). The authorizing statute provides that a minimum of 2.5 million metric tons of U.S. agricultural commodities is to be provided each year and that of the total provided, not less than 1.875 million metric tons is be made available for nonemergency food distribution through the eligible organizations.

P.L. 480 Title III, is administered by USAID and provides for government-to-government grants to support long-term economic development in least developed countries. The Administration stopped requesting funding for Title III in FY2001. Congress has not appropriated funds for Title III since FY2001.

The John Ogonowski Farmer-to-Farmer Program is a technical assistance program that aims to improve global food production and marketing by transferring technical skills of the U.S. agricultural community to farmers in participating countries. The Farmer-to-Farmer program does not use commodities, but is allocated 0.5% of the funds made available to P.L. 480 to carry out its technical assistance activities. It is authorized under Title V of P.L. 480, administered by USAID, and implemented by PVOs, cooperatives, land grant universities, private agribusinesses, and nonprofit farm organizations. The program was renamed in the 2002 farm bill to honor John Ogonowski, a participant in the program, who was one of the pilots killed on September 11, 2001.

The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (FFE), authorized by the 2002 farm bill, provides U.S. agricultural commodities and financial and technical assistance to establish school feeding and maternal, infant and child nutrition programs in foreign countries. The McGovern- Dole program is considered by many to be a model of combining food with non-food resources to meet its program objectives because of the flexibility with which it can combine food commodities, cash, and technical assistance in carrying out its programs. USDA administers the program which is carried out by PVOs, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations, and governments of developing countries.

Section 416(b) of the Agriculture Act of 1949 provides for donations of surplus U.S. agricultural commodities, acquired by the CCC through its farm price support operations, to developing and friendly countries. Section 416(b) is permanently authorized and does not expire with the 2002 farm bill. USDA administers Section 416(b), which operates much like Title II. Commodities provided can be used for emergency and non-emergency assistance; commodities are provided to the ultimate beneficiaries via PVOs, cooperatives, and the WFP. Section 416(b) food aid has been highly variable because it is entirely dependent on the availability of surplus commodities in CCC inventories.

Food For Progress provides U.S. agricultural commodities to developing countries and emerging democracies that have made commitments to introduce or expand free enterprise in their agricultural economies. It is authorized in the 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-198) and administered by

33

USDA. Commodities for the FFP can be purchased with appropriations for P.L. 480 Title I or with funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC); if available, CCC commodity inventories may be used. USDA administers FFP.

The Emerson Trust is a reserve of commodities and cash that can be used to meet unanticipated humanitarian food needs in developing countries or when domestic supplies are short. It is authorized under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-385). Up to four million metric tons of grains can be held in the Trust in any combination of wheat, rice, corn, or sorghum, but wheat is the only commodity ever held. Funds regularly appropriated for P.L. 480 can be used to purchase grain to replace supplies released from the reserve, but the purchases are limited to $20 million per fiscal year. Emergency supplemental appropriations have on occasion been devoted to replenishing the BEHT. The authorizing statute, however, does not require the replenishment of the Trust. Currently, the Trust holds 915,000 metric tons of wheat and $107 million. This global food crisis is definitely severe enough to warrant disbursement of this reserve grain. As for the Congressional replenishment it should be considered that most people prefer rice as a staple food. If it is fluffy it makes you puffy. The starving do not want to ruin their figure either. Rice is a better emergency reserve grain.

Proponents of providing food aid to developing countries point to the large number of chronically hungry people in the world as evidence of the need for food aid. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that there are more than 850 million people in the world who are chronically hungry, this number has risen to over 1 billion since the economic crisis. These people lack the food that they would need to lead active and healthy lives. FAO points out, however, that the amount of food aid that has been provided, an average of about 10 million metric tons per year from all donors, would make barely a dent in global hunger. The average annual total volume of food aid is equivalent to about 2% of world grain trade and less than 0.5 % of world grain production. If all the food aid in the world were distributed evenly among the 850 million hungry people, FAO calculates, it would provide only about 12 kilograms of grain per person, only 12 percent of annual needs crudely estimated by this author per 50 kilograms of grain and 50 kilograms of vegetables and meat a year. Clearly, FAO concludes, the amount of food aid that has been provided is insufficient. There is broad agreement that food aid provided for emergency relief is a valuable tool for ensuring basic nutritional needs in times of humanitarian crisis — earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, wars, etc. — and is credited with saving millions of lives. A growing share of global food aid is provided as emergency aid — which, according to FAO, accounts for one-third to one-half of total global food aid.

USAID reports that in FY2006, more than 70% of US food aid (Title II) was provided as emergency aid. The United States is the only international food aid donor that makes all of its food aid contributions in the form of commodities. Other major donors have different food aid policies. Most food aid provided by the European Union, the world’s second largest food aid provider, is purchased in developing countries. The EU has transformed its food aid policy into a food security policy, with food aid being restricted to humanitarian crises and no longer used to support development activities.7 Canada, the world’s third largest provider of food aid, since 2005, allows up to 50% of its food aid to be purchased locally or regionally. Most other food aid

34

donors make their contributions for food aid in the form of cash donations for the purchase of commodities by the World Food Program, which the WFP then distributes primarily as emergency food aid. Transportation costs are however high. According to USAID and USDA budget data, in FY2006, 55% of the funds allocated to P.L. 480 Title II ($930 million out of $1.7 billion) went to cover transportation costs, including both ocean freight and internal shipping, handling, and transportation. Ocean freight rates vary from year to year, but paying such costs is one reason why the Administration, in its farm bill proposals and in recent budget submissions has called for allocating some portion of funds available to P.L. 480 Title II to purchase commodities in locations closer to where they are needed. The 110th Congress and the Bush administration generously gave $16 billion in food aid from FY02 to FY07, and committed to providing another $5.5 billion for FY08 to FY09. But the United States is the last major donor in the world to still tie 100 percent of its food aid to distribution of U.S.-grown crops that are shipped at extraordinary cost via U.S. shippers. The cost of tied food aid is demonstrably higher—in many cases 30 to 50 percent higher—than alternative, non-tied sources of food aid. According to OXFAM, some 40 percent of all U.S. food aid is eaten up by shipping and delivery costs. Moreover, donated food undermines regional markets for agricultural products, driving local farmers into deeper poverty (Hanrahan ’08).

Many of the organizations that rely on sales of U.S. food aid commodities to finance development projects support monetization as their major source of development finance. Estimates are that almost 70% of P.L. 480 Title II development food aid commodities provided to PVOs and cooperatives is monetized. As CARE notes in its food aid policy paper: “Purchasing food in the U.S., shipping it overseas, and then selling it to generate funds for food security programs is far less cost-effective than the logical alternative - simply providing cash to fund food security programs.” Supporters maintain that monetization can have multiple benefits particularly in low-income countries that depend on imports to meet food needs. Food aid has become one of several unresolved issues in the current World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations that has been ongoing since November 2001. Food aid has been considered under the rubric of export competition, with some U.S. trading partners alleging that the United States has used food aid to circumvent its export subsidy reduction commitments and that food aid displaces commercial sales. The United States has, for the most part, argued for a continuation of commodity food aid, while the European Union has proposed that food aid be subject to rules that apply to other forms of export subsidies. The EU has offered to eliminate its agricultural export subsidies, a long-standing aim of U.S. agricultural trade policy, worth about $3 billion, if the United States will make parallel reductions in food aid and export credit guarantees. US PVOs who monetize in-kind food aid commodities to finance projects in developing countries are concerned that new WTO disciplines aimed at preventing commercial displacement could severely limit their ability to do development work. Other US PVOs that have made extensive use of monetization, however, have indicated that they will begin to phase out monetization as a source of funding for their development projects (Hanranhan ’08).

The real goal of food aid should be building local agricultural capacities, bringing dependency to an end. Short-term famine relief efforts, including distribution of American and European grown crops, should be seen as emergency measures necessitated by failures in achievement of the

35

larger goal, not as end in themselves. The conservative Harper government of Canada recognized the low cost-effectiveness of tied aid in early 2008, when food prices inflated 300 percent in much of the poor world, and pushed through a bill in Ottawa that untied 100 percent of Canada’s assistance. Today, Canada and most European nations support local agricultural development and food purchasing within troubled regions, bolstering local capacity in a cost-effective and sustainable manner. Despite Bush administration attempts to untie at least 25 percent of food aid, the 110th Congress stalwartly insisted that 100 percent of U.S. goods must be used. Therefore, the United States stands alone in choosing to give more money to American agricultural producers and American shipping companies at the direct cost of human lives in poor countries (Hanrahan ’08). What does this mean on the ground? After years of famine, the Malawi government, for example, decided in 2006 to underwrite seed and fertilizer costs for the nation’s farmers. In 2007, the country had a record corn harvest. In a well-intended effort, the United States and World Food Programme backed school meals for 650,000 Malawian children, using U.S. corn that, after shipping, cost 2.5 times the price of local corn, and fed 400,000 fewer children than could have been sustained by simply purchasing from the locally grown bumper crop (Garret ’09).

African leaders have unanimously agreed to institute new measures to ensure that “five years from now Africa will be able to produce enough food to feed its people… and no child in Africa should die of hunger or malnutrition”. In order to meet these targets the African Union has decided to turn the continent into an “African Food Basket” whose main aim is to encourage allocation of increase budgetary resources and private sector investment in agriculture and food production. For this to happen Africa leaders have decided to redesign their policy interventions to focus on three priority areas- agriculture and food security, transport and energy development and climate change. Intransience by the major players at the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change was evident to African leaders. African governments have undertaken to launch the Campaign on Accelerated Reduction of Maternal Mortality in Africa to run for 4 years and call on the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis to create a new window to fund Maternal, New Born and Child Health (Mutharika ’10). Agricultural and health assistance go hand in hand because irrigation consumes the majority of water and clean water is essential to human and animal health and healthy childbirth, so is sanitation. Although some people fertilize crops with human waste it is not actually acceptable in the United States because it poses a risk of disease (Florin ’75). Wells and pipes for distributing water are however prohibitively expensive to individuals and the US must cooperate with national governments and collective farmers to satisfy the need for irrigation and potable water. Soil exhaustion, that is rampant in many developing regions, can be reversed by fertilization and crop rotation using legumes and other nitrogenous and useful mineral producing plants. Effective soil management is more than a single poor farmer can afford and the government and agricultural collectives must provide the knowledge and goods, such as loans, rental tractors, seeds, fertilizers and delivery trucks (Cakmak ’02).

VII. Developing Nation Currency Appreciation, the Free Market Approach to Compensating for the Industrialized Currency Basket Case

36

Despite a late 2008 decline in most commodities pricings, neither food nor energy costs settled back to pre-2007 levels. The costs of basic agricultural products (seed, fertilizer, harvest transport) remain excessively high in poor countries. At the same time, downturns in the value of the dollar mean that less—of everything—can be purchased with the same amount of US official development assistance (ODA). By the end of 2008, the US dollar and UK pound had suffered enormous losses. Against the yen, the dollar lost 23 percent of its value, and the currency exchange traded $1.39 to one euro. The British pound lost a quarter of its value against the euro in 2008. Since the two primary currencies of ODA are dollars and pounds, the net impact for poor countries was devastating. Although the industrialized played currency devaluation game they could not do the right thing and devaluate collectively as a basket, to appreciate developing nation currencies, that were in fact devaluated causing the price hike (Garrett ’09). It is the policy of the United States to encourage international economic negotiations to achieve macroeconomic policies and exchange rates consistent with appropriate and sustainable balances in trade and capital flows and to foster price stability in conjunction with economic growth. From time to time the United States shall, in close coordination with other major industrialized countries, adjust the international currency exchange rates of the United States and specified foreign nations to achieve macro-economic policy goals under 22USC(62)5303. The solution for the global recession and economic slowdown is to devaluate industrialized currencies and appreciate developing nation currencies to expand consumer markets to the developing world, expanding industrial exports and equalizing purchasing power.

Under 22USC(62)§5304 the President shall seek to confer and negotiate with other countries. He must do so to increase the purchasing power of developing nation currencies. The choice of regime involves trade-offs that may change with the passage of time and differing circumstances. Dissatisfaction with the severe policy limitations of the gold standard led many nations to break the link between their currencies and gold during the 1930s. Dissatisfaction with the competitive devaluations and "beggar-thy-neighbour" policies of the Depression years led to the Bretton Woods system of fixed, but adjustable, exchange rates after the Second World War. Dissatisfaction with pegged exchange rates in an environment of global inflationary pressures and rising capital mobility led to the floating of all major currencies backed by the US Dollar in 1973. Since the engagement of the US in armed conflict the dollar has been devaluated from 1.2 Euro in 2000 to 0.8 Euro. The US and EU must learn to devaluate together to increase trade as China has. Economists estimate that the United States and the European Union need to devaluate their currencies by 30% to recover their balance of payments from the international financial and economic crisis and to compensate developing nations for the damage wrought by illegal bank subsidies compounded by illegal currency manipulation to keep the value of the US dollar and Euro up when by all economic laws should have been devaluated. When the financial sector or general economy is in need of a bailout the legal method of stimulating the economy is by devaluating the currency. This is logical. A nation with economic troubles needs to lower their prices if they want to sell. By improving the national export position, that is 2/3 of economic growth, it can be expected to stimulate the economy. The equation for devaluating is quite simple. The currency is devaluated by the proportion of the size of the bailout less value of foreign currency reserves, divided by the size of the GDP. This will ensure that the GDPs of the nations who engaged in the bailout do not overvalue their currency and stifle trade, nor do

37

nations, like China, who has accumulated significant foreign reserves, undervalue their currency and glut the market.

Without any work from either myself or the UN Human Development Report Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world 2007/2008 conspicuously took two years, economic growth declined 0.8% in 2009. It was the first global downturn since WWII. The food and fuel crises in 2007-2008 and the global financial and economic crisis of 2009 pushed 100 million people in low-income countries into poverty as a result of a doubling of food prices. The number of hungry people worldwide rose from 842 million in 1990-1992 to 873 million in 2004-2006 and to 1.02 billion people during 2009, the highest level ever. The IMF assures us however that global economic recovery is stable with 1.7% growth in the first quarter and 3.2% in the second quarter of 2010. The credit crisis affected both industrialized and developing nations. Its primary characteristic was a panic amongst foreign occupying powers, who, struggling with high oil prices and opiate relieving pain and social breakdown from the conquerors of the Soviet Union, spuriously decided to nationalize several banks, squandering the sovereign immunity from bankruptcy on the large banking corporations the prior administration laundered his funds with, at great expense to the free market. The side effects of the bank nationalizations valued at $4 trillion in 2009, and $1 trillion in 2010, were immediate massive flights of capital from the stock markets, quickly leading to layoffs and high unemployment, negative economic growth and record government spending and budget deficits valued at 7% of GWP in 2009. By strengthening industrialized currencies, instead of devaluating to offset the printing of money, the crisis was not only devastating to international trade, that dropped 25%, but spread to developing nations, who without the resources to bail out their financial sectors nor a social safety net for the unemployed, could not compete. Liberal democracies must compensate those emerging markets marginalized by the market distortion. Free capital resources were drained by the bailout of the industrialized financial sector. Record contractions in stock and labor markets were reported, exacerbating the exact contraction of economic growth, subsidies were intended to ameliorate. As consequence to this vicious cycle, industrialized governments contracted an unhealthy interest in keeping their currency strong and developing nation currencies were unfairly devalued. Although growth remains strong, devaluation resulted in disproportionately less purchasing power in many developing nations in the form of high food prices. To offset the distorting effects of the financial sector bailouts, beyond the reach of ODA, the only countermeasure available to developing nations and emerging markets is to appreciate their currencies against the industrialized nation currency basket. This would increase the exchange rate GDP and per capita of consumers in developing nations to afford more food and industrial technology on the international market. Appreciation would expand industrialized markets to billions of consumers in developing nations, stimulating growth. Nations would need to be classified into four categories, industrialized with per capita >$20,000, middle income <$20,000 but >$10,000, developing <$10,000 and least developed <$1,000. Industrialized nations would collectively redress three decades of depreciation of developing nation currencies and middle income nations could decide which direction they wish to go on the basis of their trade balance. Economic progress caused by appreciating the exchange rate GDP would be monitored as purchasing power parity GDP. Although ODA would be devalued, developing nations would mathematically have more purchasing power and

38

the whole world would have greater exchange rate GDP. If this experiment works currency appreciation can hasten global economic equality in regular increments. Although the needs of least developed nations will still need to be met with ODA the independence of currency appreciation may prove to be a more sustainable method to make large jumps in per capita purchasing power. Appreciation will get us back into the grace of MDG Goal 1 by math alone.

International trade contracted 25% in 2009 and remains sluggish. The overall pattern of international trade remains the same, with Asia and Europe as the net exporters and America as the net importers, but aggregate consumer demand is low and little interested in more foolish investments, inflation or social interaction. The probable cause of the slump in world trade is that the $4 trillion bank nationalizations of 2009 and $1 trillion of 2010 are indeed subsidies for the purposes of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The impact of these industrialized nation financial sector subsidies on trade was that massive amounts of capital were withdrawn from the stock markets, resulting in market crashes and layoffs in the global free market that disproportionately affected less insured developing nations. Much of the recent economic growth in developing nations is the result of the elimination trade barriers to developing nation exports, in 2003 71% and by 2007 83% of developing nation exports was duty free. To jump start international trade international economic cooperation should strive to reduce the price of nutritious food and the price of imports to developing nations. Industrialized and export nations are encouraged to adopt dual pricing systems to provide special low prices for developing nation necessities. To be efficient, developing nations are encouraged to eliminate tariffs on necessary supplies, such as food and medicine, in order to get them to the needy. The recession endures because of the high price of food in developing nations and the lessening of consumer demand in industrialized regions. The goal of international trade policy at the crossroads should be to expand consumer purchasing power in developing countries to satisfy basic human needs, particularly those defined in the Millennium Development Goals.

Exchange Rate Arrangement of a Few Nations Grouped (a) Advanced Countries and (b) Emerging Market Countries

Exchange Rate Regime; No. Countries Countriesa. No separate legal tender/ currency board

(13)Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, San Marino, Spain

Pegged rate in horizontal band (1) Denmark Managed Float (1) Singapore Independent Float (10) Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New

Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States

b. No separate legal tender / currency board (34)

Bulgaria, Ecuador, Estonia, Greece*, Lithuania, Panama, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bosnia, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Rep. of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati,

39

Mali, Marshall Islands, Fed.States of Micronesia, Niger, Palau, Senegal, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Togo

Fixed pegs (54) Argentina, Egypt, Jordan, Latvia, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Slovenia, Venezuela, Islamic Rep. of Afghanistan, Angola, Aruba, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia Cape Verde, Comoros, Costa Rica, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Islamic Rep. of Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, FYR Macedonia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal Netherlands Antilles, Oman, Rwanda, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United ArabEmirates Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Rep. of Yemen, Zimbabwe

Pegged rate in horizontal band (4) Cyprus, Hungary, Slovak Republic, TongaCrawling peg (5) Azerbaijan, Botswana, China,, Iraq, NicaraguaManaged float within crawling band (43) Colombia, Czech Republic, India, Malaysia,

Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Algeria, Armenia, Bangladesh*, Burundi, Cambodia, Croatia, Dominican Republic, The Gambia, Georgia, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti*, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya,Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Moldova, Mozambique, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, So Tom and Prncipe, Serbia, Seychelles, Sudan, Tajikistan, Uruguay,Zambia

Independent float (9) Brazil, Chile, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, Mexico, Poland, South Africa, Turkey, Albania, Dem Rep. of Congo, Somalia, Tanzania, Uganda

Source; Fischer, Stanley. Mundell-Fleming Lecture Series: Exchange Rate Systems, Surveillance and Advice. IMF Staff Papers. Vol. 55 No. 3. July 1, 2008. Pp 367-383

Industrialized nations are a basket case, and to redress the distortion to the market caused by the industrial nation subsidies compounded by an inappropriate depreciation of developing nation currencies, industrialized nations must behave as a currency basket that appreciates developing nation currencies to redress the bailout and decades of unjust depreciation. Industrialized nations

40

bore us with their monotonous struggle between dollar and euro. For decades neo-liberal policies of the industrialized nations have devalued developing nation currencies to exploit natural resources at low costs and foster unequal growth based on foreign trade. In the recent Mexican and Asian financial crisis, that similarly started in the mortgage sector, the nations being bailed out were forced to devaluate, this stimulated trade and their economies quickly recovered. When the industrialized nations propped up their financial sectors at the expense of the global stock market and the market collapsed they depreciated developing nation currencies, spreading the financial contagion to the most vulnerable nations who had nothing to do with the crisis. Industrialized nations thus gained an unfair advantage over developing nations by manipulating the exchange rates in violation of Article IV Section I, paragraph iii of the IMF Articles of Agreement. Developing nation not only got less ODA, less direct foreign investment, but the law was broken and their currencies were depreciated, when they should have been appreciated, and many had less purchasing power. This prolongs the crisis because aggregate demand is less. The industrialized basket needs to swallow their pride because supply side economies are less efficient, they need to appreciate developing nation currencies as compensation for the unfair financial sector subsidies and to reverse decades of depreciation with the stated intention of increasing developing nation purchasing power. Appreciation will create a win-win situation where an increase in aggregate demand from developing nations would stimulate economic growth in industrial nations.

Application of the Formula for Devaluating to Offset the Cost of a Bailout in 2008

Thus,

Wherefore,

Country GDP Bailout ReserveUnited States of America 13,780 900 71 -0.07European Union 14,430 1,000 448 -0.05United Kingdom 2,130 600 57 -0.26China 7,099 585 1,534 0.13South Korea 1,206 36 262 0.19

Source: CIA World Fact Book December 31, 2007 last updated November 6, 2008Total US reserves were $47 billion on Sept. 10, $180 billion on Oct. 8 and $329 billion on Oct. 22

The exact dimension of the appreciation is open to interpretation. When the bailouts took place a formula was proposed whereby industrialized nations would devaluate their currency with

41

developing nations on the basis of the size of their bailout, eg., $4 trillion for 2009, 7% of GWP, less international reserves, of about $1 trillion. However as the result of the special, self-defeating, interests of the depository institutions that were being bailed out, and the extreme prejudice that has guided currency exchange policy for the past several decades, the industrialized nations were too proud to devaluate. A new formula is therefore proposed to overcome the self-conscious reserve of industrial nations, whereby emerging market nation currencies would be appreciated to the full extent of their purchasing power parity and this would theoretically both increase emerging market nation exchange rate to equal purchasing power parity and reduce the industrial nation exchange rate to be more equal or less than purchasing power. Appreciating emerging market nation currencies from exchange rate to purchasing power parity would overcome longstanding policies of depreciation and harmonize currency exchange rates, keeping international prices for commodities low for everyone. Nations will need to take into consideration their trade balances. Devaluating has been proven to help to sell exports; appreciation however helps the domestic economy. Industrial nation exports will expand to emerging markets, to stimulate free trade and employment. Emerging market nations will capitalize upon increased purchasing power to buy basic human necessities and industrial technology.

Regional Demand for Appreciation, 2009

US $ per XR () GDP XR = GDP PPP

= ( GDP PPP – GDP EX ) + 1GDP EX

Country Population GDP PPPBillion

GDP Ex. ratebillion

DifferentialP – X

XWorld 6,788,418,173 70,263 58,070 12,193

21%Africa 991,760,344 2,835 1,449 1,386

95.7%America 927,414,548 21,711 16,200 5,511

34%Europe 731,174,482 18,257 18,749 -492

-2.6%Middle East and Central Asia

1,934,506,098 8,263 3,885 4,378117%

South East Asia

2,203,562,701 19,173 13,906 5,26737.9%

Source: World Economics HA-2010

Currency appreciation should have been done a long time ago, currency appreciation should have occurred before or to offset the cost of the financial sector bailout. Emerging market currency appreciation holds great promise. Redressing global income inequality is only a matter of

42

mathematics, the math is however very time consuming, and without reward, that is probably why it is not done. By calculating the regional need for appreciation one can discern that the Middle East and Central Asia, mostly because India’s extreme depreciation gives weight to a general trend, is in need of appreciation by 117% to equal purchasing power parity, followed closely by Africa where equality with purchasing power parity amounting to 95.7% of exchange rate GDP in 2009. It is a relatively simple matter for a single nation to calculate the differential and determine what their desired exchange rate should be. The only mathematical quirk is that the differential plus one formula only works with US $ per foreign currency. The dollar and euro should strive for equality. The decision becomes more complex when groups of nations have banded together in a common currency, such as the euro, west, central and east African currencies, east Caribbean dollars and US dollars, wherefore a democratic decision must be determined from the aggregate with national decisions weighted by population. Without pay the proposed one vote per person method of IMF voting will have to wait, however the formula for giving a nation’s vote weight, is to total the group, calculate the percentage of each nation’s population in relation to the whole. Now that a formula for appreciation has been perfected, tried and trued, it should not be difficult for international economists and their staffs to restore equality between purchasing power and the exchange rate, thereby expanding consumer purchasing power in emerging markets, to achieve the MDGs and sustain the 21st century goal of global income equality. The guiding principle of currency exchange negotiations should be to progressively increase the purchasing power of developing nations until there is a general income and purchasing power equality amongst nations and nations could begin to implement a single world currency. Although largely an untapped resource, international development currency exchange negotiations are theoretically the single most effective method for equalizing income at the per capita and national level, at no real cost.

VIII. Actual Analysis US Foreign Assistance and Statistical Direction to achieve Funding and Equity for MDGs Target for 2015 and 1% Social Security Tax by 2020

Having beat around the bush we must learn to hate the unconventional enemy of the economy from 1980 accidently invited to party in the black man’s White House and impeach his predecessor’s Secretary of Defense who keeps the commander in chief, at the rank of lieutenant, responsible for torturing the sovereign expression of American goodwill and world peace, in their homes, and the, now striking, petitioners tired of being sick and indirectly causing the world’s problems with the extra-judicial reaction to the enlightenment they had hoped to bring. The world of the 21st Century is far from tranquil, but gone are the days when problems were ultimately settled by war. Peace and development remain the defining features of our time (Jiabao ’10). President Obama put together a development policy that recognizes dignity is a human right and global development is in our common interest. America will partner with countries to offer them a path out of poverty. And together unleash growth that powers by individuals and emerging markets in all parts of the globe. He states, “Freedom, justice and peace for the world must begin with freedom, justice and peace in the lives of individual human beings”. As Robert Kennedy said, “the individual man, the child of God is the touchstone of value, and all society, groups, the state, exist for his benefit”. There is no right more fundamental than the ability to choose your leaders and determine your destiny. The ultimate

43

success of democracy won’t come because the United States dictates it, it will come because individual citizens demand a say in how they are governed. The common thread of progress is the principle that a government is accountable to its people. What unites us as human beings is far greater than what divides us, and people from every part of this world can live in peace (Obama ’10).

In the early UN years, the essence of successful development was seen as a sustained increase in a country’s per capita income, a sustained increase in a country’s total production, a long-term evolution of the country’s economic structure and institutions and a country’s movement toward becoming a more industrialized economy of greater self-reliance. In the 1950s and 60s human rights became sharply polarized with the West emphasizing political and civil rights and the Soviet bloc emphasizing economic, social and sometimes cultural rights. By the 1980s, influenced by the gender equality movement, development thinking began to link development with human living conditions referred to as “human development”. The goal of development according the UN Agenda for Development issued by the Secretary-General in 1997, is the improvement of human well-being and the quality of life. This involves the eradication of poverty, the fulfillment of basic needs of all people, and the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development. It requires that governments apply active social and environmental policies and that they promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms on the basis of democratic and widely participatory institutions (Jolly, Emmeri, Ghai & Lapeyre ’04). Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan recently warned that “failure to honor aid commitments would be a breach of faith and potentially disastrous for the ability of Africa to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. For richer countries, this is not about charity. It is about self-interest. By helping Africa to build roads and railways, power plants, and irrigation and water treatment systems, donors will increase capital exports to Africa at a time when their own industries are facing a collapse of demand. … Development assistance can also contribute to global security. Problems in one country, let alone one continent, cannot be contained within borders. If African countries cannot overcome the many social and economic challenges they face, these problems will spill over rapidly” (Garrett ’09).

MDGs for 2015 Progress Report 1990 & 2005Primary Indicator 1990 2005 GoalGoal 1: Halve Poverty <$1 day 45.5% 21.5% 22.75%Goal 2: Universal Primary Education 82.0% 89.0% 90.0%Goal 3: 1.0 Gender Ratio in Education 0.89 0.96 1.00Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality 2/3 9.3% 6.7% 3.1%Goal 5: Reduce Maternal Mortality 3/4 430 400 143Goal 6: Halt & Reverse Spread of AIDS 8 33.3 <Goal 7: Halve Lack of Access to H20 77% 87% 88.5%Goal 8: Develop Global Partnership 52.7 107.1 >

Sources: UN Millennium Development Goal Report 2009

The adoption of the Millennium Declaration in 2000 by 189 States Members of the United Nations, 147 of which were represented by their Head of State, was a defining moment for global

44

cooperation in the twenty-first century. The Declaration gave birth to a set of eight goals that break down into 21 quantifiable targets that are measured by 61 indicators, known as the Millennium Development Goals to End Poverty for 2015. The eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) –have galvanized unprecedented efforts to meet the needs of the poorest. The UN Millennium Development Goal Report 2009 brings into question whether Goal 1 to halve poverty, <$1 day, from 45.5% in 1990 to 22.75% in 2015, has been jeopardized by the recession. In 2007, only 21.5% were extremely poor, however the recession plunged 100 million more people below $1 a day and poverty increased to 22.9%, so Goal 1 was not achieved in 2009. Both 90% primary school enrollment rate and 50% reduction in people needing water are both achievable if current rates of growth are sustained. The AIDS drugs arrived and rates of infection and death went down. To achieve all the health related goals the utility bill for water and sewage connections must be paid, folic acid multi-vitamins be damned. The short term plan for 2010 is for the bailouts to cease and ODA to exceed the $154 billion committed. The long term plan is to levy a carbon tax to finance eco-friendly water, sewage and electricity (solar) connections in slums by 2030. The medium term plan to finance the MDGs for 2015 is for the US Dollar and Euro basket to experimentally appreciate developing nation currencies - equalizing exchange rate GDP with purchasing power parity GDP rate, in hopes of making nutritious food available at affordable prices.

Today as in past economic downturns, some put human rights aside for the promise of short term stability, or the false notion that growth can come at the expense of freedom. We see leaders abolishing term limits, crackdowns on civil society and corruption smothering entrepreneurship and good governance. We see democratic reforms deferred indefinitely. History is on the side of liberty. The strongest foundation for human progress is open economies, open societies and open governments. To put it simply, democracy, more than any other form of government, delivers for our citizens. America is working to shape a world that fosters this openness, for the rot of a closed or corrupt economy must never eclipse the energy and innovation of human beings. All of us want the right to educate our children; to make a decent wage; to care for the sick; and to be carried as far as our dreams and deeds will take us. But that depends on economies that tap the power of our people, including the potential of women and girls. That means letting entrepreneurs start a business without paying a bribe, and governments that support opportunity instead of stealing from their people. And that means rewarding hard work instead of reckless risk taking (Obama ’10). For instance, Costa Rica introduced free and obligatory primary education in 1869, banished the death penalty in 1877, abolished the Army in 1949 and universalized access to health in the mid-seventies. Because individual and collective will, responsible and constructive leadership is able to break the obstacles and trace a better path, we must draw the curtains of prejudice that darken reality, change the echoes from the past to the sounds of the future, and bury recriminations towards others as an excuse to avoid our duties (Miranda ’10). The US must terminate their propaganda for war, make peace, purchase their quota Afghan Opium Agency and amend their foreign relations law to perfect from perverse. Failure to perform these duties will undermine the best intentioned foreign assistance plan. Performing these duties will encourage donation and justify USAID to legislate a voluntary 1% payroll tax, that all taxpayers would have the option to pay, that can be tax-deductible immediately, before it is enforced in 2020.

45

Despite the world economic crisis, development aid rose in 2009, and most of the world's donors are on track to meet their basic 2010 commitments, according to OECD. In 2009, total donor support, including debt relief, hit $119.6 billion, a 0.7 percent increase over the previous year. Moreover, OECD says, "In 2009, net bilateral ODA to Africa was $27 billion, representing an increase of 3 percent in real terms over 2008. $24 billion of this aid went to sub-Saharan Africa, an increase of 5.1 percent over 2008." The US has however been chomping at the bit and the Budget Committee voted on April 23, 2009 to cut foreign assistance spending in the FY 2011 budget by $4 billion--a 7 percent reduction in the already frugal White House proposed budget of $58.8 billion. Most of the budget is for nonmilitary programs in the frontline states, with less than a quarter--$14.6 billion--for global challenges like health, food security, climate change, and humanitarian assistance. Reductions in Account 150 spending (all spending on international programs by various departments and agencies) cannot possibly have a discernible impact on the federal budget deficit or the national debt, as the discretionary sums allotted to Account 150 are comparatively trivial. In fact, $14.6 billion for the abovementioned global challenges amounts to a mere 0.38 percent of the $3.8 trillion federal budget. The Partnership for Maternal Newborn and Child Health says that G8 support must double this year, reaching $8 billion a year until 2015 in order to achieve the relevant MDGs, and then plateau in order to sustain the gains in lives saved. GAVI desperately needs $4 billion in order to meet its 2010-2011 vaccination targets. OXFAM is urging Congress to appropriate the White House-requested $3.5 billion for the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative. The World Bank increased agricultural development investment from $4.1 billion in 2006 to $7.3 billion last year, but it needs more. The Center for Strategic and International Studies convened a bipartisan Commission on Smart Global Health Policy that recently concluded that the United States should, from 2010 to 2025, aim to spend $25 billion per year by 2025 for global health efforts (Garrett ’09).

Debate regarding US foreign assistance funding must error on the side of generosity, if it is to error at all. Military finance must be terminated because it corrupts the economy, on the other hand economic assistance for the poor will theoretically expand consumer markets as long as it is free of manipulation, such as protectionism of the US export market, and most of all help relatively wealthy people to be satisfied with their lot and perfect their budgets to foster simplicity, balance and harmony with nature that is the foundation of sustainable good health and happiness. International economic cooperation under the MDGs was the foundation of Bush’s short run on the stock market. He laundered war funds; never purchased the copyright of peace loving people he infringed upon to steal his success and sabotaged the economy on his exit to evade prosecution. While inequity may have sabotaged the global economy and the new regime tortures everyone, international economic cooperation focused upon the fulfillment of the rights of the world’s poorest people under the MDGs has been proven to stimulate and sustain the economy better than any subsidy for the rich worker. We must however go beyond the MDGs. The UN is corrupt; the US sabotaged the UN Charter at the San Francisco Conference on International Organization, it is so written. We need to rewrite the UN Charter to create a democracy and tax administration, and this is the greatest campaign in the world. It will not be won overnight. It might be won in a decade when we can see clearly in 2020. But the US can win it today – a 1 percent international development tax option would disentangle international development funding from politics and enable the sovereign American people to voluntarily

46

fulfill or exceed the 0.7 percent of GDP contribution of ODA obligation of the MDGs for 2015, for only the price of peace, as taxpayers, so tired of the poor game of war, demand (Kant 1795).

Dr. Rajiv Shah USAID Administrator explained his Approach to High Impact Development to the US Global Leadership Coalition on May 5, 2010. He calls for providing a “distinctly American” contribution to development. Taking a distinctively American approach to development means we will focus on individual empowerment – giving USAID staff members with bold ideas a chance to see what they can do, and seeking out and supporting authors, with the ideas, imagination and courage to transform their communities and societies, rather than the local actors who torture them. US aid must be more generous if it is to withstand the test of time. The US government spent billions of dollars in Haiti over the last three decades and the country was still in such a vulnerable state that an earthquake less dramatic than recent quakes in China and Chile ended up claiming more than 200,000 lives. The fault was mine, delinquency in the $1 billion annual payment to the poorest American nation, could not defend against the discrimination against voodoo when challenged by the guardians of the national cause of death (Sanders ’10). By providing chlorine tablets to purify drinking water, USAID was able to provide more people with access to clean water than before the earthquake hit resulting in a 12% reduction in diarrheal illness in Port-au-Prince. USAID must also focus intently on private enterprise and the power of markets. The resources at our command are a blessing, but they are dwarfed by the enormous power of markets to reach people with products, services, and opportunities. Currency appreciation of developing nations can dramatically expand the purchasing power of developing nations using Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Finally, we must demand good governance, performance, and accountability from the public institutions in countries we serve, including our own. America's own experience of democratic improvement should inspire our partners. As President Obama recently reminded us, our audacious experiment of government “by the people” has endured – and improved -- for more than two centuries and provides a powerful example for countries striving to follow a similar path (Shah ’10).

The overarching development policy that the Obama administration is putting together will focus development efforts around a limited number of goals. The first is honoring our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals – not by delivering services but by building sustainable systems to support healthy and productive lives. Second, we are strengthening our ability to invest in country-owned models of inclusive growth and development success. Rapid and sustained growth is not a miracle; it's a matter of getting the right mix of ingredients. Countries that are reasonably well-governed, economically stable, globally connected, and market-oriented are more likely to succeed. 50 years ago, South Korea was poorer than two thirds of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa and its people had an average life expectancy of 54 years. Today South Korea has joined the club of rich industrial countries. They're an aid provider. Third, we are finding new ways to leverage science and technology to develop and deliver those tools and innovations that we believe can lead to exponential growth and transformational change. Science and technology innovations are critical drivers of growth – some estimates attribute up to half of GDP gains to this kind of innovation. And science and engineering has opened the door to revolutions in our field, whether it was American agricultural scientists who drove the green revolution, or American medical researchers who pioneered immunization techniques. Humanity needs drought-tolerant seeds that can increase crop yields and resist the advancing

47

threats of climate change. Humanity demands better ways to bring energy to areas where sunlight and wind are ample but on-grid electricity is foreign. And humanity demands an AIDS vaccine, a malaria vaccine, and low-cost pneumonia and Rotavirus vaccines that will eliminate hundreds of thousands of child deaths. Finally, areas of conflict has been a focus of efforts but our work must actually bring peace. At this time, post-conflict transition assistance and targeted single-issue campaigns receive more funding than general health and development efforts. The balance does not seem appropriate, as long-term development and infrastructure support garner a comparatively paltry amount of support (Garrett ’09). Successful solutions need to be scaled to benefit millions, not dozens or hundreds. And solutions need to be created that can be sustained long after we move on. I'm confident that we can unite in extending hope (that the US can do the math) to the places on earth where hope hangs on by a thread, and we can render hunger and disease and poverty to the ash heap of history (Shah ’10).

To create an effective international development strategy the White House must enable empiricism to defeat imperialism. This is what human dignity is all about. With the law and government on their side, the written word is stronger than the force of arms which the soldiers are happy to beat into ploughshares to form a just and lasting peace fertile for prosperity. This is the great power of international development, diplomacies newest tool of peace and prosperity. The $600 billion US military spending imbalance rests on a fulcrum of only $13 billion in foreign military finance for Osama like extortionists that can be easily eliminated as a foundation for a just and lasting world peace that costs the US military no more than $400 billion spending limit annually, including the extension of newly created African Command to the region where most armed conflict has occurred in recent decades. A corollary of improved professionalization is empiricism. The White House should insist that evidence-based decision-making guide ODA planning and execution. Scientific standards for demonstrating program efficacy should be developed and used routinely in assessing whether old ways of doing things still hold up in the twenty-first century. Further, mechanisms for rapid implementation of promising new technologies and conceptual approaches to ODA should be introduced, allowing swift field trials and encouraging creative innovation (Garrett ’10). The most important thing that the US must do, to be empirical in regards to their foreign assistance, in times of strife as well as times of peace, is to annually account for foreign assistance expenditures to developing nations, as well as be accountable for the grievous actions of the State. US Census Bureau Table 1263 does the statistical job. The Department of State and USAID need to prominently display similar tables on their websites to make citizens happy. Using these tables the Department of State must also account for where and how much private tax deductible donations are going to causes that qualify as ODA. These tables should show historical trends as well as national need as done in the table below that shows great disparities in assistance by region.

Population, GDP, per capita, Aid Flows, ODA 2008 and US Aid 2007, by Region

Country Population GDP in billions

Per capita

ODA Millions2008

US AidMillions

2007

US MilitaryAss. ‘07

America 927,421,954 21,711 $23,420 31,627-7,214

28,915-1,857

13,025-105

48

Africa 991,760,344 2,835.2 $2,858 -38,806 -6,754 -1,636East Asia and

Oceania2,203,566,902 19,173 $8,700 13,716

-9,792-582 -53

Middle East and Central

Asia

1,934,348,065 8,263 $4,272 2,124-31,104

-8,202 -10,685

Europe 731,782,548 18,257 $24,975 78,447-4,186

-1,972 -223

World 6,788,879,813 70,239 $64,225 125,914-91,102

28,915-19,367

13,025-12,702

Source: World Atlas HA-2010, US Census Table 1263

The general strategy of US foreign assistance and ODA must be to provide direct relief to the world’s poor so that no one must suffer from extreme poverty again. As the table above shows great disparities exist between the supply of and demand for assistance. From a regional perspective the most glaring problem is that the Middle Eastern and Central Asian nations receive more USAID assistance than Africa. Even more disconcerting is that the Middle East and Central Asia receive 83 percent of global US military assistance. Funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the arms race between Israel, Egypt and Jordan need to be eliminated. The wars have brought international development, the way to peace, to the attention of the global community, their utility, if they ever had one, is over. We are more conscious global citizens than at any time since the end of World War II. We might even want to call these conflicts collectively, World War III, with the Western powers as the decadent imperialists, to prevent economic recovery from deteriorating in warfare as occurred after the Great Depression. The colonial aggressors cannot view themselves as righteous or the righteous Islamists will rise up. The US must admit their error and continue apologizing until a century of flaws in foreign relations law are amended. Economic assistance is another matter. Where disparities in economic assistance exist funding should not usually go down for the luckier nations even if they have actually graduated LDC with a per capita greater than $900, or developing country until an equitably distributed per capita income exceeding $10,000 would eliminate a need for international assistance. Nor should a nation be obligated to contribute to international development until a middle income nation has achieved industrialized status with a per capita over $20,000. It is here that the US must prove that their extraordinary wealth is real, and not just a pathological lie whose discovery will plunge us back into the stone age, as occurs every time to the author of the truth.

The US government needs to prove they have the human intelligence to contribute 0.7 percent of their GDP to ODA by 2015. This can be accomplished if the US performs four tasks. First, the US government’s official leaders of international development must publish annual foreign assistance statistics prominently on their website, transmit this to the US Census Bureau and CIA World Factbook to make foreign assistance the focus of US international relations for the domestic constituency of donors and advocates. Second, capitalizing upon their new found bona fide empirical professionalism and mastery of the field of foreign relations the US Foreign Service must amend the intelligence failures in their foreign relations law, limit military financing to under the $800 million global limit, and bring an end to these foolish wars in the

49

Middle East and Central Asia by purchasing their quota from an Afghan Opium Agency. Third, going back the official table of foreign assistance the Department of State and USAID must account for the unique prevalence of private tax deductible contributions to causes that qualify as ODA and transmit these totals annually to the US Bureau of the Census and therefrom to the CIA World Factbook, OECD and UN Development Program to ensure the quantity and quality of US foreign aid is fully respected and credited by the international institutions that keep ODA statistics. Fourth, to be fairly certain to achieve the 0.7 percent contribution target by 2015, a 350 percent increase from 0.2 percent, 0.25 with private contributions, the US must legislate a voluntary 1 percent official development payroll tax immediately, that would be administrated by USAID, that would not become enforced for all taxpayers until 2020 when the UN Charter Legitimate Edition should be ratified and first Secretary of the UN elected. Everyone likes the idea of a tax to pay welfare to the world’s poorest people. Three out of four Americans say they would like to pay such a 1 percent international development tax as long as it promoted peace and went to the world’s poorest people and the other quarter aren’t sure, but aren’t opposed to the idea. Enacting the 1 percent international development tax now will give USAID the power to the fulfill the MDGs for the word’s poorest and richest alike. A short Act is proposed in the appendix to this treatise to secure the peace, enact the tax and concisely and sovereignly direct US foreign policy at the beginning of the 21st century. The windfall of private assistance and a voluntary 1 percent payroll tax would enable USAID to fill in the blanks in the table on foreign assistance related statistics below. The private assistance would be accounted for in a separate column and as part of the total, confidential donor and mission information would be kept secret from the statistical publications. To argue the case for tax deductions and credit as ODA USAID would evaluate whether and how much private donors and missions qualify as ODA and produce an annual report on private assistance to foster innovation, promote successful programs and reform failing ones. Private assistance, greater than $1 million would greatly help to fill in the blanks and redress the glaring inequalities in the foreign assistance table, but it is not enough. A 1 percent voluntary tax would need to be offered without any coercion, to all taxpayers. It is up to the budget strapped Congress to determine whether or not such an automatic voluntary contribution would be tax deductible or not at the outset. The unpopular Congress must not deny the American people and USAID this opportunity to fulfill their duties as global citizens whereas this equitable distribution of wealth is far, far more theoretically likely to stimulate the economy than any amount of tax relief for the rich. In 2020 when the tax would be enforced it would not be tax deductible, it would be a regular social security style tax, the amount of which would be printed on every paystub. This voluntary tax would help international development to be a sovereign pursuit of the American people and liberate it from the foibles of the Democratic and Republican (DR) bipartisan system. It is estimated that at its inception this tax could levy $25-50 billion for ODA if taxpayers put their money where their mouth was and when it was enforced for all individual and corporate taxpayers in 2020 more than $100 billion, plus private tax deductible missions and regular foreign assistance funding from the General Fund not terminated to eliminate corruption. To contribute 0.7 percent of 2015’s $15 trillion estimated GDP it is projected that the US would need to contribute $105 billion in ODA, up from $22 billion in 2007, a 500% increase. A great challenge, but easily achievable by the American people, who extended their life expectancy by 15 years within a decade of implementing clean water and sewage at the dawn of the 20th

50

century. The administration must lay out a safety to all developing nations with per capita incomes less than $10,000 of at least $5 million, and all least developing countries with per capita income less than $900, another $5 million. Having secured official government channels for the delivery of foreign assistance the US would then administrate welfare on a per capita basis using the $1 or $2 a day world poverty line as the basis for evaluating need – more of an art than a science until a mathematician can come up with a formula that can actually be applied to equitably administrative relief.

Foreign Assistance Related Statistics, by Nation 2007

Country Population GDP in billions

Per capita

ODA Millions2008

US AidMillions

2007

US MilitaryAss. ‘07

Afghanistan 28,395,716 23.35 $800 -4,865 -2,174 -3,642Akrotiri 15,700Albania 3,639,453 22.9 $6.300 -386 -36 -4Algeria 34,178,188 239.6 $7,000 -316Andorra 83,888 4.22 $44,900Angola 12,799,293 114.4 $8,900 -369 -48

Anguilla 14,436 0.175 $12,200 -3Antigua & Barbuda

85,632 1.55 18,100 -8

Argentina 40,913,584 558 $13,800Aruba 103,065 2.258 $21,800

Australia 21,262,641 824.3 $38,800 2,954Austria 8,210,281 323.1 $39,400 1,714

Azerbaijan 8,238,672 86.03 $10,400 -235 -52 -5Bahamas 307,552 5.295 $29,800Bahrain 728,709 17.7 $25,300

Bangladesh 156,050,883 242.4 $1,600 -2,061 -91 -2Barbados 284,589  4.569 $18,500 -9.1Belarus 9,648,533 116 $11,600 -110Belgium 10,414,336 381 $36,600 2,386Belize 307,899 2.485 $8,100  -25Benin 8,791,832 13.25 $1,500 -641

Bermuda 67,837 4.5 $69,900  Bhutan 691,141 3.763 $5,400 -87Bolivia 9,775,246 45.11 $4,600 -628 -181

Bosnia & Herzegovina

4,025,476 29.07 $6,300 -482 -43 -10

Botswana 1,990,876 26 $13,100 -716Brazil 198,739,269 2,025 $10,200 -460

British Virgin 24,491 0.872 $38,500  51

IslandsBrunei 388,190 6.842 $23,600

Bulgaria 7,204,687 90.51 $12,600 0 -19 -24Burkina Faso 15,746,232 18.79 $1,200 -998

Burma (Myanmar) 48,137,741 56.92 $1,100 -534Burundi 9,511,330 3.247 $300 -509 -38

Cambodia 14,494,293 28.09 $1,900 -743 -73 -1Cameroon 18,879,301 42.76 $2,300 -525

Canada 33,487,208 1,285 $38,400 4,785Cape Verde 429,474 1.7 $3,400 -219

Cayman Islands 49,035 2.25 $43,800  Central-African

Republic4,511,488 3.327 $700 -256

Chad 10,329,208 16.26 $1,600 -416 -97Chile 16,601,707  243.7 $14,700 -73China 1,338,612,968 8,789 $6,600 -1,489

Christmas Island 1,402Cocos (Keeling)

Island596

Colombia 43,677,372 401 $9,200 -972 -410 -87Comoros 752,438 0.761 $1,000 -37Congo-

Democratic Republic of the

68,692,542 21.33 $300 -1,610 -148

Congo-Republic of

4,012,809 16.41 $4,100 -505

Cook Islands 11,870 0.184 $9,100 -6Costa Rica 4,253,877 48.63 $10,900 -66 

Cote d’Ivoire 20,617,068 35.82 $1,700 -617Croatia 4,489,409 79.21 $17,600 0Cuba 11,451,652 111.1 $9,700 -127

Cyprus 1,084,748 22.97 $21,200Czech Republic 10,211,904 256.6 $25,100

Denmark 5,500,510 198.6 $36,000 2,803Dhekelia 15,700Djibouti 724,622 2.011 $2,800 -121

Dominica 72,660 0.743 $10,200 -22Dominican Republic

9,650,054 80.53 $8,300 -153

Ecuador 14,573,101 108.2 $7,400 -231 -66Egypt 78,866,635 471.2 $6,000 -1,348 -671 -1,301

El Salvador 7,185,218 42.92 $7,100 -233 -504 -9Equatorial Guinea 633,441 23.2 $36,600 -38

52

Eritrea 5,647,168 4.198 $700 -143 -3Estonia 1,299,371 24.36 $18,700Ethiopia 85,237,338 76.74 $900 -3,327 -468 -2

Falkland Islands 3,140 0.105 $35,400  Faroe Islands 49,057 1.56 $48,200

Fiji 944,720 3.704 $3,900 -45Finland 5,250,275 182.6 $34,900 1,166France 64,057,792 2,110 $32,800 10,908

French Guiana 199,509 1.551 $8,300  French Polynesia 291,000 4.718 $18,000

Gabon 1,514,993 20.99 $13,900 -55Gambia, The 1,778,081 2.471 $1,400 -94

Georgia 4,615,807 20.29 $4,400 -888 -87 -11Germany 82,329,758 2,811 $34,100 13,981

Ghana 23,887,812 36.57 $1,500 -1,293 -619 -2Gibraltar 28,877 1.106 $38,500Greece 10,737,428 341 $32,100 703

Greenland 57,637 2.03 $35,400Grenada 90,739 1.156 $10,800 -33

Guadeloupe 448,713 3.513 $7,900  Guam 180,865 2.5 $15,000

Guatemala 13,276,517 69.21 $5,200  -536 -83Guernsey 65,632 2.742 $44,600Guinea 10,057,975 10.48 $1,000 -319

Guinea-Bissau 1,533,964 0.933 $600 -132Guyana 752,940 2.844 $3,800 -166

Haiti 9,035,536 11.9 $1,300 -912 -208 -2Holy See 829Honduras 7,833,696 33.17 $4,200 -564 -62 -3

Hong Kong SAR 7,089,705 301.6 $42,700 0Hungary 9,905,596 184.9 $18,600Iceland 306,694 12.15 $39,600India 1,173,108,018 3,560 $3,100 -2,108 -158 -2

Indonesia 240,271,522 969.2 $4,000 -1,225 -235 -9Iran 68,688,433 876 $12,900 -98Iraq 28,945,569 112 $3,600 -9,870 -4,050 -4,143

Ireland 4,203,200 176.9 $42,200 1,328Isle of Man 76,913 2.719 $35,000

Israel 7,233,701 206.8 $28,400 0 -168 -2,340Italy 58,126,212 1,760 $27,700 4,861

Jamaica 2,825,928 23.24 $8,200 -79 -34 -2Japan 126,804,433 4,137 $32,600 9,579Jersey 91,812 5.1 $57,000

53

Jordan 6,269,285 33.05 $5,300 -742 -349 -211Kazakhstan 15,399,437 182.3 $11,800 -333 -100 -4

Kenya 39,002,772 63.73 $1,600 -1,360 -522Kiribati 99,482 0.597 $6,100 -27

Korea, North 22,757,275 40 $1,900 -218Korea, South 48,636,068 1,356 $28,000 800

Kosovo 1,815,048 5.3 $2,500 -93Kurdistan 36,200,000 225 $6,250Kuwait 2,692,526 145.7 $54,100 209

Kyrgystan 5,431,747 11.66 $2,100 -360 -46 -3Laos 6,993,767 15.07 $2,100 -496

Latvia 2,231,503 32.4 $14,500Lebanon 4,017,095 53.68 $13,100 -1,076Lesotho 2,130,819 3.273 $1,700 -143Liberia 3,441,790 1.627 $500 -1,250 -204 -56Libya 6,324,357 95.88 $15,200 -60

Liechtenstein 34,761 4.16 $122,100Lithuania 3,555,179 54.84 $15,400

Luxembourg 491,775 36.37 $78,000 415Macau SAR 567,957 18.47 $33,000 0Macedonia 2,066,718 18.77 $9,000 -250 -34 -4Madagascar 20,653,556 20.5 $1,000 -841 -66

Malawi 15,028,757 12.81 $900 -913 -107 -1Malaysia 26,160,256 381.1 $14,800 -158Maldives 396,334 1.673 $4,200 -54

Mali 13,443,225 15.52 $1,200 -964 -535Malta 405,165 7.223 $18,200

Marshall Islands 65,859 0.134 $2,500 -53 -48Martinique 432,900 6.117 $14,400  Mauritania 3,129,486 6.568 $2,100 -311Mauritius 1,284,264 15.9 $12,400 -110Mayotte 231,139Mexico 111,211,789 1,482 $13,500 -149 -88

Micronesia 107,154 0.238 $2,200 -94 -100Moldova 4,320,748 9.986 $2,300 -299Monaco 32,965 0.976 $30,000

Mongolia 3,086,918 9.456 $3,200 -246Montenegro 672,180 6.708 $9,800 -106Montserrat 5,097 0.029 $3,400 -35Morocco 31,285,174 146.7 $4,600 -1,217 -74 -14

Mozambique 21,669,278 20.17 $900 -1,994 -259 -1Namibia 2,108,665 13.58 $6,400 -207 -89Nauru 14,264 0.060 $5,000 -31

54

Nepal 28,951,852 33.25 $1,200 -716 -80 -1Netherlands 16,715,999 654.9 $39,200 6,993Netherlands

Antilles219,958 2.8 $16,000

New Caledonia 229,993 3.158 $15,000New Zealand 4,252,277 114.9 $27,300 348

Nicaragua 5,891,199 16.53 $2,800 -741 -56 -2Niger 15,306,252 10.45 $700 -605

Nigeria 149,229,090 357.2 $2,400 -1,290 -336 -2Niue 1,354 0.01 $5,800 -18

Norfolk Island 2,155Northern Mariana

Islands48,317 0.900 $12,500

Norway 4,660,539 273.1 $58,600 3,963Oman 3,418,085 69.48 $23,900 -32

Pakistan 174,578,558 449.3 $2,600 -1,539 -665 -312Palau 20,879 0.164 $8,100 -43

Palestine 4,013,126 12.75 $2,900 -2,593 -165Panama 3,360,474 40.32 $11,900 -29

Papua New Guinea

6,064,515 14.02 $2,400 -304

Paraguay 6,995,655 28.27 $4,100 -134Peru 29,546,963 253 $8,600 -466 -165

Philippines 99,900,177 324.8 $3,300 -61 -126 -43Pitcairn Islands 48

Poland 38,482,919 463 $12,000 -2 -31Portugal 10,707,924 233.4 $21,800 620

Puerto Rico 3,966,213  68.14 $17,200  Qatar 833,285 101.4 $121,700

Romania 22,215,421 255.4 $11,500 0 -22 -16Russia 140,041,244 2,116 $15,100 -1,481 -112

Rwanda 10,746,311 10.13 $900 -931 -119 -1Saint Barthelemy 7,406

Saint Helena, Ascension &

Tristan da Cunha

7,637 0.018 2,500 -66

Saint Kitts & Nevis

40,131 0.753 $15,200 -46

Saint Lucia 160,267 1.75 $10,900 -19Saint Pierre &

Michelon7,063 0.0483 $7,000

Saint Vincent & Grenadines

104,574 1.55 $18,100 -27 

55

Samoa 192,001 1.025 $5,400 -39Samoa, American 66,432 0.575 $8,000

San Marino 30,167 1.662 $41,900Sao Tome e

Principe212,679 0.292 $1,700 -47

Saudi Arabia 28,686,633 585.8 $20,400 1,734Senegal 13,711,597 22.38 $1,600 -1,058 -68 -2Serbia 7,379,339 78.36 $10,400 -1,047

Seychelles 87,476 1.682 $19,400 -12Sierra Leone 5,132,138 4.622 $900 -367

Singapore 4,701,069 235.7 $50,300 0Slovakia 5,463,046 115.7 $21,200Slovenia 2,005,692 39.41 $19,600

Solomon Islands 609,794 1.57 $2,600 -224Somalia 9,832,017 5.731 $600 -758

South Africa 49,052,489 495.1 $10,100 -1,125 -393Spain 40,525,002 1,368 $33,700 6,867

Sri Lanka 21,513,990 96.43 $4,500 -730 -42 -1Sudan 41,087,825 92.81 $2,300 -2,384 -926 -254

Suriname 481,267 4.274 $9,000 -102Svalbard 2,067

Swaziland 1,337,186 5.882 $4,400 -67Sweden 9,059,651 333.5 $36,800 4,732

Switzerland 7,604,467 317 $41,700 2,038Syria 21,762,978 100.7 $4,600 -136

Taiwan 23,024,956 717.7 $29,800 0Tajikstan 7,349,145 13.8 $1,800 -291 -33 -1Tanzania 41,048,532 57.89 $1,400 -2,331 -253Thailand 66,404,688 538.6 $8,100 -621

Timor-Leste 1,131,612 2.74 $2,400 -278Togo 6,031,808 5.202 $900 -330

Tokelau 1,400 0.0015 $1,000 -21Tonga 122,580 0.552 $4,600 -26

Trinidad & Tobago

1,229,953 28.41 $23,100 -12

Tunisia 10,175,014 83.21 $8,000 -479Turkey 76,805,524 863.3 $11,200 -2,024 -12 -18

Turkmenistan 4,884,887 33.58 $6,900 -18Turks & Caicos 22,942 0.216 11,500 -4.1

Tuvalu 10,472 0.015 $1,600 -17Uganda 32,369,558 43.22 $1,300 -1,657 -370Ukraine 45,700,395 294.3 $6,400 -618 -155 -11

United Arab 4,798,491 201.4 $42,000 181

56

EmiratesUnited Kingdom 61,113,205 2,149 $35,600 11,500

United States 307,212,123 14,260 $46,400 26,842 28,915 13,025Uruguay 3,494,382 44.52 $12,700 -33 

Uzbekistan 27,606,007 77.55 $2,800 -187 -17Vanuatu 221,552 1.041 $4,800 -92

Venezuela 26,814,843 350.1 $13,100 -59Vietnam 89,571,130 258.1 $2,900 -2,552

Virgin Islands 109,825 1.577 $14,500  Wallis and

Futuna15,343 0.06 $3,800 -131

Western Sahara 405,210 0.9 $2,500Yemen 22,858,238 58.19 $2,500 -305Zambia 11,862,740 18.5 $1,500 -1,086 -201

Zimbabwe 11,392,629 0.332 $100 -611 -140Source: World Atlas: Great Recession of 2009; U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Foreign Economic and

Military Aid by Recipient Country 2000 to 2007. Table 1263

APPENDIX

An Act to Secure a Voluntary 1 percent ODA Tax on Income

Be the differences, perversions, prejudices and persecutions of the Democratic and Republican (DR) bipartisan system dissolved to enact this bill that will refer the problem of contributing 0.7

percent of the US GDP to ODA to the sovereign generosity of the American taxpayers

Nearly everyone agrees the UN Millennium Goals (MDGs) for 2015 are the focus of international economic cooperation at the dawn of the 21st century, a century destined for global income equality.

Everyone has enjoyed the prosperity selfless work to achieve these noble goals brings despite the specter of war in the Middle East and Central Asia (MECA) that woke us from our reverie of the 20th century, the American century, to do our duty as global citizens.

Everyone has suffered the impoverishing and irrational consequences of subsidizing the rich.

We cannot fight the law of supply and demand as we walk the fine line of the global poverty line - $1-2 a day.

Now is the time to apologize for the flaws in foreign relations law that enabled the US to steal the 20th century and continues to disable the fulfillment of human rights at home and abroad

Now is the time to create a just and lasting peace so everyone’s rights can be fulfilled and the world will prosper.

57

It is 2010 and the US is credited with around 0.2 percent of GDP contribution to ODA.

Now is the time for the US to dedicate itself to achieving the MDG target for industrialized nations of contributing 0.7 percent of GDP to ODA by 2015

The US cannot rely upon being the biggest national contributor in the world.

The EU contributes more than three times as much and is on target to achieve the 0.7 percent of GDP goal by 2013.

If the US does not begin focusing upon achieving this goal now we are certain to fail.

If the US fails the US will be hard pressed to prove we are not too decadent and unequal to even qualify as an industrialized nation anymore.

If the US fails the carefully monitored statistical failings of the MDGs in developing nations will be so much more severe.

The US cannot fail. The American people have always proven that where there is a will there is a way. In the basket case of industrialized nations negotiating to appreciate developing nation currencies, the way forward is for the US to achieve the 0.7 percent of GDP goal by;

(1) accounting for our uniquely high levels of private philanthropy and; (2) leading the world by enacting a 1 percent international development payroll tax that

would be voluntary until we hope it will be enforced in 2020 to celebrate the democratic election of the Secretary of the UN Charter Legitimate Edition.

Section 1 The Empirical Master Table of US Foreign Assistance

A.The US Census Bureau, in the Department of Commerce, publishes a series of statistics on US Foreign, Economic and Military Assistance.

1.Under this act, the Department of State and USAID shall both publish a similar, up-to date, table, from the most recent year.

a. This table shall be prominently linked to their Internet homepages.b. This table shall prominently display the total foreign assistance expenditures of their

programs and all US foreign assistance programs, estimated at 22 separate government agencies, by recipient country and multilateral institution.

c. This table shall differentiate economic, health and military assistance and indicate how much assistance is accepted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and UN Development Programme (UNDP) as Official Development Assistance (ODA).

d. This table shall account for private tax deductible contributions and missions to developing nations that qualify as Official Development Assistance (ODA).

58

e. This table may be used to make projections of future supply and demand

2. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook shall use these statistics to track both US foreign assistance and UN ODA flows in the country profiles.

a. The CIA World Factbook shall also maintain a column on prison statistics, in every country, both of the absolute number of prisoners and the ratio of detainees per 100,000 residents. The International Centre for Prison Studies at King’s College shall serve as the source.

3. These statistics and other demographic statistics shall be served upon the UN Statistical Program for the inclusion of the United States in the UN Demographic Yearbook.

B. This master table for the bounty of US foreign assistance shall serve as the focal point for domestic supporters of US foreign policy, diplomacy and development to levy and administrate ODA to developing nations and the world’s poorest people.

1.This empirical master table shall defeat military imperialism by helping to enforce the $800 million global total for US military assistance under 22USC(32)§2312 and $3 million country norm under 22USC(32)§2314 thereby learning the Arabic number zero violence to the satisfaction of the African nations we hope will welcome US African Command onto their soil.

Section 2 FR-ee, CC, MECA and SEA, and UNCLE A.Since the codification of the civil law in 1924 US foreign relations law has been strangely sabotaged in a particularly perverse and depraved fashion by the Democratic and Republican (DR) bipartisan system who must now redress these flaws for the security of the American people and to restore the national reputation and dignity. They are:

1. Title 22 Foreign Relations and Intercourse (a-FraI-d) needs to be amended to Title 22 Foreign Relations (FR-ee).

2. The USAID Bureau for Asia and the Near East (ANE) needs to be completely dissolved into the Bureaus for the Middle East and Central Asia (MECA) and South East Asia (SEA).

3. All international offices of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) need to be closed immediately, before the agency name is changed to Drug Evaluation Agency (DEA) and transferred to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with a new charge of prohibiting all disease pathogens prone to abuse in bio-medical research.

4. The Court of International Trade of the United States (CoITUS) needs to change its name to Customs Court (CC) and engrave a memorial for those who died in the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

5. Having performed these amendments the US should have the standing to publicly apologize for sabotaging the UN Charter at the San Francisco Conference with a military dictatorship and

59

begin the process of ratifying the UN Charter Legitimate Edition (UNCLE) to establish a legitimate democratically elected tax administration. Section 3 Voluntary International Development Payroll and Corporate Income Tax A.Chapter 4 Voluntary 1 percent International Development Payroll Tax shall be inserted in the repealed Chapter 4 of Subtitle A Income Tax of the Internal Revenue Code at Title 26 of the United States Code Section 1471 it shall state simply,

1.Employees and corporations shall be given the option, beginning in FY 2011, to have 1 percent of their income or profits automatically deducted to contribute to the Official Development Assistance (ODA) programs of USAID.

2.This tax is voluntary, it is however a tax and is not tax deductible.

3. If the contributor changes their mind and decides to terminate their contribution, at any time during the year, whatever money that has been contributed that year shall be refunded.

4. This program is temporary until 2020 when there will be a referendum to enforce this tax in celebration of the hypothetical ratification of the UN Charter Legitimate Edition and election of a civilian Secretary of the UN and finance of the social security style international tax administration that actually pays benefits to people living below or near the world poverty line of $1-$2 a day.

5. The immediate goal is to increase the supply of US ODA from 0.19 percent, $22 billion in 2007, to +/- $105 billion annually by 2015, a 477 percent increase, to achieve the agreed upon 0.7 percent of GDP contribution to ODA target, as demanded of industrialized nation in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for 2015.

Bibliography

Bhagwati, Jagdish. Banned Aid: Why International Assistance Does not Alleviate Poverty. Senior Fellow for International Economics; Foreign Affairs. January/February2010

Cakmak, Ismael. Plant Nutrition Research: Priorities to Meet Human Needs for Food in Sustainable Ways. Plant and Soil 247: 3-24, 2002

Central Intelligence Agency. World Factbook. Last checked September 30, 2010

Fischer, Stanley. Mundell-Fleming Lecture Series: Exchange Rate Systems, Surveillance and Advice. IMF Staff Papers. Vol. 55 No. 3. July 1, 2008. Pp 367-383

Florin, Lambert. Backyard Classic Outhouses: An Adventure in Nostalgia. Superior Publishing Co. Seattle, Washington. 1975

60

Garrett, Laurie A. The Debate over Foreign Aid. Senior Fellow; Council on Foreign Relations. May 6, 2010

Garrett, Laurie.The Future of Foreign Assistance Amid Global Economic and Financial Crisis: Advancing Global Health in the US Development Agenda. Council on Foreign Relations. January 2009

Global Health Facts. PEPFAR Approved Funding (US$) Fiscal Year 2009; December 2009

Go, Julian. Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires* Sociological Theory 26:3 September 2008

Jiabao, Wen. People’s Republic of China Mission to the United Nations. Getting to Know the Real China. Statement by Wen Jiabao Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 65th UN General Assembly. New York. 23 September 2010

Jolly, Richard; Emmerij, Louis; Ghai, Dharam; Lapeyre, Frederic. UN Contributions to Development Thinking and Practice. Indiana University Press. Bloomington. 2004

Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. 1795

McNeil, Donald Jr. Disaster Strategy: The Soft Heart and the Hard Sell. New York Times. August 21, 2010

Miranda, Laura C. Permanent Mission of Costa Rica to the United Nations. General Debate. Statement by Laura Chinchilla Miranda, President of the Republic of Costa Rica. 65th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. New York. 23 September 2010

Mutharika, Bingu W. Republic of Malawi. Africa of the New Beginning. Statement by His Excellency the Professor Bingu Wa Mutharika, President of the Republic of Malawi and Chairman of the African Union. 65th Session of the UN General Assembly. New York. 23 September 2010

Obama, Barack. President Barack Obama’s Remarks as Prepared for Delivery to the United Nations General Assembly. New York City. September 23, 2010

Organization for Economic Co-operation in Europe DAC News April 2007Sanders, Tony J. Care Pakistan: The Seeds of Flood Relief. Hospitals & Asylums. HA-21-8-10

Sanders, Tony J. Federal Budget in Balance FY 2011: Comparison of Bush and Obama. Hospitals & Asylums. HA-28-2-10

Sanders, Tony J. Haitian Earthquake Relief: 2.3 billion est.. Hospitals & Asylums. HA-12-1-10

Sanders, Tony J. International Development. Book 5. Hospitals & Asylums. HA-20-9-10

61

Sanders, Tony J. United Nations Charter Legitimate Edition (UNCLE). Hospitals & Asylums. HA-28-2-09

Sanders, Tony J. World Atlas 2010: Millennium Development Goals 1990-2015 and Factbook 2009. Hospitals & Asylums. HA-31-5-10

Schwartz, Eric; Reichle, Susan. The Challenges of Disaster Response: Lesson on World Humanitarian Day. Huffington Post. August 19, 2010

Shah, Rajiv. Speech by USAID Administrator Dr. Rajiv Shah: Approach to High Impact Development. U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. May 5, 2010

Takeyh, Ray; Gvosdev, Nikolas. Democratic Impulses versus Imperial Interests: America’s New Mid-East Conundrum. Orbis. Summer 2003

UN Human Development Report. Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world 2007/2008

United Nations. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2009

US Bureau of the Census. Foreign Commerce and Foreign Aid. Series 1261-1263. Last updated December 17, 2009

US Department of State, Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, Operational Plan, Fiscal Year 2009

US Department of State, Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, Celebrating Life: Fifth Annual Report to Congress on PEPFAR, 2010

Statute

Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-480)

Arms Export Control Act. Need for international defense cooperation and military export controls; Presidential waiver; report to Congress; arms sales policy 22 USC(39)III§2751

Authorization of Appropriations for Military Assistance 22USC(32)§2312

Cuban Assets Control Regulations 31CFR515

Exchange Rate and International Economic Policy 22USC(62)5303

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) (P.L. 87-194, 75 Stat. 424) Chapter 32 of Title 22 Foreign Relations and Intercourse (as amended)

62

Furnishing of defense articles or related training or other defense service on grant basis 22USC(32)§2314

Human Rights and Security Assistance 22USC(32)§2304

International Monetary Fund Articles of Agreement

International negotiations on exchange rate and economic policies 22USC(62)§5304

Need for Afghanistan to Apologize for Death of Ambassador 22USC(32)§2374 (repealed)

Prohibition on additional imports from Cuba 22USC(79)§7208

Prohibition on assistance to countries that provide military equipment to terrorist states 22USC(32)§2378

Prohibition on United States Assistance and Financing 22USC(79)§7207

Requirements relating to certain travel-related transactions with Cuba 22USC(79)§7209

State Sponsors of International Terrorism 22USC(79)§7205

Termination of Sanctions 22USC(79)§7204

Trade sanctions reform and export enhancement. Restrictions 22USC(79)§7202

Utilization of Defense Articles and Defense Services 22USC(32)2302

World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures

63