Monday April 18, 2005

Column:

If the nations of the world were siblings, we would call the interaction between them family relations. But the world is not a family. It is a conglomeration of different, disparate, at times warring, often in conflict nations with varying needs, wants and realities. And so, we call the interaction between nations foreign relations.

Step back and ask yourself how nations really make decisions about important internal matters and international affairs, about foreign relations.

Very often, too often perhaps, decisions are based on a process called quid pro quo. And the biggest uncle of all nations when it comes to quid pro quo is the United States. In official foreign relation-ese quid pro quo has another name it's called "bundled into a US aid package."

I am referring to the "aid" that Uncle Sam, the United States, gives to countries for behaving in a certain way. The incentives and rewards they hand out for creating and implementing policies that the United States appreciates.

This "aid" action by the United States (or by any nation) could easily be interpreted as just a big bribe. But in the polite world of foreign relations it is simply seen as motivation "to do the right thing." By any objective analysis it means Doing The Right Thing By US Standards.

For many countries the sad truth is that issues are not as important as the aid they will receive and the promises that come along with it. These nations are eager and willing to accept the money and change their policies. They are convinced that the money will help solve internal problems and that the United States really wants to provide assistance on the most basic level. US aid to the countries hit by the tsunami is a perfect example.

There are, by all objective standards, significant problems when another country receives "aid" food, dollars, technical assistance, from the United States.

The United States offers aid because it is in its own best interests. It may be seen as altruism but the best interests of the United States are not necessarily the best interests of the recipient country. There is always an American interest at stake. That is something we should never forget.

There are times when the recipient country actually makes the calculus between their interests and the package they anticipate receiving from the US. That very calculus is a cost benefit analysis of the situation. But unfortunately it is often a short-term analysis for the country while the United States self-interest-analysis is projecting long term.

It's happening today.

The United States wants a Palestinian State. The United States also wants Israel out of Gaza.

In return for implementing the wants of the United States, Israel will certainly receive some form of United States aid. But questions remain.

What will Israel get out of these huge concessions? Will they live with more security or will their lives be in more danger? Will there be more terror? Will the Palestinian State serve as a safe refuge for terrorists? How will these moves impact on the daily lives of the citizens of Israel?

What will Israel receive for these actions? That, too, is still as yet undetermined. Certainly money. Much good will. Some in high places have even mentioned the freeing of the famous US spy for Israel, Jonathan Pollard, as a part of the aid bundle if the redeployment goes through.

Is it worth the price for Israel? Few are even talking about it.

The US thinks it is worth every cent. But that is exactly the point. What the United States thinks may not be what is best for the region.

Quid pro quo. You figure it out. And remember, the biggest uncle, Uncle Sam, is urging and watching.