By Katy Poth

One dollar. It certainly doesn’t seem like a great deal of money. But what if one dollar did seem like a large amount of money? Imagine that you were required to live on one dollar a day. Would you count the pennies in your piggy bank? Would you scrape the change out of the seat cushions in your living room? Certainly, your perspective would be different.

For many people across the globe, this is not an imaginary scenario. In fact, the World Bank states that approximately 1.2 billion people in the world live on an annual income of one dollar a day, while another 2 billion people live on two dollars per day. That’s half of the world’s population and the grim reality is that there is enormous poverty in the world.

It has often been said that money is the root of all evil, but some may disagree. Some may contest that the lack of money can do far more damage than ever imagined. Ron Sider, an authority on theology and history and an accomplished author has a strong opinion on the United States’s role in the war on poverty. According to Sider, the image of America with an outstretched hand may be slightly misrepresented.

“Because we are such a large economy, we do give substantial amounts of money, but it is very low in terms of our Gross National Product, the lowest of all industrialized nations” Sider said. “European nations and Japan give a lot more money. We have this image of giving huge amounts of money in foreign aid, and it’s nonsense. It’s just a tiny, tiny fraction.”

The war on terrorism has put the spotlight into corners of the world that were previously unknown or simply overlooked. However, now that our attention has turned to this part of the world, it may be the perfect time to really examine impoverished countries and the role that the United States could potentially play.

According to Sider, there are two routes that can be taken-unilateral and multilateral. The first choice, a unilateralist route, would allow the United States to use enormous wealth and power to run the world however it chooses. With its focus on short-term benefits, a unilateral way may describe the United States as “the world’s police officers, with their own self-interest at stake.”

A multilateral approach, however, may describe the United States as “diplomatic innovators and peacemakers.” Sider commented, “A multilateral approach is where we say that we want to promote democracy, justice and freedom for all nations on the earth and all people. That may mean that we couldn’t get exactly what we wanted in the short run, but we would still be enormously influential because we are such a wealthy nation and have the largest military in the world.”

Resolving conflict as a world body can have enormous implications. “I think that in fact the U.S. has reserved a preeminent role for ourselves in peacemaking in the Middle East. If we were to sit down with Western Europe and Russia and say, ‘Here’s a fair deal and let’s together insist that Israel and Palestine move in a positive direction,’ this would carry even more clout than what we have done,” Sider said.

Sider contends that it is imperative for the United States to use its tremendous resources and wealth as a way to join together with other nations to fight not only evil, but the everyday atrocities that have existed on this Earth for ages. Poverty is not a new battle, but it is truly a battle that requires a joint effort. Countries, like the United States, have the power to act in a multilateral way that strives for long term, lasting effects.

History has proven that the United States has the vast power to create a lasting economic impression on countries in a time of need. Under the Marshall Plan, at the end of World War II, the United States took the lead and realized that Europe was so economically desperate and damaged by the war that they would not recover without help. The United States gave a substantial amount of money, 2.79% of the Gross National Product (much more than the current .15% in foreign aid) to help Europe rebuild. These efforts even embraced Germany, the country that we had fought.

“The success of the Marshall Plan was not simply the financial building of our enemy countries, like Germany and Japan,” said Sider, “instead the success rests in the friendship building that resulted.” Some may suggest that friendships can be bought. Perhaps they can. Some even contest that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan didn’t end the war, rather our financial commitment to rebuild Japan did. With this in mind, it is fair to question why the U.S. is not giving as much comparatively as it could to countries that are in desperate need. Sider believes that increased generosity could stem feelings of resentment many countries have towards the U.S.

“That’s resented very rightly,” he said. “The tragedy is that our wealth is what we focus on,” Sider said. However, he notes, that we live in a world where we could change that. Tony Blair recently called for a new Marshall Plan. He estimated that it would take $50 billion a year to dramatically improve the lot of that 1.3 million people who are desperately poor. “That would cost us something,” Sider said, “but relatively little - something like 1/40th of the U.S. federal government budget. We could pay it all ourselves if we really wanted to.”

The opportunity to have such an impact is present in the world today. Many countries, stricken with poverty, need assistance-multilateral assistance-to overcome the adversity they face. Sider strongly believes that the way to convince poor nations to move toward a more democratic form of government is to insure that the economic aid and assistance actually makes it into the hands of the poorest and not just the dictators and elite. This can all be done, he feels, without trying to force the “American Way” on these nations.

“There are a variety of forms of democratic nations, and the specific forms can be different in different cultures. But the basic freedoms-freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and being able to vote in fair secret ballot without fear of being killed, like Zimbabwe-we can legitimately say that we want to see movement in that direction.”

“We are free beings. We can make decisions. The question of how we use [our power] goes back to that freedom - and whether we are acting in love. My plea is for individuals. It’s a matter of acting in love to empower others using our money.”

The effort comes down to an altruistic belief that every life is worth valuing and if we act together as a country and as a world we will all have a hand in making certain that freedom is never compromised. The answer starts with you - with change pulled out of your seat cushion. When that begins to happen, every penny will put us one inch closer to true freedom, democracy and world peace - and in the end, that simply “makes cents.”