WhackyNation

Amazingly, Bill Gates’ remarkable foundation has taken a big step toward what amounts to adoption of an idea I’ve been trying to promote for several years. In addition to pouring millions into the eradication of AIDS and other diseases occurring principally in African nations, the foundation has now granted $350 million in an extraordinary effort to boost farm productivity in poverty-stricken areas of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

By great coincidence, it is the first step in the program I have tried to persuade our federal government into establishing. My proposal is for the U.S. to end all foreign-aid programs and to replace them with my Foster Nation plan. Under that plan we would select one underdeveloped Third World nation at a time and make it a Foster Nation.

We would then send to each nation selected several of our best minds in the fields of agriculture, industry, education, the professions, and every other field in an effort to vitalize their economies and raise their standard of living. Our representatives would help them find and utilize their natural resources, improve their farming and industrial programs, and do the same for their schools and all the professions.

The U.S. would save billions in foreign-aid funds, most of which are frittered away through faulty administration. At the same time, we would be helping to feed millions, as the Gates Foundation grants are now doing. But even more important, by raising the standard of living in each of the countries aided, we would be eliminating the people’s desire to flee to another country — most often the U.S.

The Gates program, directed by a foundation fellow named Rajiv Shah, is already at work “introducing new seed varieties, irrigation, fertilizer, training for farmers, and access to local and international markets,” as the Seattle Times has reported.

“In the poorest countries, 65 percent of jobs are in farming. Yet Africa’s share of food production is shrinking and the number of people who are hungry is going up — in sharp contrast to improvements in the rest of the world.”

In an astounding statement, the Times’ article reported that

“in sub-Saharan Africa, more than 200 million people are hungry or malnourished — one third of the population.”

As could have been expected, the Gates plan has drawn criticism from certain quarters. Some of that criticism has come from environmentally extreme quarters and is based on the notion that the Gates program is market-driven and that its farming procedures are going to wreck the environment in the downtrodden countries.

What malarkey! It seems the extremists would rather see millions starve than to help them revitalize their lives and their economies so that their standard of living could begin to rise toward the standards in the First World nations.

I’m hoping that the U.S. will take a cue from the Gates venture and adopt my total Foster Nation Plan, which is a great improvement over our ongoing foreign-aid programs. Although better farming would help feed the poverty-stricken nations, they also need new industries, better school systems, improved medical and dental programs, and all the rest.

To no one’s surprise, and especially mine, the population of the United States has arrived at about the 300,000,000 mark, and, we’re told, it could be double that or even more in 30 or 40 years! So, what should we do — sit down and weep, have a party, or drastically change our immigration policy and birth-control laws?

At one end of the equation, we see that our people are living longer. At the other end, we find that births are running far ahead of deaths. All of it means the population is increasing by 7,000 or so persons daily. Like it or not, the growing number of abortions will probably take care of worries that an explosion of births could worsen the population problem.

Immigration quotas set by Congress are supposed to regulate the incoming flow of new citizens — and they continue to come in in record numbers. But it’s the illegal immigration that is out of control. Some time ago, an immigration official told me off the record that there were close to 20 million illegal aliens within our borders, some of whom have become citizens under recent legislation. But the problem is far from solved.

Should we close our borders for a couple decades to bring down the population total? Of course not. There is only one humane, practical way to stem the great migration to America, but is long range and requires patience and compassion. The way to keep desperate people from leaving their homes in the Third World is for nations of the First World, like the U.S., to help improve the economic lot of the have-not nations. It’s really an old idea, but it’s still the only one that makes humanitarian sense.

In that regard, I must once again bring up a proposal I have repeated many times to accomplish that goal. I have called it my Foster Nation Plan, and I detailed it at length in my new book, F!D!F! (Fire! Dammit! Fire!) A Feast of New Ideas.  I have also detailed it in speeches and in commentaries.

Under a Foster Nation Plan, the U.S. would immediately cancel all foreign-aid programs requiring Congress to dedicate billions of our tax dollars to underdeveloped or poverty-stricken nations, as well as to Second World nations. Instead, we would “adopt” the needy nations one at a time and send them our most gifted minds in all important fields, such as agriculture, industry, the professions, and education.

The new ambassadors with special skills would help each Foster Nation to develop its economy, its natural resources, its industries, its agriculture, its supply of doctors, dentists, nurses, and hospitals, and its schools — the goal being to raise the standard of living of each nation to match our own.

Once that goal is reached, we would withdraw our experts and each nation would then be able to control its own destiny. Most important in our view would be the probability that the citizens of each Foster Nation would be satisfied with their increased standard of living and no longer wish to migrate to the U.S. or other Western powers.

It’s not an impossible goal. It would take time, but, in the long run, it would be far more successful than our present haphazard method of sending our dollars to each needy nation, only to have most of those funds confiscated by ruling tyrants or theocratic overlords.

I haven’t always agreed with the statements or congressional votes of Tom Foley, former Speaker of the House and a onetime ambassador to Japan, but I will always remember one brilliant incident involving the softspoken Democrat when I was serving in the U.S. State Department as a public-affairs officer way back in the mid-1970s.

At the time, Foley, a congressman from my own home state of Washington, had been asked to address the State Department staff, because he was one of the most powerful congressional voices on foreign affairs, thanks to his lofty position as Speaker. An audience of 90 to 100 greeted Foley as he entered the large meeting room on the Seventh Floor of the State Department. He began the meeting by challenging the staffers to talk about their dealings with foreign envoys and nations.

The fellow manning the Japanese desk rose to detail the problems the Japanese were tussling with and how the U.S. was arranging to transfer funds to help them. Then it was the man at the Brazilian desk who quickly explained how the State Department was marshaling financial and material help for the government in Rio de Janeiro.

Foley sat by patiently as the staffers went through what seemed like an endless ritual. Saying almost the same things as the Japanese and Brazilian desk chiefs, other staffers representing U.S. interests in Mexico, Argentina, the Balkan nations, Italy, France, Spain, Australia, and virtually every other nation on earth spelled out what the U.S. taxpayer was shelling out in aid funds.

After listening to the repetitious accounts of how the U.S. had contributed funds and other goodies to virtually every nation, Foley rose from his chair with a smile on his face. Having known Foley for many years, I sensed that his patience had come to an end and that he was about to explode.

Well, he didn’t explode, but with his usual quiet demeanor and easy smile, he said to the department staffers (and I must paraphrase, because I don’t remember exactly how he said it): “Ladies and gentlemen of the State Department, I am impressed with your deep concern for the welfare of nations around the world. But I believe I have an important suggestion for you and the Secretary of State. In my estimation, what we need most of all in the department is an American desk! Yes, you heard me correctly — an American desk that will listen to the problems of America and relate them to the problems you are trying to solve in foreign nations.”

I could tell from the surprised looks on the staffers’ faces that Foley had struck a most sensitive nerve in the entire department apparatus. He went on to explain what he thought the department should be doing to help our relationships abroad without dipping into the U.S. Treasury to do it.

To this day, I don’t know whether Foley’s wry comment had a beneficial effect on the department and its foreign policy, but for one day at least, these trained give-away artists were stopped short and forced to examine what they had been doing.

I left the meeting with the strong hope that some day Tom Foley would be given the job of State Department Secretary. Unfortunately, he has never been offered that job, but I wish the Republican administration would heed the good sense Foley spoke that day at the meeting of the “foreign-desk pilots.”

Today, October 14, marks the 47^th anniversary of one of the brightest and most beneficial ideas generated by the U.S. On this day in 1960, President John F. Kennedy first proposed an American Peace Corps. He did it at a program attended by students at the University of Michigan.

In his tragically shortened presidency, Kennedy, an imaginative Democrat, whose imagination and devotion to limited government should be adopted by modern-day Democratic Liberals, created what I believe has been the most effective and enduring mechanism for world peace offered by any American President.

In its approximately half century of existence, JFK’s Peace Corps has done more to advance the cause of peace and American good will than all the billions of dollars invested in Truman’s Point 4, the Marshall Plan, and the myriad other foreign-aid programs that have been instituted over the years.

In fact, if I had my way, I would toss into the waste basket all our foreign-aid programs and put most of those American dollars into building up the Peace Corps everywhere in the world. I think that if we were to do so, the United States would finally get its money’s worth.

Why should we do it? Here are some reasons for starters: By having our own skilled people at work on the spot overseas, the Peace Corps provides direct, personal help to developing nations — help that is visibly American and unmistakable. Through the Peace Corps, foreigners see Americans at their best, not in the “ugly American” image our officials and spoiled travelers have fashioned.

Another distinct advantage is that U.S. funds spent on the Peace Corps can’t rub off on corrupt officials — one of the worst diseases to afflict our foreign-aid programs in the past century. Finally, and perhaps most important, the Peace Corps showed the people of underdeveloped nations how to help themselves, instead of relying on embarrassing handouts.

Now, I wish the U.S. would seriously consider adding a parallel program that reflects the philosophy JFK used in creating the Peace Corps. It’s my longtime proposal for a Foster Nation program, in which all the other costly and failed foreign-aid programs, except for the Peace Corps, would be terminated.

Under my Foster Nation program, we would send our best minds to underdeveloped countries to raise their standard of living by improving their industries, professions, education, agriculture, and total economy. Combining a Foster Nation program with the Peace Corps would give us the strongest and least expensive foreign-aid plan we have ever undertaken.

What are we waiting for!

I am fed up with the “ugly American” concept and all those syndicated columnists, editorialists, reporters, and television and radio commentators who keep lamenting what they say is the bitter dislike of Americans for reasons that are never explicitly detailed and which make no sense at all.Frankly, I think they are the ones who hate America, not the phantom foreigners they write and talk about. For the most part, most of these resident haters are hopeless Liberals, who mask their hatred by pinning the “hate America” label on Conservatives at home and innocents abroad.

In fact, I think it’s long past time to probe the fiction that the people of foreign lands hate us and don’t trust us. The real evidence suggests that it is not the common folk abroad that distrust and dislike Americans; it is, more accurately, their leaders, who express an anti-American sentiment for personal or political reasons.

Jealousy also plays a large part in the “ugly American” scenario among foreign leaders. They are jealous of our position as the world’s most important democracy; they are jealous of our formidable power; they are jealous of our high standard of living, and they are jealous of our freedom and liberty.

Furthermore, it is a fact of modern history that not a single foreign nation has ever refused nor returned the billions of dollars that American taxpayers have sent them year after year to help them overcome economic, poverty, or other problems! Nor has the U.S. ever demanded the return of those billions.

Where are the “thank yous” for those most generous gifts? The political leaders of the receiving nations have never acknowledged the generosity of the American people. Some of them have, instead, pocketed much of the U.S. aid money for their own personal purposes.

Perhaps some citizens of foreign nations have mimicked their phony leaders’ complaints and uttered “ugly American” remarks. But if they, like their leaders, say they hate us because they are jealous of our economic success and our generosity, that’s their problem, not ours!

Once again, I have to say that, in order to teach the America-haters both abroad and at home a lesson, we should immediately call a halt to all foreign-aid programs and use those funds for the improvement of all phases of American life, from education to the economy.

In other words, let’s substitute a “love America” program for the “hate America” belief. And, in doing so, we should inform all the foreigners and our own America-haters that they can lump it! I’m not the first one to tell the home-based haters that, if they dislike America so much, they should move to another country.

The greatest modern-day mystery remains unsolved and will probably remain that way for too many more years. It’s been on my mind for some time, but the person who best characterized it was, of all people, the prime minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, who said to members of Parliament, and I paraphrase his words: “I’m told that everyone in the world strongly dislikes the United States, and yet everyone in the world seems to be bent on living there.”

It is a sad mystery, one we don’t seem to be able to solve, despite the fact that we have been pouring our billions of dollars into the coffers of friends and enemies alike in Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, and Australia. What more do we have to do in order to have all these folks like us — or at least pretend to be friendly?

My answer — and I’ve given it often — is rather brusque, but what choice do we have? That answer is to cut off all foreign aid, every penny of it, and embark on an entirely different form of foreign aid. I have referred to that form in my books, speeches, and commentaries as a Foster Nation Program.

Under a Foster Nation Program, the U.S. would cancel all foreign-aid programs, withdraw our billions in aid, and offer under-developed nations the benefit of our best minds in agriculture, industry, education, health, and every other avenue. These bright representatives of the U.S. would help the poverty-stricken nations to develop their own resources, their own food supply through a national agricultural program, build and supply their school system, and do everything else necessary to raise their standard of living.

Through the Foster Nation Program, we could then provide whatever funds are needed to support our representatives — and also those funds that might be loaned to help develop each nation’s agricultural programs, natural resources (such as oil, coal, metals, etc.), new industries of various kinds, new communications, and new transportation systems.

If we created such a Foster Nation Program and worked at it, we would eventually see the end of our huge immigration problem, because millions of people in the under-developed lands would no longer have to risk their worldly goods and their lives in their efforts to become American immigrants. They’d be encouraged to stay at home.

I would like to see us withdraw from the United Nations, which I have dubbed the “Useless Nations,” create a totally new international organization composed only of those countries willing to work with us to improve the world, and organize the Foster Nation Program as an adjunct of the new international group.

A friend has just sent me a historical note that underscores the need for the new program I have just proposed. In his note, he listed all the nations that vote against the U.S. regularly on virtually every issue that comes before the U.N. And the number of times they register anti-U.S. votes ranks from 75 percent of the time to 87 percent of the time!

Those nations include Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, India, and most nations in Africa and South America! With friends like these, who needs enemies, as the old saying goes. The worst aspect of this phalanx of anti-U.S. nations is that we have been pouring billions of dollars into their treasuries for years! Are we naïve, ignorant, foolish, or just plain idiotic to continue such a relationship with the rest of the world? Maybe we are a bit of all four of these attributes!

Roy Prosterman, the distinguished University of Washington law professor, has reminded us of one of the most important dates in American history — the time 60 years ago this week that Secretary of State George Marshall proposed the Marshall Plan in a Harvard commencement speech.

When it was adopted by President Harry Truman and the United States Congress, it became America’s gift to the needy nations of the world — a gift and a policy that would mark this nation as the most generous and sympathetic world power in the history of the world.

In the ensuing years, we were to pour billions of our tax dollars into a variety of programs designed to help underdeveloped, starving nations to avert disaster. At the same time, our spirit of generosity persuaded Western European democracies with strong economies to join with us in contributing to the cause.

Prosterman has pointed to the many avenues in which the Marshall Plan brought great improvements around the world — gains in the production of food, better educational facilities, improved health facilities, lower infant and child death rates, and a reduction in the number of persons in poverty.

What Prosterman has not mentioned, however, is the downside of the outpouring of trillions in U.S. cash to other nations. A great amount of the funds transferred to those nations has been frittered away over the years — or pocketed by warlords, overlords, royalty, and dictatorial leaders.

For that reason, I believe the successor to the Marshall Plan should be the Foster Nation Program I have mentioned many times in commentaries, articles, and speeches in the past 20 years. Executed properly, the Foster Nation Program I have been touting would improve greatly the basic aspects of the Marshall Plan, while saving the U.S. billions in tax funds.

It’s worth repeating the details of my proposal. If the U.S. adopted it, we would immediately cancel all financial foreign aid and, instead, send many of our best minds, at our expense, to one underdeveloped country at a time. These emissaries would help the nations develop their natural resources, their agriculture, their industries, their educational systems, their utilities and road systems, and everything else in an effort to bring their living standard up to match ours.

The program would not only create newly developed nations but give their people no reason to seek migration to the U.S. for a better life. It would help solve the world’s refugee tragedies — disasters that often lead to serious conflicts and often to wars between nations. And it would also solve our growing problem with illegal immigration.

In a way, the Foster Nation Program could be called the new phase of the Marshall Plan. Intrinsically, it would feature the same goals as General Marshall’s brilliant plan, but it would improve on its potential in the future. Without question, it would be financially advantageous to the U.S. 

But, primarily, the Foster Nation Program would advance the economic well-being of the entire world by bringing the important living standards of each underdeveloped nation up to the levels of the First World nations. Could there be a greater cause? I doubt it.

It seems that not a week goes by these days but what a news agency reports a large number of bodies have been recovered from the waters of the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, and other seas — illegal immigrants who have drowned in a failed effort to reach the freedom and liberty promised in the U.S. and the nations of Europe.

Invariably, they are refugees from poverty-stricken or dictator-dominated lands and have boarded flimsy vessels with the hope that they may land undetected on the shores of the promised lands. They are usually the victims of heavy seas or sudden storms and have no recourse to life-saving devices.

What should the free world do to prevent these hundreds of virtual suicides? There is only one positive, humanitarian answer: We must do whatever we can to help the underdeveloped and poverty-stricken nations of the First and Second Worlds to achieve the same high standard of living that the First World nations, like the U.S., enjoy.

Many private individuals, firms, and foundations like that of Bill and Melinda Gates are providing remarkable programs and funds to attack the alarming incidence of disease and starvation in the nations of Africa, South America, the Far East, and the Middle East. One recent example was provided by an Oscar-winning film actress, Hilary Swank.

Hilary has launched a worldwide relay race to raise funds for billions of people without safe drinking water and to bring the vast problem to the attention of the free world. Her ambitious, highly motivated program is being funded by Dow Chemical and its goal is to provide safe drinking water to more than 20 billion people by the year 2020.

While I applaud the efforts of all these individuals and the private firms and foundations, I think there is an additional way to attack the problem. I have mentioned it many times, but it is worth repeating. My proposal is for the U.S. to lead the way with a Foster Nation Program, which I have detailed in my new book, F! D! F! (Fire! Dammit! Fire!) A Feast of New Ideas.

Under a Foster Nations Program, the U.S. would immediately cancel all of its foreign-aid programs, which are costing us billions yearly, and substitute a new plan to send our best minds to these suffering nations, one at a time, in order to bolster their agriculture, their industry, their natural resources, and every facet of their economy.

The ultimate target would be to bring their standard of living up to match ours. It’s a long-term program, but it would be worth the effort. At the same time, it would help us solve some of the vexing problems we have encountered in recent years, not the least of which would be the increasing illegal immigration.

By improving the total economy of the underdeveloped nations, we would markedly reduce and eventually eliminate their people’s desire to risk their lives in an effort to ride a rickety boat for an escape to another land — and not only put their lives in danger but discover the unwelcome plight of the illegal immigrant in a law-abiding land.

Would the underdeveloped nations accept Foster Nation status under the aegis of the U.S.? Maybe a few would not, thanks to the presence of a tyrannical dictator, a warlord, or a theocratic overlord. But I believe strongly that the great majority of needy nations would sincerely welcome American savvy to show them how to develop their resources in an effort to become a legitimate “foster child” of the mighty U.S.

With Paul Wolfowitz on his way out as president of the World Bank, the main exercise these days revolves around the question concerning his replacement, on one hand, and who should have the right to choose his successor, on the other hand — President Bush or a committee of leaders from World Bank nations.

Because the U.S. has been the principal fund donor to the World Bank, most officials of other nations involved already concede that President Bush should select the successor to Wolfowitz. They know where most of the money is coming from and they don’t want to rock the boat.

But I have a much better idea. Why not junk the World Bank, whose contributions to underdeveloped and poverty-stricken countries have frequently been squandered or gone into the bank accounts of the leaders of the Third World nations? Instead, I believe it should be replaced — if you will pardon this shameless plug — by the Foster Nation program I have detailed in my new book, F! D! F! (Fire! Dammit! Fire!) A Feast of New Ideas.

I have written about the Foster Nation idea in other commentaries for the WhackyNation blog, but it’s an idea that is certainly worth repeating. It’s an idea we should encourage other world powers that are members of the First World to adopt, as well. And, in the process, both the World Bank and its European counterpart, the International Monetary Fund, could be tossed into the ashcan.

Under a Foster Nation program I believe the U.S. should adopt, we would immediately cancel all foreign financial aid, which has cost us trillions and which, like much of the funding from the World Bank, has been wasted for a variety of reasons, not excluding the greed of foreign dictators and theocratic leaders.

In place of our foreign-aid programs, we would select one poor country at a time as a foster nation, in effect, then send that nation our brightest minds in a variety of fields, including business, industry, agriculture, health, education, resource mining, construction, and virtually every other field.

The bright minds we send the needy nation would, of course, be compensated by us, but the total expenditure would be a pittance compared to the billions we have been sending abroad in the many foreign-aid programs we have conducted over the years. Our brainy exports would have one principal goal in mind — to raise the standard of living of the poor nation to a point approximating ours and other First World nations.

They would do it by helping the foster nations to develop their natural resources, improve their agriculture to support their food supply, and help them build their towns and cities, their roads and highways, their schools and industries, and, especially, their new utility systems.

I hope another important role would be to install democratic governments in all the poor countries. At the same time, I would make it an imperative to all our foster-nation workers that a counterpart to the installation of democracy should be a privately owned and operated free press — never one that would be government controlled.

It goes without saying that our desire should be not only to raise each poor nation’s standard of living but to introduce to each foster nation the possibility that it might want to adopt a Constitution similar to ours. Fair enough? You bet!