Love North Americans?

[sesamosinsal]

It doesn't always have to do with "problems." Many countries invest in other countries or enter into agreements with other countries, and both are done out of self-interest.

In fact, no country in today's globalized world can "mind their own business." That's part of the U.S. problem. A lot of Americans would rather that we mind our own business and support a policy of isolationism, and then there are several who believe the extreme opposite. I think we need to strike a balance...

 

[Moxon]

Thats a fairly unique combination - the most charitable people and the least charitable government on earth.

Actually neither are true - they rank last consistently only among OECD countries and I'm pretty sure several countries rank higher on private contributions per capita as foreign aid, I'm pretty sure Norway is one but can't remember the others. Still, certainly it does seem to articulate the deep rooted individualism and mistrust of government in the US.

 

[jp]

Some good info here:
https://www.hudson.org/files/documents/2008 Index - Low Res.pdf

Private philanthropy in the US is pretty much unmatched, although its difficult to get a precise figure due to lack of credible data.

Other countries spend less as a % of GDP, however the manner in which the US's foreign aid is distributed is fairly unique. 50% goes to the middle eastern states of "strategic importance".

 

[mini]

It doesn't always have to do with "problems." Many countries invest in other countries or enter into agreements with other countries, and both are done out of self-interest.

In fact, no country in today's globalized world can "mind their own business." That's part of the U.S. problem. A lot of Americans would rather that we mind our own business and support a policy of isolationism, and then there are several who believe the extreme opposite. I think we need to strike a balance...

Sorry, let me rephrase that:

"Some states focus on their own issues, matters, affairs, concerns, ie mind their own business." Better?

Perhaps no country can "mind their own business" but some seem to do it much better than others.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Isn't this true in all countries? I'm not saying it's right, but I get quite tired of people criticizing the U.S. government for acting out of self-interest (as if selfishness is uniquely an "American problem") when that's how ALL states behave anyway.

Not Norway, I think. If memory serves, it donates 3% of its GDP (while the UN rcommended figure is 0.7%). The "aid" of countries like the US, UK, and France usually comes with strings attached -- e.g., using the money to buy projects or armaments from the donating country. In this sense, the "aid" is really a taxpayer-funded subsidy from the rich country's coffers to its own private sector. This is of course not a uniquely US situation.

With regard to Japan not having to spend on its own defence, one must point out that Japan is a US vassal. It has been underwriting -- through increased purchase of US Treasuries -- much of the cost of invading and occupying Iraq. It is unlikely they would pay more if they were in charge of their own defence.

 

[sesamosinsal]

I'm not addressing foreign aid in my previous posts... but let's be honest, throwing money at a problem often does little to resolve it -- especially when it's thrown in the hands of another bureaucracy. I guess it makes people feel better.

What I am addressing is this idea that the United States is the only country that acts out of self-interest. Every state acts out of self-interest, even Norway. Last I checked, Norway has an embassy in Argentina (and most other countries) with diplomats who, among other things, work to further the Norwegian agenda.

No countries mind their own business. It would be stupid to do so, and it's naive to think that they do.

 

[mini]

What I am addressing is this idea that the United States is the only country that acts out of self-interest. Every state acts out of self-interest, even Norway. Last I checked, Norway has an embassy in Argentina (and most other countries) with diplomats who, among other things, work to further the Norwegian agenda.

No countries mind their own business. It would be stupid to do so, and it's naive to think that they do.

I think you are sort of missing the point when I say minding their own business and taking care of their own affairs/problems.

Clearly each country works for their own interests. However, there is a difference between embassies working to create international agreements compared to plotting, scheming, espionage, inciting coups, supporting insurgents/oppositions/guerrillas, propping up govts that would natural have fallen long ago etc.

There is a difference in working towards international agreements that help solve a countries own internal problems or promote it's own trade, business, etc. than working to change the culture/ beliefs/ systems/ leaders, etc of sovereign nations because one country may not agree with those choices. Meddling gets particularly messy when the country engaged in meddling in the domestic affairs of others often times doesn't quite have enough understanding to fully understand what the consequences could be.

I like my countries not to "meddle" the internal affairs of other countries.

How hope that is clearer.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Clearly each country works for their own interests. However, there is a difference between embassies working to create international agreements compared to plotting, scheming, espionage, inciting coups, supporting insurgents/oppositions/guerillas, etc.

There is a difference in working towards international agreements that help solve a countries own internal problems or promote it's own trade, business, etc. than working to change the culture/ beliefs/ systems/ leaders, etc of sovereign nations because one country may not agree with those choices.

Yes, quite true. The USA tends to shy away from multilateral agreements (unless it writes them itself, without the least bit of compromise), and has a track record of reneging on them the moment they cease to further American interests. At the same it brays hypocritally about "international law" when it's seeking to bring certain countries to heel (like Iran these days). But this is to be expected of a hegemon -- or at least that's what Carl Schmitt wrote seventy years ago.

 

[iStar]

Yes, quite true. The USA tends to shy away from multilateral agreements (unless it writes them itself, without the least bit of compromise), and has a track record of reneging on them the moment they cease to further American interests.

I couldn't agree more.

Prime example NAFTA. (North American Free Trade Agreement)

 

[sesamosinsal]

"But this is to be expected of a hegemon -- or at least that's what Carl Schmitt wrote seventy years ago."

Exactly. Have the world powers ever wielded their strength responsibly? If Norway or any other country wanted to allocate more than 500 billion (almost a trillion after emergency spending) for defense (good luck, by the way), then it too might make decisions unilaterally. Some of you folks act as if the U.S. is run by a completely different species... Get real.