Tag: Foreign

  • How foreign aid helps the country that gives it

    How foreign aid helps the country that gives it

    In international relations, nation states vie for power and security. They do this through diplomacy and treaties which establish how they should behave towards one another.

    If those agreements don’t work, states resort to violence to achieve their goals. 

    In addition to diplomatic relations and wars, states can also project their interests through soft power. Dialogue, compromise and consensus are all part of soft power. 

    Foreign assistance, where one country provides money, goods or services to another without implicitly asking for anything in return, is a form of soft power because it can make a needy nation dependent or beholden to a wealthier one. 

    In 2023, the U.S. government had obligations to provide some $68 billion in foreign aid spread across more than 10 agencies to more than 200 countries. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) alone spent $38 billion in 2023 and operated in 177 different countries. 

    Spreading good will through aid

    USAID has been fundamental to projecting a positive image of the United States throughout the world. In an essay published by the New York Times, Samantha Power, the former administrator of USAID, described how nearly $20 billion of its assistance went to health programs that combat such things as malaria, tuberculosis, H.I.V./AIDS and infectious disease outbreaks, and humanitarian assistance to respond to emergencies and help stabilize war-torn regions.

    Other USAID investments, she wrote, give girls access to education and the ability to enter the work force. 

    When President John F. Kennedy established USAID in 1961, he said in a message to Congress: “We live at a very special moment in history. The whole southern half of the world — Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia — are caught up in the adventures of asserting their independence and modernizing their old ways of life. These new nations need aid in loans and technical assistance just as we in the northern half of the world drew successively on one another’s capital and know-how as we moved into industrialization and regular growth.”

    He acknowledged that the reason for the aid was not totally humanitarian.

    “For widespread poverty and chaos lead to a collapse of existing political and social structures which would inevitably invite the advance of totalitarianism into every weak and unstable area,” Kennedy said. “Thus our own security would be endangered and our prosperity imperilled. A program of assistance to the underdeveloped nations must continue because the nation’s interest and the cause of political freedom require it.” 

    Investing in emerging democracies

    The fear of communism was obvious in 1961. The motivation behind U.S. foreign assistance is always both humanitarian and political; the two can never be separated. 

    Today, the United States is competing with China and its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) for global influence through foreign assistance. The BRI was started by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2023. It is global, with its Silk Road Economic Belt connecting China with Central Asia and Europe, and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road connecting China with South and Southeast Asia and Africa and Latin America.

    Most of the projects involve infrastructure improvement — things like roads and bridges, mass transit and power supplies — and increased trade and investment. 

    As of 2013, 149 countries have joined BRI. In the first half of 2023, a total of $43 billion in agreements were signed. Because of its lending policy, BRI lending has made China the world’s largest debt collector.

    While the Chinese foreign assistance often requires repayment, the United States has dispensed money through USAID with no direct feedback. Trump thinks that needs to be changed. “We get tired of giving massive amounts of money to countries that hate us, don’t we?” he said on 27 January 2024. 

    Returns are hard to see.

    Traditionally, U.S. foreign assistance, unlike the Chinese BRI, has not been transactional. There is no guarantee that what is spent will have a direct impact. Soft power is not quantifiable. Questions of image, status and prestige are hard to measure.

    Besides helping millions of people, Samantha Power gave another more transactional reason for supporting U.S. foreign assistance.

    “USAID has generated vast stores of political capital in the more than 100 countries where it works, making it more likely that when the United States makes hard requests for other leaders — for example — to send peace keepers to a war zone, to help a U.S. company enter a new market or to extradite a criminal to the United States — they say yes,” she wrote.

    Trump is known as a “transactional” president, but even this argument has not convinced him to continue to support USAID. 

    Soft power is definitely not part of his vision of the art of the deal.


     

    Three questions to consider:

    1. What is “foreign aid”?
    2. Why would one country give money to another without asking for anything in return?
    3. Do you think wealthier nations should be obliged to help poorer countries?


     

    Source link

  • $50K threshold for college foreign gift reporting passes House panel

    $50K threshold for college foreign gift reporting passes House panel

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief: 

    • The House Committee on Education and Workforce voted Wednesday to advance a bill that would require colleges to report gifts and contracts valued at $50,000 or more from most foreign countries. 
    • That would lower the requirement from the current threshold of $250,000. Republicans argued that the bill, called the Deterrent Act, is needed to prevent foreign influence in higher education. 
    • The bill would also lower the reporting threshold to $0 for the “countries of concern” as determined by the U.S. Code or the secretary of education, which include China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The proposal would bar colleges from entering into contracts with those countries unless the secretary of education issues them a waiver and renews it each year. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The Deterrent Act would amend Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, which oversees foreign gift and contract reporting requirements for colleges. Republicans on the education committee argued the measure is needed to provide more transparency. 

    A fact sheet on the bill included concerns about foreign adversaries stealing secrets from American universities and influencing student behavior. 

    The fact sheet also referenced a 2024 congressional report that accused two high-profile research institutions — University of California, Berkeley and Georgia Institute of Technology — of failing to meet the current reporting requirements through their partnerships with Chinese universities. 

    “Higher education is one of the jewels of American society,” said Rep. Michael Baumgartner, a Washington Republican who co-sponsored the bill, on Wednesday. “Unfortunately, it’s also an area that is often under attack and used by malign influences to subvert American interests.”

    Under the bill, colleges would face fines and the loss of their Title IV federal student aid funding if they didn’t comply with the reporting requirements. 

    Democrats largely voiced opposition to the measure. 

    However, they focused many of their complaints Wednesday on the Trump administration’s recent moves that have sparked outcry in the higher education sector, including cuts to the National Institutes of Health’s funding for indirect research costs. A judge temporarily blocked the cuts earlier this week. 

    “I understand and I do appreciate the intent behind the Deterrent Act, but if House Republicans and the president truly want to lead in America, and they want America to lead, they must permanently reverse the cuts to the National Institutes of Health,” said Rep. Lucy McBath, a Democrat from Georgia. “It’s not enough for us just to wait outside for the lawsuits to protect folks back home from damaging and possibly illegal orders like these.”

    Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the top-ranking Democrat on the committee, struck a similar tone, referencing the Trump administration’s goal of eliminating the U.S. Department of Education. 

    He noted that the authors of Project 2025 — a wide-ranging conservative policy blueprint for the Republican administration — aim to dismantle the Education Department with the stated goal of having the federal government be less involved in schools. 

    “The argument rests on the perception that the federal government is too involved in our schools, and here we are marking up bills that would give the Department of Education more responsibility to impose unfunded mandates and interfere with local schools,” Scott said. 

    The House committee advanced several other bills Wednesday, including those that would allow schools to serve whole milk and aim to end Chinese influence in K-12 education. 

    House lawmakers previously passed the Deterrent Act in 2023, though it was never put to a vote in the Senate. At the time, the American Council on Education and other higher ed groups opposed the bill, objecting in part to the large fines colleges could face for noncompliance. 

    The Republican-backed bill may face better odds in this congressional session, now that the GOP also controls the Senate and the White House.

    Source link

  • CLASS BIAS AND RANDOM THINGS LAW REVIEW: Draft Excerpt from “In the Company of Thieves:” Foreign Programs

    CLASS BIAS AND RANDOM THINGS LAW REVIEW: Draft Excerpt from “In the Company of Thieves:” Foreign Programs

     

     

    Foreign
    Programs

    One
    way mid and lower level law schools compete with each other is by offering
    foreign opportunities. In some cases the students can spend a semester studying
    at a law school in France or Italy or Germany. They get a semester worth of
    credit for traveling and drinking for 3 months. These are programs for the well
    to do, of course because there are airfares, apartments to rent, etc. Nevertheless, they can be rewarding and informative.

    On the other hand, summer abroad programs are a bit of a scam. These are essentially law schools acting as
    travel agencies. The idea is that a couple of professors travel to Paris,
    London, Rome or where ever and take 15 or twenty students with them. Then the
    students hang out with each other, drink, travel, and spend a modest amount of
    time in the classroom.  They, of course,
    pay extra for this and that extra is what covers the housing and expenses of
    their teachers. In short, the students subsidize the summer vacation of the
    profs and they, in turn, get academic credit. Their actual emersion in local
    culture is kept to a minimum as they search out the closest McDonalds.

    Now
    that you know the background, you should know that one of the committees I am
    chair of is the “Programs Committee”.  A
    summer program has to be OKed by the programs committee and then voted on by
    the faculty. Very often it is a fait accompli. For example, one year at a mid summer faculty meeting 17 members
    of the 60 person faculty voted by 9 to 8 to have a summer program in France.
    Unusually only 2 faculty can go at a time but most deans also feel it is their duty to stop by, at the school’s expense, for a few days. And sometimes,
    someone from the Programs Committee is also “obligated to go.” In the case of
    the France program all 9 yes voters went at some point over the next three
    years although at times the enrollment dwindled to 12 which was not enough to
    cover their expenses.

    Here
    is the proposal the Programs Committee considered last October for
    implementation next summer. I’ve inserted some information in brackets to help
    you understand:

    Re: Summer Program in Italy

    Date: February 12, 2007

    Supreme Senior Vice President of
    Foreign Programs, Hugo Valencia and I [Chadsworth Feldman] are happy to propose
    a new study abroad opportunity for our students. The details are as follows:

    A. Location:

    Three weeks in Rome, three weeks in
    Florence.

    B. Expected enrollment and student
    costs.

    For the first year, expected
    enrollment is 30 but the actual enrollment can exceed this. The program has no
    upper limit on enrollment. The initial tuition is $3,000 per student. This
    includes all housing and transportation, to the extent those are necessary.

    C. Need and
    Opportunities

    This program will complement our
    other excellent foreign study opportunities. Many of our students have
    expressed a desire to study in Italy and to learn Italian law. Many of our
    colleagues have connections with scholars in Italy and would gain a great deal
    with respect to their work in comparative law. It is critical that we have a
    presence in Italy.

    Several members of our faculty will
    be invited to travel to Rome or Florence to serve as guest lecturers and to
    attend graduation ceremonies at the end of the term.

    D. Staffing.

    Professor Feldman is the Director of
    the Program and will go each year. In addition to the director, one other full
    time professor will travel to the site. Two assistants will accompany the
    professors. These will be the spouses of the professors as long as they accept
    no salary. Of course, all their expenses will be paid.  After the initial year, it is anticipated
    that the position of professor will be circulated among the faculty.

    E. Students Activities

    Students will earn six credit hours.
    In addition, they will be taken on several tours of important Italian sites.

    F. Budget:

    Airfare for Professors and
    assistants: $10,000

    Housing: $80,000

    G. Impact

    This program will put us in the first
    tier of foreign program offering schools. The net cost to the School, other
    than trips of guest lecturers, is zero. The two professors involved will be
    paid the usual stipend for summer teaching.

                Nothing seemed unusual about the program although
    everyone knew it was the usual faculty boondoggle. The Committee approved it
    and then then faculty. Then things started to unravel. By December several
    students had put down their deposits.  Over the next few months some issues came
    to light. Two stood out. One was that Hugo and Chad, with spouses, had already,
    with the Dean’s permission and on the law school’s dime, spend 10 days in Italy
    scouting out, as they put it, suitable restaurants, clubs, spas, and coastal
    areas for the program. Ok, it’s like what we call in the trade convercationing.
    That is you are paid for a business trip but you are really taking a vacation
    while checking off the boxes to make it seem like business.

    The
    second matter had to do with the budget. Usually there is a host institution
    that provides a  low fee some classroom
    space.  My curiosity piqued, I asked Chad
    about this. He seemed a little sheepish but something you never do as a law
    professor is show weakness or admit wrongdoing. His answer. “That is the beauty
    of the Program. It will all be conducted by Zoom with the students staying at
    home. Hugo and I will Zoom not just classroom activities but dining out,
    clubbing, sight seeing, the works. It will be exactly like they are there.” He
    went on. “I am sure it will be appealing to the students since they can stay in
    the comfort of their homes and not worry about finding housing, eating in
    strange places where no one understands a word they are saying.” Finally, “If
    there are technological problems we will send them postcards.”

    I
    was reeling from this revelation when I got back to my office. None of this was
    revealed when the programs committee met or at the faculty meeting. Everyone
    was too busy, I suppose, booking passage to Italy for some year in the future.
    When I got back to my office, there was a phone message to call Linda James. I
    knew I had a student in my class named Tom James but I did not make the
    connection. I called and she told me that she had tried to reach Professor
    Feldman but he was not in. The secretary had directed her to me since I was
    chair of the programs committee and she had a question about the program since
    her son James was going. She started by saying how excited James was and how she
    and her husband planned to meet James for the portion of the course in Rome.

    Her
    question was what types of things should James bring – clothing, dressy or not,
    extra notebooks, computer, and so on. I lied, I told her that I did not know. I
    did chair the committee that had approved the program but that she needed to
    talk to Professor Feldman. I assumed she did eventually because I the next day
    I received the following email from Chad:

    Today Tom James’ mother called and asked what sort of
    things he should bring from his summer in Italy. I told her that the students
    were not actually going to Italy. She asked what the $3000 is for and I said
    “expenses.” Then she pressed me and asked about the $80,000 for
    faculty. I told her that was the going rate for appropriate housing for the
    Professors and any guest lecturers who might join us. She seemed miffed about
    no students going. Isn’t that just perfect!!! You try to do something for the
    students and you get in hot water for it.

    Later the same day:

     

    So far two more  sets of parents have contacted me. It seems to
    have come as a surprise to them that the Summer Program in Italy does not
    involve their dear children actually traveling to Italy. Hugo and I designed
    the whole program on the theory that he and I and our spouses would go to Italy
    and show the lectures and sights by Zoom (or postcard). We would do the heavy
    lifting and the students would have time to study. Do they not get it.

                 In any case the
    “program” ran for one summer only.  The
    revenue did not begin to cover the expenses which the law school ended up
    eating. I suppose it was a success because I received the following email from
    Chad:

    Here is the great news. I am writing from Rome. Yes,
    the summer program is in tact and Hugo, Marvel, Caroline and I are here working
    hard for the students. It is true we are down to 5 students and it is true that
    those five did not actually make the trip to Italy but we are working hard.

    As you know, some of the students were upset that the
    Summer in Italy program did not actually mean they were going to Italy — only
    the professors. Some parents were quite rude and the initial enrollment dwindled
    to 5. Good riddance I say. Those students obviously were not cut out for
    foreign travel. The Law School decided we had to operate the program anyway
    because the American Association of Law Schools had already purchased 30
    tickets for a team to come and inspect the program.

    We are doing our best for the five students. Each week
    we send a postcard with some interesting fact about Italian law. In the
    interest of giving the students what they want, we have decided not to
    administer a final exam.

    As for me, being a dedicated teacher of young people
    is its own reward.

    Source link