Now they've done it

For some reason, I have had this idea that perhaps the Bush administration would have learned something from the Iraq debacle. Apparently, my unending sense of optimism is unfounded. Today, the Washington Post reported that the US has submitted 750 amendments to a 29-paged UN draft agreement on UN reform and poverty reduction. Never mind that this agreement has long been in negotiation (6 months) and this is a very late wrench to throw, it is repugnant for many other reasons.

What exactly does the US have a problem with? Well, for starters, the neo-cons, ahem Bolton, don't like foreign aid very much. They look at statistical studies of foreign aid from the 1950's to the present (like this one) that basically add up the total expenditures, plot that data versus the "dollar per day" that the world's poor live on, and conclude summarily that all foreign aid is a waste. These studies have significant methodological errors (they ignore the role of Cold War politics on aid from 1950-1987, for example, and they set the benchmark at dollar/day which ignores other successes like the eradication of diseases), but also seem to be completely blind to the simple reality that just because aid has not worked previously, does not mean it won't work in the future. There's more than one way to distribute funds, for example. One of the problems that past aid grants had was that the money was given, in bulk, to 3rd world dictators who more often than not pocketed it in an exclusive Swiss bank. Now, we rarely give fungible aid dollars and instead use 3rd parties (private contractors) to distribute services that we pay for and whatnot. Instead of looking to scrap the entire concept, we ought to look at how we can improve the effectiveness of aid. Here's a guy with some good ideas.

Anyway, this is not intended to be a lengthy discussion about foreign aid. That's a piece of the debate. The US amendments also ask for the elimination any reference to arresting global climate change and calls to reduce the arsenals of the nuclear armed states (our treaty obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). They also wish to strengthen provisions about combating terrorism, the spread of WMD, and democracy and human rights promotion.

The US also takes issue with the 2000 Millennium Development Goals, wishing to strike any mention of them from the agreement, as well as pare down the section on reducing poverty. There are other tidbits as well that are flatly offensive (like the one about Genocide), but that's not the crux of my issue at this point. No, the crux of my complaint is two-fold.

First, in June, George Bush stood shoulder to shoulder with Tony Blair and agreed to eliminate debt and attempt to fight poverty as part of the Millennium Development Goals. The G-8 summit focused largely on Africa (an unfortunate occurrence if you ask me), but there can be no doubt that Bush smiled and tacitly went along with the proceedings. Apparently, he has no problem lying to his closest ally as well as the American and international public. (Just where are Saddam's WMDs, Mr. President? Mobile CBW facilities my ass.) And, lest you think that the Millennium Development Goals are controversial, think again. There isn't too much about aiming to reduce global poverty, increase education and gender equality, and eliminate HIV and Malaria. The MDGs are pretty non-controversial primarily because they're relatively unspecific. To oppose them is essentially to oppose the prevention of 10,000 deaths a day in Africa, prolonged suffering across the globe, and pretty much sits you at the table with Osama, Hitler, and Satan. (Now that's over the top, Pat Robertson/500 Club lovers!)

Second, the entire issue is so incredibly frustrating primarily because this administration once again can't see the forest from the trees. Poverty is the root cause of extremism and fundamentalism. People with money, a stake in their community, a good education, and possibilities for a good life, on the whole, don't go strapping bombs to themselves and blow sh*t up. The longer the less advantaged world is allowed to languish unaided in poverty and disease, the longer the politics of hate and extremism will fester, grow, and impact the lives of those of us lucky enough to be born in the West. It is fundamentally in the US national interest to arrest poverty, eliminate disease, and give a helping hand to the millions of people across Africa, Asia, and South America that are in desperate need of help. Sadly, the Bush administration does not view aiding the needy as part of a core national interest.

Of course, all of this should come as no surprise. The US has opted out of the International Criminal Court, Kyoto, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and a handful of other treaties aimed at improving the world we live in. Continually shirking our responsibilities as the world's most powerful nation is repugnant and only further reduces the chances of the US shaping the world in favorable terms to our interests. Power balancing against the US is already underway in important settings (the UN Security Council is one) and the longer the US continues to go it alone in the least diplomatic fashion possible, the greater the risk that our interests will be further constrained and limited.

I'm sure everyone's heard the expression similar to this, "you win more friends with honey." Apparently, Bush never has or he doesn't care. This is the problem with empire. This is why empires fail. Arrogance takes hold and the leaders fail to see that they could maintain dominance and direct the world efficiently if only they were a bit more clever. But, at the end of the day, empires always fail and the US empire will fail inevitably. Our leadership is self-serving, entirely devoid of cleverness, and full of arrogant pride for their "accomplishments" to the point that they can't even sniff failure, not to mention colossal mistakes. Three years and counting...