The following few statements are for some general background about international nonprofits based in the United States. “In 1998 U.S. foundations gave $1.6 billion to international causes” (O’Neill 171). For most international organizations, they get most of their funding from fees for services, which is very different then those of nonprofit health, education and arts organizations. International organizations also attract a unique type of volunteers that differ from other nonprofits; including doctors, nurses, teachers, and those who can give a year or more to volunteer work over seas. There is a very underestimated number of employers stated by O’Neill, but it is known that number of volunteers in this area are high. Over time the focus of our international nonprofits has shifted from ‘implementing’ to ‘enabling’, there has been increasingly open regional and worldwide trade, problem solving has become more bottom-up, and technology and the role of women increased.
I am a huge advocate of the statement “think globally, but act locally” so my first response to reading that CARE annually serves 25 million people in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America was: but what about 25 million of our own countries poor and suffering?
Because the list of the main focus points of many international nonprofit groups include more long term issues such as food production, public health, education, economic development, and conflict prevention it is hard for me not to consider how these long term affects will benefit the U.S. Increasing education and public health services no doubt is needed in developing countries and our help is greatly appreciated, but what about food production, economic development and conflict prevention... Is there there a limit to how much food production expands and limits to exporting goods to only certain countries? I can not help but wonder if this truly is being done with the other countries best needs in mind, or ours. The amount of food imported from other countries into ours in enormous and wasteful. The U.S. is close to consuming more food products from outside of our own bounders than in, not to mention that we already heavily exploit developing countries natural resources for other production. So on top of that we urge them to use more of their land for food production that will most likely be exported to make profit for the country. This does not seem ethically right, even though yes, one could argue that all in all they are making money and therefore a steady flow of economic growth is happening. In talking about economic growth though, are these nonprofits using their knowledge of what Americans have been brainwashed into thinking economic growth is to help them? This being of course that any kind of good growth or positive movement in a country must be from economic growth, from big business corporations growing off the exploitations of third world countries producing products that our ‘consumers’ (not citizens) are manipulated into thinking that the only way they will be completely happy is if they buy one more thing.
I realize that some of my thoughts about alternative motives by international nonprofits might stir some in an unpleasant way, and I have in fact just ran with my thoughts and taken a chance in that I know some and maybe most will not agree with me. I am not searching for agreement however, I am just asking the hard and complicating questions that most do not want to consider. In no way do I think that international nonprofits are a bad part of the nonprofit sector here in the U.S., I am simply questioning some of the intent behind some of them. Some of the work other than education and public health care that I was enlightened to read about was that O’Neill states “the threat of nuclear holocaust and the devastation of World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and numerous regional conflicts stimulated more nonprofit work in war and peace studies, conflict prevention and management, and nuclear arms control” (174). Along with peace movements, human rights organizations have pressured international governments to give basic freedom rights to women, prisoners, and religious and racial minorities. This is by far where the greatest achievements in my eyes have happened.
“Of the twenty-one donor nations in the Organizations for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States is the lowest in terms or percentage of gross national product devoted to foreign assistance. Only 0.25 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid” (O’Neill 175).This was completely a shocking statistic that I only had a slight awareness of before reading this. It is hard to think that our government does not take care of our own poor, sick and needy, and also can not put aside moneys to help those in need around the world. This is because our military and those big corporations that our country has often seen kissing the shoes of, are so much more important. Exploiting third world country’s natural resources and and killing billions of people to war is of course more important than caring for those humans in need that we share our world with... right? This is what statistics and history are proving to be the correct thought pattern of our government. This decline in governmental support results in a greater emphasis put on immediate needs being met like disaster relief for example, but at the cost of longer term development projects and programs. This does not make sense when looking at the whole picture because the latter could possibly reduce the short term crises.
At this point in time, addressing transnational problems have in fact grew in popularity, but in my opinion not enough. Transnational problems are the only real problems that should be on every countries top priority list. There has been this notion that many (too many) businesses have become contributors instead of partners with nonprofits especially international ones. Of course it is much easier to just say you support a cause than actually implement plan and follow through with how you are actually going to support it, and do something in advocating it! The U.S. is easily recognizable as one of the military top dogs and has the world’s largest economy, and yet that seems to be all we care about.... The time to change this has been long over due.
Questioning the motives of USAID and other governmental or corporate funders might make some people uncomfortable, but you're right to do so. Your connection between funding food security in developing countries and American dependence on foreign food is case in point. Great job. (5/5)
ReplyDelete