Aid for Leadership, not just National Security

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.  Take a closer look at this ongoing debate.

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 condemned. 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.