I got an email earlier today with the following title:
It contains a list of predominantly Arab countries and how frequently they vote against the U.S. in United Nations votes. On first glance the numbers were disturbing indeed. What surprised me even more was when, after the list of nations who consistently disagree with the U.S., a tally of how much U.S. foreign aid money is given to these opposing countries. I won’t repeat the entire table (it’s linked to later in this post) but here’s an example:
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
…after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Okay, so in 4 out of every 5 issues Egypt appears to oppose the U.S. yet we still give them significant amounts of money. That makes sense, like, how?
Imagine I’m the one who buys all the kids in the neighborhood ice cream whenever the ice cream truck comes around. Now imagine a bunch of the kids start giving me a really hard time in 4 out of 5 issues that arise between us. Now imagine I still buy these disagreeing kids ice cream whenever the truck comes around.
What am I, insane? Oh, guess I should’ve mentioned that I’ve got kids of my own who are going hungry while I’m buying ice cream for the rest of the neighborhood.
It’s an imperfect analogy, as all analogies are by definition (if they weren’t imperfect, they wouldn’t be analogies now, would they?).
Anyway, I get a lot of email about socially and politically controversial subjects. I’ve learned over the years a very important lesson: verify your sources! So that’s what I set out to do.
Turns out, this is actually a reliable piece of information inasmuch as the data can be verified. Thankfully I didn’t need to verify the data myself because I have a very reliable source that I turn to for many such needs: Snopes.com.
The Snopes.com website ought to be one of the default bookmarks in every Internet browser ever distributed. It’s that useful!
Turns out the exact numbers are too vague to verify authoritatively but the folks at Snopes take a shot at a sample. What they find is even more unfriendly to the U.S. than the original email suggests. Ouch. But then there’s a surprise and, hence, the inspiration for this post. I’ve bolded the part that really caught my attention:
U.N. votes on resolutions are frequently lopsided, pitting a single nation or a handful of nations against all the others, and more often than not the U.S. is the one nation at odds with the rest of the world. Of the 83 resolutions we surveyed for our informal tally, in ten cases the U.S. was the only Member State to vote against them, and in five cases only one other nation joined the U.S. in voting against them. In fact, in over half the total cases (42 out of 83), the U.S. was supported by five or fewer Member States in voting against a U.N. resolution. So it isn’t just the Arab/Islamic states who consistently vote against the U.S. in the United Nations — pretty much the rest of the world does, too.
-from United Condemnations, Snopes.com, page last updated 06 May 2004.
How is it that we belong to an organization founded upon the virtues of cooperation and consensus, yet we find ourselves pitted against the rest of the world most of the time? How irrational is that?
5 responses so far ↓
1 Deb // May 19, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Very interesting article. Glad you posted about it. : )
2 chow-stl // May 29, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Ever since the realization that the rest of the world uses the UN to cripple us as much as possible. I have come to the conclusion that we need to break away from the UN and start a multi-national body which is comprised of nations which are democracies. The only 2 requirements for membership in the body is 1) you must have a form of goverment which is with the consent of the governed. And 2) you must leave the UN. While it may seem far fetched to many, it is actually a very workable idea. For instance, (lets call this new global body ‘united democracies’ or UD for short) the UD could enact a resolution prohibiting any aid to a UN member nation. In this manner tyrants, and even those democracies which still adhere to the outmoded UN, will have to fend for themselves. I do realize that this may sound somewhat simplistic. For instance i understand that we need to engage in commerce with tyrants to secure needed oil. As well as other factors which could be addressed in a very longwinded comment which would take 100 pages to write and and cause mr harlos to enter a boredom induced coma.
3 Richard // May 30, 2006 at 12:17 am
LOL!… chow, I find your comments very interesting and very much aligned with my own thoughts on many fronts. It’s a comfort to me to read what you write and I appreciate your perspectives more than you may suspect.
The UD idea sounds intriguing! I’m going to mull over it until the subject comes around again and, by that time, I hope to have a bit more clarity than I do now.
Cheers!
4 chow-stl // May 30, 2006 at 5:05 am
You know Richard (can i call you richard?) While I have since voting age supported the republican platform. I am by no means a republican. It is just that, for me, the first priority is national security. I turned 18 in 1983 and i have not seen any democratic platform which put national security as first priority. In my view, without a strong national defense, every other issue is a moot point. While there are political parties which have a platform more in line with my views (the libertarians come to mind) the pragmatist in me does not wish to waste my vote on a losing cause. Which is why i believe, for better or worse, we will for the far seeable future have only 2 choices. I did read a collum which has been ‘SUed’ (is that a word yet?) which you may also have came across which states a platform somewhat left leaning, but which also promotes national security as a first priority. I would welcome a democratic pary ideal which has a national security component which also has better solutions in areas of civil liberties. It would be an interesting platform and the first real choice (at least in my system of values) in the ballot box since I have become of voting age.
Best Regards.
5 Richard // May 31, 2006 at 8:18 am
chow–
Yes, you can call me Richard; wouldn’t have it any other way! :-)
I have been registered ‘independent’ since I was first able to vote 25 years ago. Like you, I found no platform that really represented my complete values hierarchy so, instead of choosing the ‘lesser of two evils,’ I chose not to align myself with any platform and, instead, vote my conscience in every election.
While I acknowledge the usefulness of labels (Republican, Libertarian, etc.) I am also very wary of them for the simple reason that they can obscure meaning for the sake of convenience.
You have described a Democratic leaning but with a priority on national security matters. There is no label that describes your position completely. And while it may be inconvenient to have to repeatedly explain your views, I rather prefer that you do so if only for the accuracy with which your explanation paints a picture for your listeners.
Consider if we exhange the idea of labeling political platforms for a different subject: fruits!
Can one be mostly an Apple yet have a higher priority on the way one peels a banana and, in this description, convey any meaningful information to another as to which fruit you prefer? One likes apples best overall, but gives a higher priority to the way one peels a banana than to the way one peels an apple, hence one calls oneself a banana?
Hm… :-) no offense intended I assure you; just thinking aloud here :-)
Leave a Comment