Send my mother to Swat Valley: fixing America's global gratitude deficit

Thu, 07/02/2009 - 12:23pm

My mother would not approve. The bane of my childhood...which was essentially the story of Alexander Portnoy playing softball with Beaver Cleaver and Richie Cunningham in the land of "The Ice Storm"...was her insistence on a thank you note for every occasion. Get an embarrassing set of pajamas from Grandma? Immediately drop everything and send a thank you note. Get $10 from Uncle Max that could have been used to purchase a perfectly wonderful Revell model P-51 Mustang but which your parents hijack and use to buy a new pair of shoes from Tom McCann? Too bad, there will be no staying up late to watch "My Mother the Car" if you don't write a thank you note. Orthodontist slit your gums while installing a torture contraption in your mouth? Probably ought to send a thank you note, just in case.

There was a valuable lesson in this (for which, ironically, I have yet to send my mother a thank you note.) Gratitude makes a difference. Without it, the beneficence dries up and the giver no longer feels so good about giving and your brother and sister end up getting the better presents. (Or the orthodontist develops a grudge against you which is a very bad thing.)

I think it's time to send my mother to Pakistan. And then to Afghanistan. And then to Baghdad. And then perhaps on to a few other choice spots from Honduras to North Korea. This hardly seems like a reward for an exemplary life, but she could teach these folks a lesson or two about gratitude. And then, when she is done with the tour ... and she develops her own perspectives on just how little our efforts at generating gratitude in these places are actually benefitting the United States ... perhaps she ought to come back here and provide a lesson or two for the administration and for some folks on the Hill, perhaps starting with Senator Kerry. Because not only is the United States suffering from something that appears to be much like a global gratitude deficit...it may well be that the problem is with our expectations and our mechanisms for manifesting our (not so selfless) generosity to the less fortunate (or strategically significant) worldwide.

A prime illustration of the problems we face comes in the form of today's New York Times story "In Refugee Aid, Pakistan's War Has a New Front" by Jane Perlex and Pir Zubair Shah. The article describes how the United States is losing the bidding war for the hearts and minds of Pakistanis and how Islamists are edging us out. The authors observe: 

Although the United States is the largest contributor to a United Nations relief effort, Pakistani authorities have refused to allow American officials or planes to deliver the aid in camps for displaced people. The Pakistanis do not want to be associated with their unpopular ally.

At the same time, the article goes on to describe how hard-line givers from the Muslim world are using their donations to effectively promote anti-U.S. and anti-Western views. Meanwhile it notes, even American NGOs are saying we shouldn't advertise the U.S. origins of aid shipments because it is likely to inflame hostility. Seems to me like a lose-lose proposition for us there. I mean, I understand the humanitarian rationale behind giving for the sake of giving but really, isn't the purpose of government aid to advance a government objective? Isn't it clear that's precisely what we are not successfully doing in Pakistan?

But the Pakistani government and the Pakistani people are not the only ones who don't seem to appreciate our aid (or who are happy to take it but would like to continue hating us just the same). In Afghanistan, the Karzai administration would not exist without the United States. Is it showing its gratitude by combating the corruption via which our aid is wasted? Is it showing it by making even the slightest effort to embrace the most fundamental universal values of respect for groups like women or journalists? Read the reports out of Kabul. They just don't seem to appreciate all we have done for them.

Neither, it seems does the al-Maliki government in Baghdad. Now, I can see plenty of reasons why the Iraqi people would be pissed off at America. The illegal invasion of their country, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of their people and the devastation of their economy come to mind. But I'm not talking about the Iraqi people here. I'm talking about a government that knows full well that even after the pullback of U.S. troops from the cities, it depends on the continuing presence of U.S. forces in the country to ensure national stability and its grip on power. Couldn't they have toned down the celebrations of "liberation" from the Americans just a trifle to reflect the fact that the United States is continuing to invest so much in their ability to hold on to power?

We spent much training the Honduran military that conducted that country's coup earlier this week. We have pumped serious aid money into North Korea to combat famine. We give the Egyptians, the Palestinians, and the Israelis plenty of cash and there seems to be a competition among them to see who can stall our objectives in the region most effectively or creatively.

Now, I realize we don't need to give aid money to people whose situations are stable. Aid tends to go to places where there are myriad challenges. But something is clearly not working here. The reflexive notion that we should write checks because it will generate goodwill seems not to be working. Clearly part of the problem here is with our expectations. And part of the problem here is with our history and perhaps we need to reconcile ourselves to unappreciated generosity for a while as a way of offsetting years of alienating people worldwide. But clearly another part of it is that we are a little ginger in our communications with our allies on these points...at the very least the governments who depend on us for survival ought to be nudged into a more constructive message with all due care to nuance the message to take into account local political realities.

Finally, the U.S. government aid apparatus remains one of its most dysfunctional. Early in the Obama transition there was talk of spinning out U.S. AID and related agencies into a Department of Development and Aid. I am generally anti-adding new departments to the government. But this was a pretty good idea. Economic peace-keeping and nation-building have been among our prime missions internationally over the past several decades whether we like it or not. But because we don't like it we have resisted building the kind of inter-disciplinary capacity to do it right...to recognize that provision of aid in post-conflict or conflict situations has completely different requirements (mostly political) than it does in development situations and that we need to more effectively blend pacification and economic missions. We need a civilian side Goldwater-Nichols to promote better collaboration and coordination among economic and political agencies in the fulfillment of this mission and better coordination with the military which still reluctantly does much of the heavy lifting in this area.

And beyond what we need, the world needs my mother. This is true on many levels. But in this instance it is because those who depend on our aid need to realize that regardless of who is president in Washington, all politics and history aside, the financial reality is that it is going to become harder and harder for the United States to continue providing aid as we have in the past and that average Americans (and even above-average Americans) are going to be soon looking even more energetically than in the past for excuses to shut the spigots. And that's saying something because aid has always been really unpopular in the United States, it's one of the reasons we give less as a percentage of GDP than most developed countries. Absent the thank you notes (which could be a nice card or possibly just making an effort to help the United States achieve our goals) the gratitude deficit could quickly translate into an aid deficit for those who are accustomed to receiving.

FAROOQ NAEEM/AFP/Getty Images



Advertisement

 

Send my mother to Swat Valley: fixing America's global gratitude

When you enlist a terrorist state as an ally to fight terrorists, this is a natural outcome. It is clear that by refusing to allow US officials to distribute US aid to Pakistani refugees while allowing fundamentalists to distribute US aid to Pakistani refugees, Pakistani government is making a mockery of US aid. So US spends the money while fundamentalists get the credit! This is a wonderful way for Pakistan to keep blackmailing US and obviously US has no problem with it but rather keeps on giving. One can easily see that eight years from now, Pakistan will be feeding the same old song of poverty and illeteracy to new incoming US administration so that US keeps aiding Pakistan’s attacks against same terrorists.

If your mother doesn't work

If your mother doesn't work, try sending my mother-in-law... surely they'll change their ways!

Reality

It would be rather nice if the world would thank the United States for the things it has done to help people, sadly things simply don't work that way. In media and in people's memories, violence sticks more than economics. With the many people in refugee camps of Muslim faith, I imagine that they are somewhat more aware that the United States backs Israel than they are that American governments and citizens have spent huge sums for those camps. In North Korea, I'll eat my shoes if even one percent of the starving there know that their food came from an American. It's a very irritating fact of our reality, but one we are forced to accept. The alternative would be to condemn countless lives across the planet to deaths by starvation and thirst, something I'm not quite ready to do even if I do want to punch some of the more zealous anti-Americans in the mouth.
As for the governments, they are largely governed by the realpolitik aspect of politics. They're more than willing to accept our money, but they will only agree with us on certain issues when it's convenient. However I suggest that we don't feel quite so outraged at them, it isn't as though the Soviet Union had an easier time with governments it was on good terms with. Accepting that is part of the cost of doing business.
On reading this, I had a thought. Perhaps some geopolitician should estimate exactly what would happen if the United States for some reason isolated itself from the entire world. By that I mean the effects of removing soldiers from overseas bases and overseas missions, ending aid and loans to other governments and NGOs, withdrawing from all foreign treaties, and ending the promise of a nuclear shield for other nations. I imagine that the result would not be pleasant for anyone.

Wow.

In the same way you exempted the Iraqis from having to feel/express 'gratitude' to the United States Id advise the same approach towards Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The people in Swat blame both the Taliban and the United States for their troubles, as they are caught in between. They are unlikely to thank the US for a tent, when their house has been destroyed (and their family killed) by what they perceive as a war for US interests, that has no bearing on the betterment of their own lives.

So rather than American expectations, what would needs to change for something as significant as international 'gratitude', is the way the US defines its interests. I.e. as allies of the locals, rather than as an imperial rock at odds with stubborn, indigenous little hard places. Obviously that is easier said than done, which is precisely why the whole premise of this article is flawed.

In either a moral or a practical sense, Aid does not equal gratitude/improved PR. The relationships between countries and societies (let alone sub-societies like Swat) are far more complex in terms of what is being given, and what is being taken, and what has historically been the case in both those respects.

And before people take the meaning that the aid is futile if it does not engender warmth towards the US, at least the people receiving US aid in Swat are not being entirely assisted by the TTP. That is to say, it's not about securing an advantage, its about filling that vacuum before your opponent does, to your immense disadvantage.

Anwar

The residents of Anwar province are probably happy to see fewer soldiers on their streets (and who can blame them). While you might characterize that as ingratitude, I think they already showed tremendous gratitude by helping the U.S. and Iraqi government to kick out AQI.

Likewise the Maliki government: while happy to see U.S. soldiers leave, they showed their gratitude by laying it on the line to suppress and defeat Sadr's thugs in Basra and Baghdad.

If they really want to show their gratitude, they can do so by conducting themselves in such a way that the U.S. never feels the need to deploy troops in Iraq again.