Marshall Plan should be a model for U.S. foreign aid
I applaud David Sillers '04's Dec. 7 column, "Putting forth an ounce of prevention," for its call for an increase in foreign aid. The United States does indeed give by far the least per-capita aid of any developed nation — a situation that should be remedied for myriad reasons, selfish and not.
I would like to caution him, however, against cavalier comments that undermine his self-proclaimed purpose of "helping ourselves by helping others."
We should not give blindly, indeed. But I would suggest that aid programs that "verify commitments to American interests are being followed as promised" are not the most "effective" — unless you mean effective in creating future enemies. I must admit before I go on: I am one of the "biased students on campus [who point] to some cases of American injustices" whom Sillers mentions, because those few cases are the cases the rest of the world remembers and for which it holds us accountable.
Our columnist seems to applaud our Cold War foreign-aid programs. But all of Africa remembers when the CIA assassinated the pro-Communist, democratically elected leader of the Congo and installed Mobutu Sese Seko, one of the worst dictators of the period. Mobutu was propped up with U.S. aid dollars, which he used to buy more palaces for himself.
Others who were helped: Pinochet. Noriega. Hussein. Bin Laden. What did they have in common? They all were very committed to that supreme American interest of fighting Communism. And they all received substantial funds from the United States. If we revert to such anti-democratic foreign-aid policies, history will surely repeat itself.
The column argues that we should highly publicize our aid programs so as to "combat the stigma that the United States is only out for its own interests." Unfortunately, Sillers' suggested policies are quite transparently aimed at promoting American interests. Does throwing "aid" at regimes — corrupt or not, democratic or not — and then touting that aid seem the best way to combat resentment? Or does it just make us seem arrogant?
Perhaps a better approach to foreign aid is reflected in the Marshall Plan mentioned so approvingly by Sillers. Contra the column, which claims that "the United States was able to save Western Europe and Japan from the Communist revolutions," I would say that the United States helped those countries save themselves. The Marshall Plan was offered to all European countries — including Poland, Hungary and other Communist countries — and gave money for projects that were created by the recipient countries. In development economics lingo, this is called "ownership." And ownership — the right of a country to use foreign-aid money as it, not the donor country, deems best — is exactly the policy Sillers seems to oppose.
Nevertheless, I think that ownership is the future of foreign aid. Slowly, donor nations are learning that the best ways to develop countries are to let those countries decide how they want to develop. The results turn out to be programs that actually benefit populations and that foster appreciation for American goodwill, rather than resentment for rich American arrogance.
But these are all minor points. Again, I must concur with Sillers in his call for targeted aid as a means of reducing the likelihood of future conflict. And his emphasis on not supporting corrupt leaders is vital. I would just hope that in the future such noble plans are drawn up in less patronizing terms. By approaching poor countries as partners in development — by looking beyond our immediate interests — we might find that long-term American interests actually end up being served. Matt Frazier '02
Fateh faction promotes terrorism from within PLO
Alexandra Snyder '03's Dec. 6 column, "Chicken or the egg: Terminate the cycle of violence" is so riddled with errors that I question whether she really knows anything about the deep conflict in the Middle East.
Just a few examples can be found when Snyder claims that "The [Palestinian Liberation Organization] advocates a secular, democratic state within the occupied territories in coexistence with Israel [while Islamic Jihad calls for] an Islamic state in all of former mandate Palestine."
If the PLO wishes to coexist with Israel, then why does the PLO's Fateh faction (in their constitution, conveniently found at http://www.fateh.net/e_public/constitution.htm) state that "armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated."
She claims that the PLO and terror groups are diametric opposites, yet Yasser Arafat recently considered the formation of a joint coalition government with the two major terrorist groups operating out of his domain, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
These are two glaring logical flaws found in just one sentence; listing all of her factual errors would require a few more pages.
I strongly urge Snyder to educate herself about the Arab-Israeli conflict, instead of simply spouting off erroneous propaganda. Elliott Marc Davis Cornell University Member, Cornell Israel Public Affairs Committee
Read More
Faculty letter to U. admin calling for VP Calhoun’s resignation
Guest Contributors"We demand the immediate resignation of VP Calhoun, in whose leadership we have lost all faith following her untruthful and, in our opinion, deliberately misleading representation of student protesters, that has proven to be the real threat to the Princeton University community."
"We demand the immediate resignation of VP Calhoun, in whose leadership we have lost all faith following her untruthful and, in our opinion, deliberately misleading representation of student protesters, that has proven to be the real threat to the Princeton University community."
USG's recent statement failed to properly represent student interests
Arman Nemati"From my experiences within USG and from seeing what other student governments have done, I find USG’s inability to directly condemn the University’s arrests to be deeply disappointing."
"From my experiences within USG and from seeing what other student governments have done, I find USG’s inability to directly condemn the University’s arrests to be deeply disappointing."
What’s the rush? Keep the old final exam schedule.
Lizbeth ReyesThe new final exam schedule is detrimental both to students’ academic achievement and mental health during the exam period. Students’ well-being and academic success should take priority over efficiency, thus the University should reinstate the old final exam schedule.
The new final exam schedule is detrimental both to students’ academic achievement and mental health during the exam period. Students’ well-being and academic success should take priority over efficiency, thus the University should reinstate the old final exam schedule.
