To Curb Terrorism, Send Aid in Abundance

The recent decision by the United States to spend about $300 million on Afghanistan reconstruction signals a welcome shift in attitude toward foreign assistance.

Throughout the 1990s, Americans expressed deep-seated ambivalence about providing social and economic aid to developing countries. While the number favoring such aid increased in the last half of the decade, no doubt because of the perceptions of bounty generated by an expanding economy, no more than 13% of Americans ever said the amount of U.S. foreign aid should grow.

Responding to that sentiment, the Bush administration proposed in May to cut overseas refugee assistance by $5 million, even though the number of refugees stood at an all-time high.

Now the administration, quite appropriately, is taking the lead in a global effort to rebuild Afghanistan. It is doing that not out of the goodness of its heart but because it recognizes that a ravaged country is ripe for instability and terrorism.

What is true of Afghanistan is also true of other countries. Since the 1993 debacle in Somalia, for example, Americans largely have managed to put that country out of their minds, at least until a popular book and movie--”Black Hawk Down”--returned it to our attention. But Somalia is every bit as economically desperate a place today, albeit a more peaceful one. That desperation contributes to its susceptibility as a haven for terrorists. Yet U.S. aid to Somalia has declined sharply since 1993, from $28million to $16 million today.

Whether it be the squalor of a refugee camp, the impoverishment of an urban slum or the narrow-mindedness cultivated by hard-line Islamic religious schools known as madrasas, social and economic ills can come back to haunt those who ignore them, even if they live thousands of miles away.

It is true that much foreign assistance has been wasted over the years, either as a result of corruption or poor planning. Yet we now have the opportunity to accept as a cornerstone of our foreign policy the fundamental principle that human beings who have access to shelter, food, employment and education will be more content and less likely to resort to violence. Some administration officials understand this.

“I really believe that creating jobs in [Pakistan] is a way to protect American lives,” said Wendy J. Chamberlin, U.S. ambassador to that country. And in Nepal last month, Secretary of State Colin Powell said U.S. aid could help counter Maoist violence in that nation.

At least two obstacles, however, threaten the prospect of a renewed commitment to social and economic development around the world.

The first is that Americans historically have been opposed to the recognition of social and economic rights internationally. We can address social and economic deprivation on a case-by-case basis, but until we recognize in a systemic way that poverty and ignorance make victims of us all, we will never be entirely safe from their consequences.

The second obstacle is reflected in polls showing a rise in sympathy for foreign assistance that paralleled the growth of a more robust U.S. economy. The obverse of that trend is just as likely to be true and, once the threat of terrorism appears to subside, the contracting U.S. economy may convince Americans that we cannot afford to take care of both ourselves and others around the world.

Such shortsightedness would be unfortunate. No one imagines that the U.S. can, or should, solve the economic problems of the developing world by itself. Our aid to Afghanistan represents less than 25% of what that country needs.

If we are to be safe in a world threatened by terrorism, however, we need to recognize that our obligations do not stop at Afghanistan’s borders.