Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effect of the marshall plan
After world war ii america policy
United States foreign policy following World War II
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The effect of the marshall plan
Throughout the United States’ history, the importance and presence of foreign aid has fluctuated. Franklin Roosevelt presented the Marshall Plan to rebuild a devastated Europe after World War II, a comprehensive multi-billion-dollar effort which cemented America’s place as a world leader. Later, when the perceived threat from the Soviet Union receded as the Cold War ended in the early 1980s, American diplomatic, military, and foreign assistance budgets were slashed, and the U.S. kept a lower profile on the world stage. However, during the aftermath of 9/11 in 2001 and the war against terrorism, and through the more recent democracy movements and resulting civil wars taking place throughout the world, these budgets were again increased, and …show more content…
Many experts in the diplomatic and international relations fields believe that American self-interest is best served by a democratically secure, financially stable, and militarily peaceful (as well as grateful) world, with the populations in the world free from hunger, persecution, disease, and poverty. Patrick Marshall, who holds a master’s degree in International Studies from Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, states “Advocates of a robust aid program…say it is vital in protecting U.S. security interests, spreading democracy, and promoting U.S. exports.” In addition, as one of the wealthiest countries and one of oldest democracies, the United States has an ethical mandate to provide aid to suffering people around the world. Also, foreign assistance agreements frequently stipulate that the funds granted must be used to buy American goods or services, such as the aid packages offered to Israel to fund their military which require them to purchase arms and equipment from American companies, thereby returning much of the aid to U.S. businesses (Bearak). While it is true that the United States funds the largest portion of U.N. spending, it is also true that this funding, which equates to .17% of GNI (Gross National Income), is much smaller than other countries’ contributions as a percentage of GNI. Western Europe’s contributions hover in the .7% range, with Sweden topping the donors at 1.4%
Stephen Ambrose speaks much on wars that America was directly or indirectly involved in. In one chapter, The Legacy of World War Two, he saw war, for the US and the Allies, in World War Two, as “not to conquer, not to enslave, not to destroy, but to liberate” (Ambrose 120) He goes on to say that “the Marshall Plan was the most generous act in human history.” (Ambrose 121) The Marshall Plan created NATO, the Berlin Air Lift and Ambrose swimming in patriotism claimed it was “the American spirit, more than American productive power, that made it so.” (Ambrose 121) He continues h...
The United States continues to give around $550 billion in aid to other countries each year, making America the world's top donor by far (Richardson). While the United States government only supplies $252 billion to needy Americans each year. Former Assistant to the President for Communications, Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous" (Foreign Aid). The United States need to give money to support the domestic impoverished rather than supporting developing foreign countries because the poverty and homelessness in America is increasing faster than the aid necessary to reduce this trend. Part of the reason that the United States should aid the domestic impoverished is that some foreign countries cannot be trusted with the money given to them and in certain cases, the money intended to aid countries are harmful for that country’s well-being.
During 1940-1970, the USSR and the USA were the world’s leading superpowers. After WW2, it was the US money that helped rebuild nearly all of Western Europe, putting nearly half a dozen countries into debt. They opened trade and helped Europe’s ravaged economy to get back onto its feet. They did so by creating the ‘Marshall Plan’ on June the 5th, 1947. The plans aim was to reconstruct Western Europe and at the same time to stop Communism spreading to them – the Americans were avid believers in the Domino Theory, and believed that communism would take over all of Europe if they did not intervene. They also created other policies such as the Truman doctrine on March the 12th, 1947 (which is a set of principles that state that the US as the worlds ‘leading country’ will help out other democratic governments worldwide) and NATO, 4th of April 1949.
The 19th century set the stage for different policies that lead to the extending of America’s power, which is defined as imperialism. Imperialism started for different reasons like the Americans wanting the U.S. to expand or explore the unknown land, or even some feared existing resources in U.S. might eventually dry up. The reason imperialism started doesn’t really matter, but more of what it caused. Imperialism lead to Cuban assistance, the addition of Hawaii and Alaska to America, and Yellow Journalism.
The Marshall Plan was the United States sponsored program designed to rehabilitate the countries of Europe that suffered the incredibly damaging consequences after World War II. Western Europe’s real attitude toward economic union came about when they avoided discussion of a European free trade area, offered to them as an alternative in the Marshall Plan (Rebuilding Europe After World War II). When communist forces took over Czechoslovakia in 1948, the United States Congress realized the seriousness of the Soviet threat to European democracy. They voted for full funding of the European Recovery Program (the Marshall Plan). The USSR rejected contributions from the Marshall Plan, due to the conditions that accompanied it, such as allowing United States supervision of the participant's economy, and to be part of a unified European economy based on free trade (European-United States History). Under t...
What are the circumstances that brought you to apply for the foundation emergency fund scholarships?
Before extending aid to other countries, we should focus on our more prevalent domestic problems. Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous. Almost every American knows it, feels it, believes it." The topic of United States foreign policy is greatly debated, and a decision on how to handle is very hard to come by. It seems as if we are finally leaning towards less aid to foreign countries, as we try to cut wasteful spending. The American government is finally opening its eyes to the realization that all of the aid we are giving out may not be worth it. Our priority should be to help our homeless, instead of other countries' poor.
As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy, manifest destiny, humanitarianism, and economic expansion.
Published in 2007 by Barry Machado, the book In Search of a Usable Past: The Marshall and Postwar Reconstruction Today documents a study designed to “establish the relevance for contemporary postwar reconstruction programs of an experimental foreign policy conceived and executed back in the late 1940s and early 1950s.” Machado professionally documents that study and analyzes the study to consider is a policy like the Marshall Plan could succeed in modern politics. Machado received his Ph.D. in education from Northwestern in 1957 indicating accuracy in this work. The book was published 60 years after the Marshall Plan was initiated, so the facts used in this work are accurate.
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
To understand the power struggle relating to foreign policymaking, it is crucial to understand what foreign policy entails. The Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State declares the goals of foreign policy as "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." While this definition is quite vague, the actual tools of foreign policy include Diplomacy, foreign aid, and military force.
Marshall reported back to Truman that Europe was utterly destroyed as a result of WWII. He stated that Europe would turn communist unless the United States intervened. Truman appealed to Congress and explained that the European economy had been destroyed by the Nazi war effort. Congress authorized $13 billion, even though Truman appealed for $17 billion. This became known as the Marshall Plan. Marshall Aid was sent to countries all over Western Europe (to former allies and enemies), yet not to Eastern
Poverty has conquered nations around the world, striking the populations down through disease and starvation. Small children with sunken eyes are displayed on national television to remind those sitting in warm, luxiourious houses that living conditions are less than tolerable around the world. Though it is easy to empathize for the poor, it is sometimes harder to reach into our pocketbooks and support them. No one desires people to suffer, but do wealthy nations have a moral obligation to aid poor nations who are unable to help themselves? Garrett Hardin in, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor," uses a lifeboat analogy to expose the global negative consequences that could accompany the support of poor nations. Hardin stresses problems including population increase and environmental overuse as downfalls that are necessary to consider for the survival of wealthy nations. In contrast, Peter Singer's piece, "Rich and Poor," remarks on the large differences between living conditions of those in absolute poverty with the wealthy, concluding that the rich nations possess a moral obligation to the poor that surpasses the risks involved. Theodore Sumberg's book, "Foreign Aid As Moral Obligation," documents religious and political views that encourage foreign aid. Kevin M. Morrison and David Weiner, a research analyst and senior fellow respectively at the Overseas Development Council, note the positive impact of foreign aid to America, a wealthy nation. Following the examination of these texts, it seems that not only do we have a moral obligation to the poor, but aiding poor nations is in the best interest of wealthy nations.
Being an international student is exciting. It offers a lot of exposure and scope for improvement. Canada has a lot of institutions that accept foreign students, but before that, the practical difficulties an international student might face in the country should be noted.
Peter Burnell and Lise Rakner 2008 Governance and Aid Conditionality in a Globalizing World. United States of America: Oxford University Press