Of Human Bondage and Foreign Aid

Kerry Howley | September 23, 2005

About that awkward human trafficking report, Saudi Arabia:

President Bush decided Wednesday to waive any financial sanctions on Saudi Arabia, Washington's closest Arab ally in the war on terrorism, for failing to do enough to stop the modern-day slave trade in prostitutes, child sex workers and forced laborers.

And the rest:

Bush concluded that Bolivia, Jamaica, Qatar, Sudan, Togo and the United Arab Emirates had made enough improvements to avoid any cut in U.S. aid...Cambodia and Venezuela were not considered to have made similar adequate improvements. But Bush cleared them nonetheless to receive limited assistance...

Which leaves:

Myanmar, Cuba, and North Korea as the only nations in the list of 14 barred completely from receiving certain kinds of foreign aid...The White House statement offered no explanation of why countries were regarded differently.

Not that I think the State Department's report on human trafficking was a good idea to begin with, but spending a year compiling a report on reasons not to give North Korea, Myanmar and Cuba foreign aid seems slightly unnecessary.

Whole thing here.

Link via Mark Kleiman.

Comments

|9.23.05 @ 3:44PM|#

My favorite "slightly unnecessary" piece of recurring political theater is when North Korea's state-owned enterprises are repeatedly barred from bidding on US government contracts: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-19000.htm (scroll down to paragraph (B) under the heading "Supplementary Information"). I mean, really, is there any risk that a North Korean state-owned enterprise is going to even submit a bid for a US government contract, let alone be awarded one? (Although I have to admit that they probably could beat the 25% price differential to override "Buy America" restrictions.)

|9.23.05 @ 4:00PM|#

My favorite "slightly unnecessary" piece of recurring political theater is when North Korea's state-owned enterprises are repeatedly barred from bidding on US government contracts: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-19000.htm (scroll down to paragraph (B) under the heading "Supplementary Information"). I mean, really, is there any risk that a North Korean state-owned enterprise is going to even submit a bid for a US government contract, let alone be awarded one? (Although I have to admit that they probably could beat the 25% price differential to override "Buy America" restrictions.)

|9.23.05 @ 4:08PM|#

Sorry about the double post. (I spit at thee, Reason server, from the heart of Hell!)

|9.23.05 @ 5:19PM|#

Qatar and U.A.E receive U.S. aid? How much does Switzerland receive?

|9.23.05 @ 5:22PM|#

Oh, I forgot. We have one of our anti-terror military bases in Qatar, don't we? And now that I think of it, Qatar doesn't have any oil. But by jesus, still. It's in S.A.'s neighborhood, let them provide the aid. But then there is that base...

|9.23.05 @ 5:36PM|#

Qatar is actually swimming in oil. As quoted from Wikipedia: "Qatar has the highest GDP per capita in the developing world. ($39,607 as of 2005)". Just for comparison, in the US it's $40,100.
It's also home to the supposedly less-than-friendly-to-America network al_Jazeera.

|9.23.05 @ 6:30PM|#

Now I'm no fancy big city lawyer, but it seems to me that a place with a $39,607 GDP per capita perhaps shouldn't be described as a developing country (and yes, there are huge income inequalities, but this is hardly the nation to squawk about that, hey?)

|9.23.05 @ 7:10PM|#

Now I'm no fancy big city lawyer, but it seems to me that a place with a $39,607 GDP per capita perhaps shouldn't be described as a developing country

There's more to it than just the amount of money they hand out. Other than oil, they have exactly jack in the way of industry or infrastructure. Beyond rent for a military base they don't deserve one thin dime of our money, don't get me wrong, but don't think because the people get generous welfare checks that it's a nice place to live.

|9.23.05 @ 7:35PM|#

Upon reading the whole article, I highly doubt that Qatar gets much in the way of US aid. Notice the bolded section below:

Of those 14, Bush concluded that Bolivia, Jamaica, Qatar, Sudan, Togo and the United Arab Emirates had made enough improvements to avoid any cut in U.S. aid or, in the case of countries that get no American financial assistance, the barring of their officials from cultural and educational events, said Darla Jordan, a State Department spokeswoman.


so essentially all this means is that the Shieks of Qatar and the UAE are not barred from attending a Yankees game.

|9.23.05 @ 8:56PM|#

Oil welfare check, unpleasant climate, not much industry or infrastructure, big American military bases - hell, you could be describing Alaska. I've never been through Qatar, but my experience of Bahrain and Abu Dhabi is that they're decent enough places to live if you're a native (if you're a dark-skinned "guest worker" then you're SOL); also helps to be a guy of course, though the shopping is damned good.

The broader point that bugs me is how often countries with perfectly respectable economies and standards of living are described as "developing" if they're not (western) European, former Brit colonies or Japan. I grew up in real "developing countries" (at least one was an absolute craphole that will never, ever develop) and there's a vast difference between them and places like South Korea or the Gulf states.

|9.26.05 @ 1:42AM|#

It's so encouraging to know that we have gone beyond the welfare state. It's now the GWW (Great Welfare World).

Tell me again, what's the US national debt?

Our "democracy" badly needs rebooting. You know, memory leaks and that kind of shit. Anybody got any idea where the switch is? I know it isn't in any of the voting booths.

|9.26.05 @ 2:59AM|#

It's in the back. Near the TV section.