I was watching Neil Cavuto and his
group on Fox News this morning. They were discussing US dollar aid to
Egypt.
In the discussion, one of the reasons given for our continuing foreign aid to Egypt is that it is "in our interests".
Always having an inquisitive and suspicious mind, I started to consider that "in our interests" is a very overworked term, used to justify about anything, and for some reason or other seems to be accepted by people in general.
However, I started to apply it to to the Egyptian foreign aid situation. In the Cavuto discussion, someone said that US foreign aid to the Middle East decreases political upheaval. The context of the conversation was such that that comment was not directly related to "in our interests", but it may have some applicability to the situation.
Let us now look at what "our interests are" to justify foreign aid to Egypt.
Egypt controls the Suez Canal, which is a major waterway from the Middle East to Western Europe and the US. The alternative sea route is all the way around the tip of South Africa. Is it in the US interests to have access to the Suez Canal? Does our foreign aid to Egypt buy us this access? If so, why not say so and avoid the confusion of using a general term of "in our interests". It's a Suez Canal access is not important to us, let's also say that and consider other reasons to justify Egyptian foreign aid.
Does US foreign aid to the Middle East reduce political turmoil?. It is remotely possible, but I don't really see how it could be worse than it is. In fact, we have been dumping foreign aid on the Middle East for 50 or more years with little result in establishing a peaceful environment there. However, do we really have some basic interest in having a politically quiet Middle East? What advantage would that be to us. One might say that extreme turmoil in the Middle East could interrupt the supply of Saudi crude oil to the US, and that might be a hardship. But, we should be self-reliant on energy sources as much as possible anyhow. If the interruption of crude oil supply is a danger and "in our interests", why not say so and get on with addressing the real problems.
All in all, I'm tired of seeing or hearing the term "in our interests". Let's get rid of that stock phrase and come up with real reasons of why we do certain things. If we face the facts, we may start to travel down a more logical route.
In the discussion, one of the reasons given for our continuing foreign aid to Egypt is that it is "in our interests".
Always having an inquisitive and suspicious mind, I started to consider that "in our interests" is a very overworked term, used to justify about anything, and for some reason or other seems to be accepted by people in general.
However, I started to apply it to to the Egyptian foreign aid situation. In the Cavuto discussion, someone said that US foreign aid to the Middle East decreases political upheaval. The context of the conversation was such that that comment was not directly related to "in our interests", but it may have some applicability to the situation.
Let us now look at what "our interests are" to justify foreign aid to Egypt.
Egypt controls the Suez Canal, which is a major waterway from the Middle East to Western Europe and the US. The alternative sea route is all the way around the tip of South Africa. Is it in the US interests to have access to the Suez Canal? Does our foreign aid to Egypt buy us this access? If so, why not say so and avoid the confusion of using a general term of "in our interests". It's a Suez Canal access is not important to us, let's also say that and consider other reasons to justify Egyptian foreign aid.
Does US foreign aid to the Middle East reduce political turmoil?. It is remotely possible, but I don't really see how it could be worse than it is. In fact, we have been dumping foreign aid on the Middle East for 50 or more years with little result in establishing a peaceful environment there. However, do we really have some basic interest in having a politically quiet Middle East? What advantage would that be to us. One might say that extreme turmoil in the Middle East could interrupt the supply of Saudi crude oil to the US, and that might be a hardship. But, we should be self-reliant on energy sources as much as possible anyhow. If the interruption of crude oil supply is a danger and "in our interests", why not say so and get on with addressing the real problems.
All in all, I'm tired of seeing or hearing the term "in our interests". Let's get rid of that stock phrase and come up with real reasons of why we do certain things. If we face the facts, we may start to travel down a more logical route.
Great!!!!
ReplyDeleteWe should probably immediately stop all aid to all countries. They just use our money against us.
We can be energy independent. Let’s quit empowering our enemies with our money.
Except for Israel.
We are much better off in preventing Iran from gaining nuclear power, than fighting it once they get it.