U.S. Role in the World

The FPA’s Pakistan blog notes that conditions are dire in Pakistan’s quake zone. Given the fragility of the U.S. alliance with Pakistan (due in part to recent drone attacks), there is an opportunity here to work on relationship building. An immediate and substantial offer of humanitarian assistance by the U.S. would go a long way toward winning the hearts and minds of the local population. Let’s demonstrate that the U.S stands by allies in times of trouble.

The U.S. is hosting a major international conference on aid and development (AP - Bush hosts international aid summit):

The event brings together about 500 representatives of nations — from Africa to Romania — that receive U.S. aid; faith-based organizations; and non-governmental, private and public leaders from the United States and the developing world.

U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Henrietta Fore said Monday that in all regions of the world, the Bush administration has doubled, tripled or quadrupled development assistance. She said the administration also has worked to reform U.S. foreign assistance through projects like the president’s initiative on HIV/AIDS and the Millennium Challenge Corp., which provides aid to nations that embrace democracy and free markets, fight corruption and invest in education and health.

The report notes a criticism of the U.S. aid program, not that we are giving too much or too little aid, but that the aid is not as well managed as it could be.

The State Department has released this transcript of Secretary Rice’s statement to the conference. Additional conference news coverage has been provided by Voice of America, Bloomberg, and CNN. If you are interested in researching U.S. aid programs I would recommend starting with the USAID website which highlights the many ways U.S. economic and humanitarian assistance is administered and disbursed.

Russia is gloating after the weekend EU summit failed to impose sanctions for the invasion of Georgia. The EU decided to do what it could to help Georgia rebuild and may consider further actions in the future, depending on whether Russia honors the ceasefire agreement. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney is in the region to offer U.S. support as the White House announced a major new aid package (The New York Times - White House Unveils $1 Billion Georgia Aid Plan):

President Bush proposed $1 billion in humanitarian and economic assistance on Wednesday to help rebuild Georgia after its short, disastrous war with Russia last month, but he stopped short of committing the United States to re-equipping its battered military. Mr. Bush announced the infusion of aid as Vice President Dick Cheney arrived here in what he described as a demonstration that the United States had “a deep and abiding interest” in keeping Georgia and other neighboring states free from a new era of Russian domination. […] The initial money, Mr. Bush said in a statement, would be used to feed and shelter tens of thousands of Georgians displaced during the fighting that began on the night of Aug. 7 when Georgia tried to establish control over a breakaway region, South Ossetia, only to be driven back by Russian forces. Mr. Bush also pledged to support its transition to a democratic market economy.

It would appear that Russia has gained territory and Georgia has gained foreign aid. In this interview posted on the Foreign Policy website (Seven Questions: Russia’s Big Mistake), Paul A. Goble explains why Russia is not really the winner in the Georgian crisis.

How much help should the U.S. offer Georgia? More U.S. humanitarian assistance has recently arrived in Georgia and aid is welcome but that fact the aid is delivered by warships is not making Russia happy (AFP - Second US aid ship arrives in Georgia):

A second US naval ship carrying aid to Georgia arrived in the southern port city of Batumi on Wednesday, avoiding another port where Russian troops are still operating. […] The Dallas started unloading its cargo to the strains of Georgian folk music and dancing as onlookers shouted “USA! USA!” and waved American and Georgian flags. […] Russia has criticised Washington’s decision to send two US warships and the coast guard cutter to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia, where Russia sent troops and tanks this month. “Normally battleships do not deliver aid and this is battleship diplomacy, this does not make the situation more stable,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in Moscow on Tuesday. “I hope people who deliver humanitarian aid would be choosy about how they deliver it.”

In addition to humanitarian assistance there has been some talk that the U.S. may consider direct military assistance to Georgia (Reuters UK - U.S. assessing possible military aid to Georgia):

With Russian tanks and troops still occupying parts of Georgia, U.S. officials have said openly that Washington will consider new military assistance for the former Soviet state turned Western ally that has staunchly supported the U.S. war on terrorism and aspires to NATO membership. […] But one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said U.S. and Georgian officials have begun a dialogue about the country’s potential military needs and that the U.S. side was awaiting a Georgian assessment of the damage sustained during the Russian onslaught.

This prompted a rather stern warning from Russia that direct military assistance would be seen as a declaration of war. Given the high stakes, does the U.S. have a moral obligation to help Georgia, and if so, how far should the U.S. go in providing help? In this video Matthew Yglesias, from the Center for American Progress, and Jonathan Chait, from The New Republic, debate the morality of helping Georgia.

Let’s turn now away from issues of high politics towards something more humanitarian. As I mentioned in my first post, I hope to highlight the ways in which the U.S. is working to make this a better world through the strategic use of U.S. aid. Let’s face it, when we think of the U.S. role in the world, we all hope that at the end of the day, America is making a positive difference. Whether this is in fact true or merely wishful thinking on the part of Americans is another matter, but I think that our history shows that we have at least tried to make a positive difference in the world. In this latest example, the U.S. is using our vast wealth to help fund the global fight against infectious diseases (AP - Bush signs bill to triple AIDS funding):

President Bush signed legislation Wednesday that triples U.S. funding to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world. The five-year, $48 billion plan renews a program credited with saving millions of lives in Africa alone and is widely seen as one of the major achievements of the Bush presidency. Bush said the program, launched by him in 2003, “is the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease in human history.”

Time will tell if this initiative, named the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, will join the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift as a notable example of U.S. aid. Already there are complaints that this effort ignores those suffering here at home. Still, as a means of alleviating suffering, supporting allies in Africa, and winning hearts and minds, this is a wise investment of U.S aid money and an exemplary application of soft power.

Imagine the following scenario: Food riots destabilize the capital of a sub-Saharan African country, military officers stage a coup, a civil war breaks out, the government falls, a new government takes power but their hold on power is tenuous, social unrest continues, people are starving. What can the U.S. do? Traditionally, the U.S. would send aid and coordinate with international relief agencies, providing assistance and support, helping to meet immediate humanitarian needs. People would be helped, yes, but the underlying causes of the crisis would not be immediately addressed.

Now, thanks to a new initiative by the State Department, the U.S. has another option. The U.S. can respond to such a crisis by sending an emergency response team composed of diplomats, engineers, health care providers, law enforcement officials and other specialists to offer a multifaceted solution, working to both stabilize the country and lay the groundwork for a more secure civil infrastructure. According to this report in The Washington Times (Rice hails corps to rebuild nations):

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice inaugurated the U.S. government’s first-ever civilian nation-building team Wednesday in a bid to learn from missteps in Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction efforts.

The “active” component, called the Civilian Response Corps, is a team of 250 federal employees from several agencies - diplomats, development specialists, public health officials, law enforcement and corrections officers, engineers, economists, lawyers, public administrators, agronomists and others.

Their primary responsibility is to deploy to crisis spots around the world within 48 to 72 hours.

The report notes that such teams have already been deployed, and they are gaining valuable training and experience that will allow them to better address crisis conditions that are sure to arise in other countries as civil unrest and natural disasters strike. Is this an example of America at its best or a misguided effort to solve all the world’s problems?

I’d like to begin this blog about the U.S. Role by using this first post to look back to a time when the U.S. aided a former enemy and helped lay the foundation for the post-WWII era in world affairs (International Herald Tribune - Germany remember Berlin airlift on 60th anniversary):

Germany on Thursday commemorated the 60th anniversary of the start of the Berlin airlift, celebrating an unprecedented undertaking that probably saved the city from falling to the Soviet Union and helped mend German-American relations after World War II. Often called the first battle of the Cold War, the airlift pitted the United States and the Soviet Union against each other for the first time and set the tone for the decades to come.

Imagine for a moment a world still reeling from the damage of WWII as the U.S. stepped up to airlift food, medicine and supplies to the besieged citizens of Berlin. If public opinion had been as active then, if there had been bloggers, would war-weary people have supported such a daring and certainly dangerous humanitarian mission? U.S. intervention is often cast in negative terms these days, so I thought perhaps this first post might take a moment to look back to a time when international issues seemed to allow for greater moral clarity than do many of the issues we face today. The Berlin Airlift is remembered as a shining moment of American resolve against the Soviet Union, which set the stage for later Cold War confrontations, and as an example of the kinds of humanitarian assistance that the U.S. went on to extend to many nations (most recently in China and Myanmar) in times of trouble.