Putting forth an ounce of prevention

The world today is experiencing the highest levels of insecurity since the end of the Cold War, and the United States has again asserted primary responsibility for restoring the stability that we have struggled for so long to create. However, in recent years the country has shifted away from a tool that helps promote stability and U.S. interests around the world, without high costs and without making enemies. Cold War-era foreign aid programs proved extremely effective in reinforcing friendly governments and promoting our national interests without the high costs of military and diplomatic interdiction in response to instability. America must make greater efforts to see that instability is countered before it can become dangerous. We must revitalize what is potentially one of our most potent weapons against instability, as carefully targeted foreign-aid programs help promote stability and foster pro-U.S. sentiment across the globe.

The greatest legacy of the United States foreign aid program, as well as the strongest assertion of post-war U.S. leadership, was the Marshall Plan, a scheme for rebuilding post-World War II Europe and Japan that poured billions of dollars into industrial and infrastructure development. Through this prudent and generous policy, the United States was able to save Western Europe and Japan from the Communist revolutions that threatened to feed on their post-war economic desperation. The Marshall Plan solidified the position of the United States as the leader of the free world and at the same time made strong allies of Germany and Japan, two nations that only months before had been fighting desperately to destroy the United States.

Throughout the Cold War, our efforts in foreign aid were targeted towards subverting regimes opposing the United States and strengthening governments that helped U.S. interests. In most though admittedly not all cases, the governments that help U.S. interests in turn help their own people. Although many of the more biased students on campus would quickly point to some cases of American intervention as evidence of U.S. injustices, they make little note of America's success in helping democratic governments succeed throughout the Cold War.

Unfortunately, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the consequent disappearance of a serious threat to U.S. security, more isolationist impulses have prevailed, striking a serious blow to our foreign-aid regime. Employees at the Agency for International Development describe themselves as "the second least-loved federal Agency," just behind the Internal Revenue Services. Though stated in jest, the joke contains more than a grain of truth, as the public's perceptions of the amount of foreign aid we 'waste' on other countries is far greater than the 0.1 percent of GDP actually spent on promoting development around the world. Many efforts have been made by leaders on both sides of Congress to cut down on foreign aid, and those efforts have been largely successful. In fact, in relation to our national income, the United States now gives the least amount of foreign aid of any developed country. Failing to fulfill our responsibility towards world development undermines the legitimacy of the United States as a leader in promoting freedom and democracy — and wastes an opportunity to avert trouble in otherwise unstable regions before full-scale military force is needed. Even countries with serious economic difficulties and nowhere close to the level of resources give far more than the United States in terms of GDP, including Spain (.28 percent of GDP) and Portugal (.25 percent of GDP). The relative amount of aid that these countries contribute is more than twice the level of the United States. This is a disgrace that must be remedied. There has been much talk recently about the need to "sacrifice" in order to defeat global terrorism, but isn't the fight against global terrorism just one link in the quest to achieve world stability? A larger commitment to foreign aid would be both effective and cost efficient in promoting world stability and, given the current feeling of anti-isolationism in this country, is in line with the public's interests.

However, we cannot give blindly, as it has been shown time and again that many leaders have and will continue to take advantage of unsupervised American benevolence. Especially in the developing world, leaders often take advantage of the fact that Western powers expect governments to keep their word and fail to see through simple lies. Corrupt regimes can never be made less corrupt by giving them foreign aid, no matter how much help they are given. In these cases, money will simply serve to cement a corrupt regime's power and increase its corruption. Instead, we must commit aid to countries whose governments are committed to economic progress and the rule of law but that need monetary help to establish long-term growth programs. Foreign aid need not come simply out of the goodness of our hearts but can function as mutually beneficial both to Americans and to citizens of the developing country. A good example of a use for foreign aid in the fight against terrorism would be to establish aid programs in would-be terrorist hotspots in exchange for cooperation with U.S. efforts to wipe out terrorism. All foreign-aid programs must be able to hold the recipient governments accountable for the help that is given. The most effective aid programs are those established in countries where we can actively monitor progress of the aid program and, at the same time, verify that commitments to American interests are being followed as promised. In these countries, an ounce of preventative aid might be worth a pound of military interdiction, and American interests could be protected without the use of the military and to the benefit of both nations involved.

Increasing our foreign-aid program towards countries with responsible governments would help further U.S. interests while at the same time open another front in the war against global insecurity. Promoting U.S. interests through foreign aid is yet another opportunity to assert our continuing role as world leader and to save ourselves the headaches of having to solve regional crises that could have been prevented with well-targeted aid programs. Ideally, the aid we give to underdeveloped nations should also be made known to the people of the nation we are aiding in order to combat the stigma that the United States is only out for its own interests. It is a chance to help ourselves by helping others — and a golden opportunity to bring American-inspired stability to an unstable world. David Sillers is from Potomac, Md. He can be reached at dsillers@princeton.edu.