One of the major foreign policy developments of the 20th century was the advent of foreign assistance as a major endeavor of the developed world. Unlike other instruments of foreign policy, including diplomacy, military force, and strategic alliances, all of which are explicitly designed to further a country’s national interest, development aid is normally characterized as a moral obligation to help the poor and feed the hungry in the developing world. Despite this perception by policymakers and the public alike, development assistance is and should continue to be an important tool for promoting U.S. national security interests.
By addressing concerns like poverty reduction, economic growth, democracy and human rights, and good governance, development assistance works to diminish potential threats to our security by addressing their structural causes (poverty leading to extremism, corruption leading to lawlessness, authoritarianism leading to violence). Making the world more prosperous and democratic is a critical means for making the U.S. safer. By giving individuals and leaders in developing countries more opportunities to better themselves and participate in meaningful ways, both economically and politically, fewer will turn to radicalism, violence, and crime.
We see evidence for this all over the world. Because of rampant corruption and a lack of inclusion in national decision making, rebels in the Niger delta have attacked oil pipelines, disrupting an important source of U.S. oil and driving up global prices. Similarly, the brutal authoritarian regime in Sudan has methodically committed atrocities both in southern Sudan and in Darfur, creating a crisis of internally displaced persons and refugees that has the potential to destabilize the region. In Indonesia, however, where American foreign assistance has successfully promoted increased participation and good governance through decentralization and anti-corruption programs, the threat of extremism has diminished, and the violent conflicts in Aceh and Papua are on the road to resolution. The results of sustained development efforts cannot be overlooked, and the consequences of waiting until our national security interests are directly threatened cannot be understated.
Where we face genuine, short-term threats, “traditional” foreign policy tools like military assistance or diplomatic pressure/support will remain important options. We need to be careful, however, to realize when our short-term goals and policies (e.g. providing military support to an authoritarian regime) are working at cross purposes with our long-term development goals (e.g. promoting freedom and human rights, and reducing poverty).
The challenge to the next generation of American policymakers is to acknowledge and balance the tradeoffs between short-term conceptions of national security and long-term ones. Too often in the past have we chosen short-term tactical gains over long-term security. We need to reject this way of thinking, and instead integrate our foreign aid policy into our broader conception of national security by breaking down the unnecessary bureaucratic barriers and tension between the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on the one hand, and the State and Defense Departments on the other. As long as we view foreign assistance as a moral responsibility rather than a tool for promoting our national security, we will continue to focus on the symptoms of poverty, autocracy, and corruption rather than address their causes.
Evan Smith is a Program Officer at Democracy International, a Bethesda-based democracy and governance consulting firm.
The content is exclusively the personal opinion of the author. Under no circumstances should the content be attributed to CSIS, Next America, or the author's employer, unless explicitly stated.
US Foreign Aid and International Goodwill
It is important to consider that although aid may be given in efforts to assist in national security interests, the US should not solely or mainly focus foreign aid on national security. However, in essence, it really doesn't make a great difference to try to differentiate between the two. By assisting developing countries, the United States is fighting against poverty, hunger and other social conditions that usually breed crime or even in greater extremity, terrorist groups.
However, despite this correlation, it IS important to consider the humanitarian perspective. To solely assist countries who we feel poses a security threat leaves several countries without assistance. The international community will notice these trends, and this will not encourage other, non-threatening, developing countries to try to develop through peaceful means, if the United States gives aid to only certain countries.
The United States still plays the role of the superpower in the world. To maintain goodwill and cooperation amongst the international community, the United States must formulate a certain persona of international solidarity.
U.S. Does Not Have the Luxury of Selecting a "Primary Focus"
Times have certainly changed since Congress first passed the Foreign Assistance Act in 1961. We now live in global society with more direct access to the international community. This direct access has enhanced our foreign aid efforts but also placed a heightened awareness about national security issues. It is clear that these two subjects are intertwined but the question should not be geared toward clearly defining only one priority for foreign assistance because it has the ability to yield many positive returns. I disagree with the notion that the U.S. must choose one focus and narrow their concentrations into the area of national security or foreign assistance because this idea is centered around the idea that the two cannot coexist. Obviously, it is crucial that national security issues be at the forefront of our concern as we protect our nation. Not to mention that the U.S. has to repair its damaged international image and foreign aid is an excellent way to start. Also, when our national security interests cross paths with an option for foreign assistance, it is an opportunity to incorporate different methods while accomplishing a wide array of goals. We do not have the luxury of only selecting one primary focus because our world is too complex. We should embrace any outcome that is the result of foreign assistance.
Foreign Assistance for Security,A Misunderstanding of the Issues
The primary focus of U.S foreign aid assistance should be to help developing and lesser developed nations improve the quality of lives for their citizens, and to develop their infrastructure and legal code. Quality of life can be defined as access to education, access to health care, the ability to participate in democracy, and equal justice before the law. All of these things are not only issues of quality of life, but they also lead to economic growth. Not only should these things be the primary focus of U.S. foreign assistance, but the idea of focusing foreign aid on areas of U.S. national security interests is dangerous, because it will increase animosity towards the U.S. from non-hostile states and will reward failed states and security threats with U.S. attention.
The U.S. has a moral obligation to be a good global citizen and to give foreign aid. In terms of percentage of GDP given in foreign aid, the U.S. falls far behind. Although many development programs have failed, we are learning which ones are effective. For example, micro-lending has proven to be an effective way to promote the good qualities of entrepreneurship and improve the lives of many people in the developing world. Creating a working legal system with a universally accepted property rights systems allows people to gain access to loans, and to hold people liable for debts. Allowing access to to health care insures a healthy working population. Governments which are democratic are held accountable through elections, and therefore must perform in the interest of the people.
As the world continues to globalize the U.S. will no longer be the military and economic superpower that it is today, and must learn to be a leader through its values and ideals. This ultimately is the only real long-term solution to issues of security.
Natural reduction
The focus of US foreign assistance should be true to it's intent, assistance that helps developing countries, rather than foreign assistance-that-seems-like-help-but-only-benefits-the-US's-interests. As many other posts have already stated, we should assist because we want to help. The world still looks to the US to lead. Even though we rank in the bottom GDP percentage given in foreign aid, we still give me than any other country. We don't need to throw more money at the world's problems. We need to be genuine about wanting help developing countries by encouraging liberal democratic growth, education, sustainable agricultural development, and modern communications infrastructures. If these objectives are our focus, then US national security threats will naturally be reduced.
State Budgets.....
The budget has never been sufficient, and that shows in the quality of services provided by the state. Our economy adopted a budget that increased spending at more than twice the rate of inflation, even in the face of a national recession and of the extraordinary damage done to the economy. In order to stem the amount of spending, and in order for the states to avoid getting massive personal loans, they’ve decided to let go of some segments of the prison population. The worry is that the release won’t have any good effects, and that more money will be spent on recidivism, or offenders re-offending and retuning to prison upon release. Officials insist that they will only be releasing prisoners who are the least likely to re-offend, and can be better monitored from home. If this does result in a new crime wave, it won’t be saving any state budgets, or the jobs of the people that released the prisoners.
Foreign Aid and National Security
Foreign aid should not wholly be an apparatus of national security, however it can serve an important role in national security for two reasons. Aid can be utilized for strategic planning and goals, but can also be applied tactically in times where it is a fitting resource. It has been said that one of the greatest threats to national security, currently in the context of terrorism, is poverty. In places like Latin America and Africa, the United States has seen an exponential growth in terrorism due to poverty. Foreign aid can be strategically utilized to diminish the potential prosperity of poverty in these regions of the world. However, foreign aid can also be used for tactical purposes in times of crisis. Aid that is given as a short-term fix to a crisis should be just that, temporary. Foreign aid that is awarded tactically, to find a quick solution to a crisis whether that it is being utilized to expedite negotiations or react to a natural disaster, should be temporary and not be continued for years after the aid’s purpose has expired. Although these two tools of foreign policy are inevitably tied, they must ultimately be free of control from the other entity.
Balancing interests
The United States must find a balance between issuing foreign aid as a means of security and aid that addresses urgent needs in the developing world. Often, as previous posters have indicated, addressing the basic needs of developing countries fosters democratic growth, which is in the United States' general security interests. This assistance is invaluable to the receptive country and changes the lives of so many individuals. It is imperative then, that the United States continue to identify and address the most pressing needs of lesser-developed countries around the world and provide assistance when appropriate. If the United States adopts a policy strictly to serve national security issues with their foreign assistance, these issues will not receive the funding and attention they deserve. If the United States continues to project itself as a global benevolent hegemon, it has to address the needs of others, not act purely in its own self-interest.
Tempering Extremism.
Leave it to private charities/donors to assist without a self-serving motive.
It is the U.S. government's responsibility to look out for the home country through its actions. Self-interest must be at the forefront.
Since there isn't an endless supply of money, a decision making process is involved which usually hinges on security interests.
However, I think it's very important that there isn't a narrow definition of what defines a security risk.
This can be as simple as the idea that positive development in any country tempers extremism.
Africa is a country I strongly feel deserves to receive U.S. assistance when looked at in this light.
Assistance can be far more effective than military action in many of these cases. I see it as a new way to combat complex problems like genocide and terrorism.
As far as anti-democratic countries: you can't always pick your playmates. Case in point, Saudi Arabia - the strategic importance of this country demands U.S. assistance (arms sales, etc.)
To insist that the U.S. give foreign aid without putting thought into how a foreign country's development will secure U.S. interests is irresponsible.
Aid for Leadership, not just National Security
Should the primary focus of U.S. foreign assistance be to serve U.S. national security interests? This question, which appears to be essential in any discussion about how the US works with the world, has an inherent flaw. It neglects that there is inherent self-interest and national benefit from all types of foreign assistance. While the US State Department thought/thinks that it is breaking new ground with the creation of its F Bureau, which intends to allocate aid funds in a manner consistent with our political "national security agenda," I sense that it is really doing the opposite. To make helping people in dire need about political ends is like looking at a homeless man in the street, and before giving him a coin saying, "And what can you do for ME!" It's not just selfish, it could be dangerous. The last thing the US needs at this moment in time is to be viewed by the world as out of touch with the scope of its power and influence. In Africa, Latin America and around the global south in particular, individuals are begging the US to step up into its historic role as global leader once more. And to think that leadership is just about securing a perceived national security interest is misguided. The great leaders I have known in my work with SMRC and in foreign policy have understood that leadership is often as much about sacrifice as anything else. If the US seeks to make all aid - and thereby leadership in the global effort to reduce poverty and improve lives - about its narrow self-interest, or worse, an ill-understood national security benefit - it will be condemmed. The US should be expected to lead, even if it costs money, and doesn't necessary have a security benefit. Not to mention, where security interests are today, may be radically different from where they are tomorrow.
What matters is outcome, not intent
First and foremost, I do agree with the bright people who have written before me in that the intent of why we give aid (whether for national security, or for international development) seems to be a mute point. What matters is not why we give the aid, but what is the outcome of that aid. That makes it, in my opinion, all the more critical that we make sure we send out the right assistance.
I recently did a research assignment on the relationship between U.S. aid to Afghanistan (or lack thereof) in the 1960s and Afghanistan's turn to the Soviets for help in the 70s. The problem with giving aid with a short-term national security impetus is that it is difficult to gauge what will be in our national security in the future. In Afghanistan, the foreign policy experts assumed that Afghanistan was not a critical ally in the fight to contain the Russians - at least not until the late 70s. By then it was too late. Afghans, observing the generous aid packages given to Pakistan, looked to Soviets to help with their development assistance. And the rest is history. But the U.S. just didn't seem to get it right in Afghanistan. Once again, thinking about short-term Soviet containment, we supplied the Taliban with arms. I'm sure foreign policy experts weren't expecting the same Taliban fighters would pose a national security threat of unparalleled magnitudes decades later.
Instead, American aid must be focused on empowering people, not governments, in key strategic parts of the world; of course, we do have to prioritize since we have limited resources. Amnesty International will soon be embarking on a campaign calling on US to seek to ensure international Human Security instead of national security. Human security around the world presupposes America's national security. The reason that groups like Hamas and Al Qaeda have any legitimacy in Palestine and Iraq is because they have assumed the role of quasi-governmental organizations, providing people with the necessities of life - water, food, shelter - and gaining their loyalty. What we must do is understand the reasons for fundamentalism if we want to eradicate this threat. And the best way is to provide the people with what we, in this country, have already deemed to be inalienable rights for all.
The most effective tool for doing this, I believe, is micro-finance (kudos to Ian, here). Micro-finance has worked beautifully so far in India. It is not enough alone, but it has lifted thousands of people out of poverty. The most amazing thing is that they are not grants, but loans that earn interest. The problem is that they are done at very small scales because micro-finance projects are left to the private citizens to undertake. I believe the American government should assume the role of micro-lender in these countries. The amount goes up, more people have access, and there is no long-term cost to US tax payers.
Foreign Aid and National Security
We all agreed that the U.S. most assuredly has the task of protecting its own interests, but we also that America perhaps also has an obligation to aid other nations. Given this, we find that oftentimes the United States, mixing the two agendas, offers politicized aid and creates considerable controversy. In the opinion of the global community, developmental aid justified by security needs, especially administered by military personnel, becomes another vehicle to establish American supremacy and bolster U.S. national security. But should aid and security be decoupled completely? Should America give foreign assistance with no thought to security? In some countries, as we discussed, it seems to be impossible to successfully administer aid without military assistance and cooperation.
There was another view that successful developmental aid spreads economic opportunity, and hopefully free market ideology and democratic governance. These principals help build strong, peaceful nations, while maintaining a strong world order conducive to America’s goals. By assisting and helping unstable countries which have the potential to threaten U.S. security, the U.S. eliminates threats before they arise. In the end, it is a numbers game. With limited resources, the U.S. must do what is best for its national security, and sometimes that means choosing to give aid to one country over another in the hopes of tempering future threat. By studying regional interests, demographic trends and political organizations, aid can be targeted to places most likely to produce threats if left alone. Although America should always respond to the most pressing humanitarian crises such as genocide or catastrophic disasters, in general aid should be targeted to protect Americans and U.S. business assets abroad. This need not only be short-term, stopgap aid packages (such as military assistance to Pakistan), but should also include long term projects in regions most likely to be antagonistic in the future.
Others strongly disagreed with this view, for moral and ethical reasons. To begin with, it doesn’t take into account the agendas of other countries, or what it looks like when organizations like USAID work with the Department of Defense. The U.S. government packages the relationship between the DOD and USAID as a perfect mixture of defense, development, and diplomacy. To other nations, it represents another move by the U.S. to place its own interests above all others.
Some thought that while national security has become more important in recent years and post 9/11, the U.S. should separate its foreign assistance agenda from its national security goals. A starving baby is a starving baby, no matter the country or part of the world. Thus, aid and development projects should be distributed on the basis of need and the chances of mission success. The U.S. spends less than 0.16% of its GDP on foreign assistance, a miniscule portion that pales in comparison to other countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark (see http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumber...). After the Cold War, the world recognized the importance of allowing developmental workers to work freely as non-governmental entities. Today, it seems as if the burden of protecting American interests has clouded the conscience that once allowed the U.S. to provide foreign assistance more readily. Whether or not the primary focus of U.S. foreign assistance is to serve U.S. national security interests, it is important to realize that providing foreign assistance will help the U.S. build allies through long-term partnerships— partnerships that are and will continue to be essential to maintaining a safe and prosperous America.
- Next America: Campus Initiative
Dartmouth Chapter*
*This is a collective profile of Dartmouth students, who come together to discuss, debate, and engage each other on the issues posted on Next America. Each posted comment is an entry that results from one of our meetings. While it is impossible to represent the unique views of every participant in each comment, we strive to capture the general thoughts of consensus (as well as the significant dissenting opinions) on each topic of discussion.
Security First
Nearly everyone seems to agree that aid should be focused on the long term, should address root causes, and should not only be militarily focused. That said, there are still times and places where America must swallow her pride and support regimes we’d rather not with short term security and military aid. For instance, military assistance to Pakistan is essential to the war on terror despite the lack of potential for lasting improvement.
However even in the realm of long-term, cause-focused aid, national security should be a primary driving factor behind assistance decisions. Although these programs may be ineffective at combating immediate threats to American security, they should be wildly successful at stabilizing nations, regions, and populations, promoting pro-American opinions, and creating economic prosperity, with the end result of preventing threats in the first place. In a world where assistance need far outstrips supply, security should be the filter by which assistance resources get allocated. Areas which are more likely to be hostile or rival to American interests years and even decades down the road should be the ones receiving aid now, in order to head these potential conflicts off at the pass. Long term programs, whose mandates don’t include military measures, should still be targeted to the areas with the most long term potential to harm American interests if left alone.
America need not be heartless: the worst crises should receive an American response, and a portion of our aid budget, regardless of security justifications. But for the rest of our efforts, in a world with far more need then we have the resources to meet, America should focus her efforts where they deliver the most return to the target nations and American security in the long run.
In foreign aid, hearts and minds matter...
If the United States plans to refocus its security strategy on combating global terrorism and the roots of radical extremism—be they religious (Iran, Sudan, etc.) or populist (Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.) – it will be incumbent upon the United States to restructure its foreign aid to target the “hearts and minds” of the citizens of aid recipient countries. Public opinion serves as a solid (and somewhat democratic) proxy variable for the effectiveness of aid in serving the image of the US abroad.
Even a cursory review of countries in where aid has long been justified in the name of “national security interests” reveals that long term aid to these countries has not significantly improved our image or security interests. Take the following basket of strategically important countries (country/ US foriegn aid in Billions of dollars/ Rank/ Public Opinion toward the US):
Egypt 1.87 3 78% unfavorable (21% favorable)
Jordon .56 6 78% unfavorable (20% favorable)
Pakistan .39 7 68% unfavorable (15% favorable)
Peru .17 9 31% unfavorable (61% favorable)
Bolivia .16 11 52% unfavorable (42% favorable)
Turkey .15 12 83% unfavorable (9% favorable)
In the end, the sectors of aid investment that yield the most significant long-term good will are the least controversial… and the least glamorous. The EU experience in Central America provides a great example of how development projects in transportation infrastructure, potable water production, and sanitation education—properly branded with the EU flag of course—can sway the powerful tool of public opinion for the better of all involved.
The US has taken steps in this direction, but a greater focus in the nuts and bolts of development aid (beyond weapons and PR campaigns) will be much welcomed in the aid community and on the ground in aid recipient countries.
National security IS human rights-based development
I agree that national security and development are not mutually exclusive. I think the real question is how to frame the concept of development so that it can be most effective.
International development must be comprehensive and structurally-based. It must be sustainable, not emergency relief. Essentially, it must be based around a human rights framework. If we follow standards set forth by the UDHR, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), we will clearly see a mandate for systemic change. That is, sending parasite medication is not enough for a rights-based approach to development. The human right to water, recognition of which is provided by the ICESCR, obligates that a rights-based development approach provide a plumbing system or some other sustainable way to enhance access to clean drinking water, thereby advancing the human rights of those suffering from parasites. Food aid shouldn't cause the bankruptcy of small farmers in developing countries; development projects concerning agriculture should work on assisting those small farmers by creating markets for them and ensuring market accessibility. And development projects should work not at enabling cultural traditions that prevent girls from leaving home to travel to school; they should integrate measures to change those social conditions at their source.
Rights-based development means that development projects will get at the root of the problems and if executed correctly, will prove more sustainable than development that is driven only by economic or national security motives. Because this approach is more comprehensive, it will, in the long run, have an even greater positive effect on national security and the global economy. The two are not mutually exclusive and in fact, because rights-based development is more far-reaching and comprehensive, it will result greater long-term benefits for national security.
To really employ a rights-based development strategy, however, requires a re-framing of the way in which we think about development. Such a strategy means incorporating women's empowerment, combating racial and religious discrimination, and including the voices of marginalized peoples, in addition to sustainably addressing material needs.
International development should not be reduced to foreign assistance alone. It also means a restructuring of the ways in which we engage developing nations in the context of the global economy. That is, profit can no longer be the sole guiding motivation in trade. A real concern for the intersection of trade and human rights must inform trade policy, because, as I have pointed out, the advancement of human rights will provide the most long-lasting security for our nation and the world.
If our foreign policy and international development strategies are human rights-based, we will be enabling the most sustainable and long-lasting change. National security will be an inherent benefit.
Long-term vs. short-term?
First of all, there are many types of foreign aid that serve different purposes. Perhaps they should be discussed individually.
For example, I believe that humanitarian aid should be given quickly, efficiently, and abundantly to any country facing a crisis. This is generally our policy in the U.S. and few people would debate the morality or the policy implications of this aid strategy. The inflow of aid to Indonesia after the tsunami did more to improve their view of the U.S. than any previous diplomatic overtures, yet I don't believe we sent aid to win friends specifically. We did it because it was the right thing to do.
Generally I believe that development aid is good for America in the long run if given efficiently. Healthy, educated neighbors and trade partners are in our best interest. Of course there are issues that must be addressed, such as corruption and aid-dependence. USAID is getting better at addressing these concerns, but of course they have a long way to go.
The issue of military aid is perhaps where the issue becomes muddled. We give billions of dollars in military aid every year for strategic, security reasons. The most controversial recipient currently is Pakistan due to the large amount and their questionable use of said military aid. But Pakistan is not the first controversial military aid recipient and certainly they will not be the last. We armed Saddam, the Taliban, and several others that we would later regret. Military aid has often led to buyers remorse.
While military aid does serve our national security interests in the short term it often has undesirable repercussions down the line. However, development aid may take generations to prove its usefulness but the payoffs are immeasurable.
It seems that most agree, foreign aid is indeed a tool for national security whether the money is sent as food or tanks. However, for the best long term strategy the humanitarian side wins out. Call it moral, strategic, or both.
From a Latin American's perspective
After reading the two entries regarding this issue, from my studies and, from my experiences in Colombia i can safely say that development aid and asistence serves a far reaching goal for the country.
As mentioned above in the article written by Marci Moberg, if aid and asistence is given to those problematic countries that overall have a profound effect will pay off greatly for overall interested of the United States as reasons that spark injustices will be quelled by asistence.
To make my point take Plan Colombia for example. Created by Bill Clintion and approved by then president Andres Pastrana, the plan sought to combat narcotraffiking, particularly the cocaine trade at its center by force. It gave much needed training, weapons, and money to the Colombian military and sought to cut the cocaine trade that has lured many peseants in a country so torn by a decades long civil conflict by fumigating areas with the drug.
Now almost a decade later this plan has instead of cutting the drug trade has increased it, destroyed arriable land, turned more peseant faremrs to the illict drug as a means to get by, and finally has made the country much more secure.
Instead of attacking the root cause for the participation in the drug trade; i.e. social injustice, poverty, and overall inequality, tthey have made the drug a much more viable form of incoe to get by. Plan Colombia needs to be restructured to deal with Colombia's more pressing social and equality issues now that the plan unintentionally has made the country far more safe and secure in modern history. If the U.S. government focuses more on aid for development and the Colombian government continues to fair well against the guerillas then drug production in Colombia will fall and price of cocaine will rise thus aiding in the U.S.'s interests in the long term.
We cannot confuse interests.
The vital point in this debate is keeping the interests of aid and support disentangled from the interests in national security. Marci Moberg worded it well when she said "By narrowly focusing development assistance on national security interests, U.S. efforts will miss root causes of problems."
If the primary issue at stake becomes national security, important aid decisions will be made based upon U.S. interests instead of the genuine needs and root causes involved in specific communities. We cannot afford to jeopardize the well-being and developmental success of those we wish to help by sidestepping their needs for the sake of our own interests. Instead of securing U.S. interests, it would lead to scant multilateral support in the form of resources and opinion as it became apparent to the world community that our concern was disingenuous.
The setbacks this would cause in regards to U.S. interests would be heavily overshadowed by the more significant setbacks in terms of aid and development. We would lose on both fronts, but more importantly, those who need our assistance would not receive it to the degree and effectiveness they could have.
- Michael T. Babcock
National Security and Development
Allow me to begin by saying that I agree with Jonathan that the authors have essentially expressed the same opinion with subtle differences. Marci Moberg nicely expresses the underlying argument of both writers in her closing statement:
The solution is not shifting U.S. development assistance efforts towards national security, but increasing U.S. development assistance because it indirectly improves our national security.
Essentially, development assistance and U.S. national security initiatives should not be considered mutually exclusive. Fostering the health, security and growth of the developing world ultimately improves living conditions, helps to reduce violence, encourages liberalization and brings about stability. All of these are in the best interest of the United States.
Jonathan has proposed an additional question, and asks us whether we should be discriminating depending on whether or not the nation in question is democratic. I think this has been answered by the success of competitive-based foreign assistance programs like the Millennium Challenge Corporation, whose “benchmarks” for success have encouraged good governance, women’s right, education and production. In the past, aid given indiscriminately in large sums has bee subject to corruption and poor distribution.
We should also start to think about how we go about delivering that aid. The Gates Foundation has been especially successful using microfinance; instead of giving a multi-million dollar grant, why not give thousands of smaller loans to individuals and small businesses? The United States should be supporting and promoting this kind of micro assistance. We should be accurately measuring which forms of assistance are most effective and focusing on this, while phasing out less reliable and less discriminating methods.
I think we can at least agree that global development is good for U.S. security. We should take this debate to the next level, and ask specifically what kind of assistance best achieves that goal.
Is there a difference?
After reading both points of view, it seems that the two authors do not really disagree all that much if it all. Hilton Root, a scholar at Brookings has recently published a book called "Alliance Curse" makes the argument against foreign aid in the name of national security by saying (to quote from the Brookings book description), "The linkage of U.S. aid to oppressive regimes erodes goodwill toward America among indignant populations. And when the foreign assistance dries up—as it invariably does—the dictators themselves frequently turn on America and end their cooperation. It is no wonder then that the United States faces major foreign policy dilemmas in the very countries that were major recipients of aid."
I believe that this is the question that should be debated--- when the US aids its undemocratic allies, is it worthwhile?