Essay On The Nexus Of Foreign Aid And Fragility In The Fragile States

Whether or not foreign aid is being used as a tool or as a weapon remains a question. Each year we use foreign aid to threaten hungry countries all over the world. People fear the United States will withdraw from any type of aid they are associated with causing even more trouble than good. About half of U.S. foreign aid goes to the six countries that are Washington’s allies; these are against terror attacks and drug transportation. Foreign aid is viewed as good because it makes the world a safer place, it leaves countries cleaner and healthier, however others view it as harmful because of the cost, it fuels rampant corruption in countries that receive it, and it creates poverty.

However, the aid has some drawbacks which include some of the policies not being practical and occasionally being too political which makes the targeted poor people more vulnerable. Also governments receiving the aid could be partial which can also result in uneven and biased distribution of the aid which doesn’t solve any problems.

There are two main perspectives on foreign aid in Australia – are we giving too much or not enough? Foreign aid is given to developing countries, and is necessary to build an environment where policies and infrastructure can be in place to support other sources of finance. Australia is part of the worldwide foreign aid commitment as we value that everyone should have a fair go, and the country plans to give $3.9 billion over 2017 and 2018. We help countries in need by contributing, food, resources, providing financial assistance, exchanging goods, personal time and knowledge. The main types of aid are humanitarian aid, which is disaster relief and emergency aid and development aid, which is a long-term commitment between nations. Australian aid is strongly on development aid particularly focused on the Asia-Pacific region, but it also has a strong commitment to African and South Asia. Interestingly, 90% of Australia’s foreign aid goes to Asia-Pacific countries such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, because if they build into a developed nation, then we can build trade relations, regional security and partner in defence. This is a polarizing issue that divides the nation due to different views on Australia giving aid, however, a strong foreign aid program is vital for Australia to build successful relations and regional security.

Over the recent years the military has had a greater involvement with aid programs, this was most notable from her experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Militarization of aid politicizes it for something that shouldn't be political. As the author believes humanitarian aid needs to exist in a neutral humanitarian space in order to remain its legitimacy and maintain close ties to the community level. From one example mentioned in Damned Nations, during the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, international aid agencies that worked closely with communities showed greater progress and effectiveness (Nutt, 92). In essence this administered a positive attitude towards westerners, and symbolized progress within hostile nations. Aid that is not militarized allows civilians to feel safe access to services and without the fear in putting themselves or their families at risk (Nutt, 92). In comparison military administered aid has proven to lack the same level of trust because civilians inherently become worried about being targeted as collaborators (Nutt, 92). In addition the militarization of aid proves to bring further danger towards humanitarian workers. “Over the past decade, attacks against aid workers have increased 177 percent, with reports of rape, violence, extortion, abduction, and killings” (Nutt, 94). The author states this was reflected from a misjudgment that involving armed militants into

Ever had that one friend? The one who tries to help, but no matter how hard he tries, he just aggravates the situation. This friend, Steve, insists he is helping, and those around, too, would support that he is indeed helping. But Steve is actually worsening the circumstances. He is like countries who provide foreign aid to less developed countries. Foreign aid, defined as “the international transfer of capital, goods, or services from a country or international organization for the benefit of the recipient country or its population,” can be military, economic, or humanitarian (“Foreign”). It is often granted to less developed countries in order to evoke government reforms or to stimulate economic growth. However, foreign aid neither elicits government reform, nor does it consistently and reliably stimulate economic growth; therefore, the United States should discontinue providing foreign economic aid.

On one side of the issue the supporters of developmental aid believe that the United States is doing more than a great job by offering economic assistance to countries that need help to develop. These individuals are aware of the unfortunate poverty levels in many countries abroad. They believe that it is the duty of the American people to help reduce the poverty levels in countries in which people live with less than a dollar a day. In fact, some supporters believe that the U.S. is not offering enough support to the poorer countries. Many have

“We lost the war in southern Afghanistan and it broke my heart.” This statement used by Graeme Smith in the introduction to his book, The Dogs are Eating Them Now: Our War in Afghanistan, sets the tone for the rest of the book. Although foreign forces had, arguably, the best of intentions going into the war, the Taliban always regrouped and reappeared, often larger and harder to defeat than before, no matter how tremendous their losses were in previous battles. International forces did what they thought was essential for rebuilding of Afghanistan, including the elimination of the Taliban through air strikes and poppy eradication, even though they did not truly understand the needs and priorities of Afghan citizens and were constantly perceived negatively by the Afghan civilians. In an accessible method, Smith provides general knowledge about how the intervention on the behalf of the international community impacted the country and its people. This book also leaves me with reflections on the dynamic between insurgents and villagers and how the international forces could have helped to prevent a power vacuum from occurring during the years where most foreign forces pulled out of Afghanistan.

Riddell, Roger C. 2007. Does Foreign Aid Really Work? 1st ed. OXFORD: Oxford University Press, USA.

billions of the world’s poorest, where safety is secured only for those with money, and where much of our well-intended aid is lost in the daily chaos of violence. (Boutros V. and Haugen G., 2014).

This paper assess the positive and negative effects that peace and war, respectively, have on the distribution of foreign aid in the developing country Sierra Leone. Next I will analyze the specific actions that the leadership of the selected Sierra Leone has taken, through the use of its foreign aid from donor nations and international lending institutions, to relieve the severe problems caused by warfare. Lastly I will discuss whether or not the extension of foreign aid has successfully reduced poverty and the incidence of warfare in Sierra Leone.

In developing countries such as Sierra Leone and Sudan, there are many types of violence, propaganda, and corruption used to create this vulnerability, which leads to vicious cycles of displacement and war. The corruption that is present in these governments is rather significant and the fear that is instilled into civilians by the military or militia causes a power imbalance. Furthermore, the abuse of drugs and alcohol is caused by the lack of education in many of these developing countries. Civilians are persuaded to join these organizations with the use of drugs such and cocaine and crack. The lack of availability of education and awareness of the effects of such drugs puts civilians in a vulnerable position. Being born in certain developing countries comes with everlasting conflict, which commonly leads to vulnerable environments and further displacement. Most of the time these conflicts arise over natural resources, religion or contrasting political views. The current action being taken by foreign aid has had a very minor impact. New Statesman writer Dinaw Mengestu discusses African literature comparing past to present, “Growing up in the United States, I was acutely aware of how everything I saw and heard about my native Ethiopia was being translated...We died by the millions, and with the exception of a handful of thoughtful accounts by western journalists, little was said and done from the outside, and even less was uttered out loud from within” (Mengestu, 2007). This further reflects the issue of not being recognized on a global scale and being misinterpreted by the rest of society. In order to protect these civilians from the corruption, violence and propaganda, there is a need for further action. Firstly, this issue needs to be recognized and humanized by foreign governments. The amount of awareness needs to drastically increase in order for civilians and foreign

Since the turn of the century, the world has experienced various events that have rendered millions homeless, starving or even without a country. Such events may range from merciless persecution by a ruthless dictator to a furious tsunami that leaves destruction in its wake. In such incidents, it is human nature to help those affected rebuild their lives and find comfort again. As a result, governments spend billions on foreign aid projects aimed at helping populations rebuild themselves after a tragic event. Despite the funding and resources spent on these projects, their success rate is dismal. Coyne’s book explains the flaws of state-led humanitarianism. Using case studies that range from Afghanistan to Haiti, Coyne successfully argues against state aid proving that continuing with that approach is likely to remain unsuccessful. He further demonstrates that state aid fails to fulfill its mandate because the parties involved are either too arrogant or ignorant to acknowledge fundamental flaws of state-led aid. He says that the influence of agenda driven opinions of blurs the objectives of financial assistance from the beginning. Since governments focus on what they should, rather than what they can do, the goals of the most aid-funded projects in affected nations remain unrealized.

The main point of Banerjee and Duflo’s Poor Economics (2012) is that aid is neither good nor bad: there are instances where it can help greatly and instances where it can fail those it seeks to help(4). Aid is a powerful tool, therefore it’s imperative that we carefully select the right types of projects (Banerjee & Duflo, 2012, p. 4-5). Banerjee and Duflo (2012) present a few key points of action as a framework for approaching aid, with the broadest issue being the idea that too much responsibility is placed on the poor in making the most basic decisions (268-69). One example that Banerjee and Duflo (2012) offer is the fact that many of the poorest people don’t have sanitary water

According the US Census Bureau, the United States spent $44.957 billion on foreign aid in 2009, in terms of total foreign assistance. Of that, just over $11 billion was military assistance. The nations that received the most foreign aid were Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel and Pakistan. Some aid went to financial institutions and to aid agencies, and therefore is difficult to classify by country. By regions, Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East were the biggest recipients of foreign aid. The recipients and types of foreign aid are indicative of priorities that the US government has with respect to foreign relations. As many people applaud high levels of foreign aid from the US to poor countries around the world, foreign aid also has its critics. From a domestic perspective, criticisms include the argument that this money would be better used in the United States, and the libertarian argument against all forms of foreign aid in general. It is worth noting that many critics of foreign aid still support aid to support military objectives, which includes the four largest recipient of aid (Traub, 2011). External critics of foreign aid argue that such aid has generally failed to achieve its objectives, for a variety of reasons ranging from rapidly increasing populations to corruption to the promotion of dependency relationships (Bovard, 1986). This paper will analyze US foreign aid in the context of its success and failures and make the case that the United States

Canada’s aid policy has been the subject of significant criticism in recent history (Johnston, 2010). There have recently been exceptions to the criticism, the best known having been Canada’s impressive response to the Haiti earthquake (Johnston, 2010). The Canadian International Development Agency has been the focal point of the criticism, despite the fact that aid is a responsibility amongst numerous government offices (Johnston, 2010). When the Canadian International Development Agency was first developed, it was considered highly innovative and was attracting innovative and talented workers (Johnston, 2010). Now however, the Canadian International Development Agency is considered “bureaucratic, hidebound, out of touch, ineffectual, risk averse, contradictory, vacillating” (Johnston, 2010, 3). Most critics would argue that “nothing less than fundamental cross-government reform of