Monday, December 5, 2011

“Charity begins at home”. This is the rarely-questioned assumption that many hold regarding aid, whether medical or otherwise. Evidence of how ingrained this is in the American psyche is seen no more clearly than when the nation stumbles upon tough economic times. Those following the GOP primary debates recently may have noticed a resounding commitment to reassess and reduce foreign aid given out by the US. The same sentiment has been echoed by Congress (both sides of the isle) during its many rounds of stalled budget talks. Now, foreign aid is a nuanced category that includes everything from disaster relief to military support. I would like to focus on development aid: the funds that go directly towards improving the health and general welfare of people in low-income countries. There are a lot of problems here as well, but the fact remains that the US is responsible for helping fund major projects that combat disease around the world. The question is, would it perhaps be better to slash our development aid budgets in order to focus on our own citizens? After all, people are in need of medical aid right here at home; shouldn’t we help them first before worrying about foreign countries? I would like to offer a firm ‘no’. I believe that if we are able to set aside a certain amount of dollars for healthcare aid, it should go to wherever it can do the most good, regardless of the nationality or geographical proximity of the recipients. To me, GlobeMed represents this commitment by partnering with groups in countries with the most dire needs, not just with local American organizations. After all, a dollar in Kenya goes a lot further than a dollar in the US when it comes to reducing disease.

Back to politics. In 2000, The United Nations came out with the “Millennium Development Goals”; these were eight objectives with the aim of improving global welfare, including “Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases” and “Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger”. As part of these goals, rich countries were asked to donate at least 0.7% of their GNP (Gross National Product) as development aid. While a few of the Scandinavian countries have surpassed this goal, as of 2009 the United States remains in the bottom five of the twenty three richest countries, pledging a mere 0.21%. The percent of our GDP (Gross Domestic Product) that we spend on all types of foreign aid is around 1%. Most Americans do not know this low number; they believe the percent GDP we are spending is around 25%, and wish to see it taken down to a “mere” 10%. If only we could have such a reduction—to ten times our current foreign aid budget! This discrepancy in knowledge makes it easy to see why politicians who pledge cuts to aid budgets are receiving widespread popular support. Budget proposals submitted by the Senate, the House, and Obama himself all outline reductions to virtually every development aid program currently in effect. And the problem extends beyond the US government: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (an international organization that is the single largest source for grant money to fund action against those diseases) just announced that it would not be able to issue any more grants until 2014. While part of that decision was based on corruption allegations (regarding less than 1 percent of its budget), it seemed that donor countries were all too eager to pull funding. This pattern of healthcare isolationism is simply unethical. Of course we could provide better social services for Americans if we cut our development aid budget. But what would be a paltry sum in the States could have positive effects orders of magnitude greater in the developing world. A government may have a duty to serve its citizens, but we all have a duty to do the greatest good with whatever money we have. Surely there is a better way to get the 1% GDP that would be saved by cutting our foreign aid budget.

There are two solutions to this problem in America. The US could start giving more money as official federal development aid, or US citizens themselves could begin to make up the difference with private donations. Ideally, both will be done. Already, private donations in the US as a percentage of GNP are unusually high for a rich country (though not nearly enough to make up the amount needed to reach our 0.7% UN quota). This is an encouraging trend, and private donations are something tangible that is in the power of every American. On the federal level, it all comes down to an implementation of GlobeMed's own goal of recognizing the equal value of human life regardless of where a person happens to live. Let charity begin wherever it is needed most—and continue until healthcare is accessible to everyone.

Jason Kirschner

No comments:

Post a Comment