November 5, 2009
What’s This About? Aid to Ethiopia? More Troops to Afghanistan? U.S. and Pakistan?
By Nancy Birdsall
Before investigating the source of the below quote, read it and guess to what it refers – it might surprise you how broadly applicable it is.
It’s a classic American dilemma: How does a superpower fix problems in a faraway country without dictating policies in a way that ultimately enfeebles the very people we are trying to help?
To understand the nature of the dilemma (for foreign aid advocates as a start) go here, and here.
Consider the deeper question: Is (soft) aid a substitute or a complement to (hard) security interventions?
November 6, 2009 at 5:43 pm
If only such thoughts were ever seriously expressed about food aid (other than by policy wonks).
November 8, 2009 at 6:32 pm
The quote and the question posed provide much for reflection. I was anticipating the quote to be from a US politician in the 1960’s or 70’s, but it does seem to be an accurate representation of how this current administration is attempting to engage with the international community. President Obama seems to be much more interested in fixing problems through cooperation and diplomacy than unilateral action.
The question of aid’s role related to intervention is quite interesting, and one for which there is no easy answer. I think it depends so much on the agendas of the donor country as well as the needs and actions of the recipient. In the case of Afghanistan, obviously aid is more of a complement than a substitute (particularly because US aid was quite limited before the intervention). How do you perceive the role of the military in reconstruction and distributing humanitarian aid? Can that approach really help to “win” over the hearts and minds and creating lasting peace? I look forward to more discussion on these ideas.
November 9, 2009 at 7:13 pm
I agree that the question of whether soft aid supplements or compliments security intervention is an interesting one. However, I believe there is another side to this question: how often does soft aid weaken attempts to bring peace or security to a region? While the case of Afghanistan may not fit the question I am raising due to the extreme lack of basic human needs present, I believe there are times and places when soft aid intervention heightens conflict as opposed to complementing security efforts. Relative deprivation theory seems to suggest that where access to resources is disparate (or at least appears to be so), violent conflict is much more likely. In cases where aid is disproportionately offered to one group (NATO aid to Kosovo in 1999, for example), hard aid efforts via security mechanisms can be extremely undercut, and in fact, promote more violence.
November 13, 2009 at 12:52 pm
VEDiCarlo, you raise an excellent point. There are plenty of cases where bilateral aid was used to manipulate heads of state, which undermined the state’s obligation to its people and hindered human development. And I think your question does apply to Afghanistan, because the disbursement of aid for reconstruction can be perceived as supporting one tribal group over another (even if the donor thinks its actions are unbiased). The sad part is that we have to include security interventions into these scenarios, which underscore the political nature of aid.