Redefining U.S. National Interests

I applaud your Jan. 3 editorial that encouraged the new administration to broaden its definition of the national interest to include diseases, water shortage and poverty. A misguided legacy of the Cold War is the belief that U.S. security rests exclusively on the absence of military threat. Today, however, threats to peace, human rights and social order are just as likely to come from a virus or rapid population growth as they are from the barrel of a gun.

Population growth is a significant hindrance to the development and stabilization of the world’s poorest countries. There are millions of couples, mostly in Africa, Asia and Latin America, who desperately want access to voluntary family planning services to limit the number of children they have. Without these services, families suffer significant health consequences, and their countries are rapidly stripped of their economic, social and environmental resources, which contributes to the unstable political and social conditions of these regions.

I have seen firsthand how valuable humanitarian assistance can be in enhancing a country’s economic and political condition.

If, in fact, the U.S. is truly concerned about peace, security and democratic values, it must address the root causes of poverty, disease and environmental degradation that are the newest and greatest threats to these long-held values.

RICHARD T. SCHLOSBERG III

President

David and Lucile Packard

Foundation, Los Altos