Foreign Aid as a Tool for Foreign Policy - Essay Example

? Do s Employ Aid As A Tool of Foreign Policy? Draw Upon Two Examples By of [Word Count] Introduction Foreign policy refers to the international goals of a given country and the principles, and the strategies by which these goals are to be achieved. Every country at least has some foreign political, social, economic and developmental interests and objectives which it intends to achieve as it relates with others at the international level. To achieve its foreign policy objectives, there are specific critical steps and strategies that a country must implement. First, it must set its foreign agendas, which are the issues and challenges core to a government and its citizens’ well being (Kahler, 1998). Second, the appropriate policies have to be formulated, debated, voted and legalized/enacted. Third, the policies are adopted then implemented. Finally, the implementation and completion of these policies are evaluated and recommendations made for any practicable changes (Kahler, 1998). Foreign policies are quite unlike domestic policies that involve a lot of people and agencies. Normally, the head of states/governments (presidents and prime ministers) serve as the senior most diplomats for countries. Among the tools employed in foreign policy are diplomacy, foreign aid and military force. Diplomacy entails dealing with nations via discussions, negotiations, diplomatic messages and public statements on a variety of issues. On the other hand, foreign aid involves states assisting one another monetarily and materially so that they achieve their goals, in the process helping in improving their relations. The three common types of foreign aid used as foreign policy tools are military, economic development and humanitarian aid (Kahler, 1998). While military aid involves donating or trading in military equipment and technology to improve the military power of a given state or region of interest to the donor country, economic development aid is in the form of money or equipment loans, grants and donations to boost other states’ economy (Sogge, 2002). This paper explores the idea that foreign aid is a tool for foreign policy, citing two cases in which a state uses aid to promote its interests. Foreign Aid in US Foreign Policy The United States is one of the industrial, political and economic superpowers to whom foreign aid is an essential and integral part of foreign policy. There are several types of foreign aid that the United States regularly disburses to other countries. These categories of aid are disaster and humanitarian aid, military and security aid, and economic development aid. Among these types of foreign aid, the economic development aid accounts for approximately 60% of the total aid while the military and security assistance and the disaster and humanitarian relief account for 25% and 15% respectively. There are several reasons for which the United States extends foreign aid to its developing and strategic partners. For instance, U.S. foreign aid is given for development purposes and for humanitarian assistance in cases of emergencies/disasters. Having started giving foreign aid to developing nations in 1946, just after World War I, the United States’ foreign aid now runs into billions of dollars, making it one of the most controversial and debated tool of US foreign policy. The US and other Western nations learned about and started practicing foreign aid after the World War I after most of the destroyed countries such as Germany failed to effectively reconstruct their economy and government. These devastated countries sought and received help from other states. After the First World War, the United Sates donated a whooping $12 billion dollars to Europe for government and economic reconstruction after which the US Congress then passed the European Recovery Plan (ERP), also referred to as the Marshall Plan after the Secretary of State George C. Marshall. This plan proposed the disbursement of another $13 billion in the five years following the $12 billion dollar aid. That foreign aid was used a foreign policy tool in this case was evidenced by the fact that it was President Harry Truman's economic plan to counter the spread of communism not only in Europe but also to other parts of the world. Such an approach would be used by the US even during the Cold War to curtail the spread of communism championed by the Soviet Union, which had a considerable sphere of influence. Indonesia during Suharto The other example of aid being used as a foreign policy tool was encountered during the Suharto regime in Indonesia which ran between 1965 and 998 (Hill, 1994). This regime was referred to as the New Order and was marked by the shift of power from that of Suharto’s predecessor Sukarno to Suharto. Suharto’s rule was marked by improved relations with the United States, which gave a lot of aid to Indonesia (Booth & McCawley, 1981). However, the U.S. had been giving aid to Indonesia even in pre-Suharto times, more so military aid. Between 1975 and 1995, the United States gave about $1,118,000,000 worth of weaponry to Indonesia besides some other security assistance given in the 1950-1999 period. There were also millions of dollars given in form of grants and loans, which were strangely used to pay for U.S. arms given to Indonesia. In addition to loans and grants, the U.S. government also trained the Indonesian military under the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program from 1950 to 1992. This aid become a controversial issues after the Suharto regime started murdering people, especially during the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. The many cases of human rights abuses under Suharto led to the US Congress and citizens opposing the aid that the government was giving to the Indonesian authorities (Booth & McCawley, 1981). Specifically, the Congress prohibited the IMET training program due to these widespread human rights abuses by the Suharto regime. This decision came after the Dili massacre of 1992 after which the U.S government bowed to pressure from the Congress and the citizens and withdrew the sale of small arms, riot gear, and other technologies that could be used to commit human rights abuses in Indonesia. Although Indonesia recorded some level of economic development in the first years of his ascension to power, the regime later became intolerant to dissent and committed a lot of human rights abuses, resulting to the withdrawal of U.S. military and security aid to the country (Booth & McCawley, 1981). However, with the election of President Yodhoyono, the relations were reestablished. Protecting U.S. Interests The reason for which the United States has given military, economic development and humanitarian aid not only to Indonesia but also to other states is to further and protect its interests in these countries. For instance, there are many vital economic, security and political interests the US has in Indonesia and other regions. In fact, Indonesia remains a crucial player in U.S’s security interests in the region more so given the former’s strategic location and proximity to water channels (McGregor, 2007). For instance, the Malacca Strait is especially important for the U.S. as far as its security interests at the Southeast Asia are concerned. These interests saw the US play a central role even in the independence of Indonesia, long before Suharto came to power. In fact, the US appreciated and used Indonesia, which had an anti-communist policy to fight communism, especially during the Cold War. To ensure its interests in the Southeastern Asia are protected, the U.S. continues to strengthen its relations with Indonesia through foreign aid among other strategies. There are some mutual goals such as peace, security, and regional stability that have also prompted them to engage in dialogues and other forms of cooperation such as foreign aid and bilateral trade (McGregor, 2007). Counterterrorism is the other US interest for which tighter foreign relations have been forged with Indonesia. The 2002 and 2005 Bali terrorist attacks and the 2003 and 2004 Jakarta attacks demonstrated the joint interest between these nations in the fight against terrorism. It is for these interests that the U.S. has provided military, economic development and humanitarian aid to Indonesia through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) since the 1950s. USAID’s assistance to Indonesia has focused on health care, water, basic education, training food aid, infrastructure rehabilitation, democratic governance, economic growth and the environment (McGregor, 2007). The United States is thus seen as a realist in its foreign aid to other states since its politics and actions seem to be driven by its competitive self-interests. That is, its policies are marred by egoism, groupism, power politics and overriding national interests (Rose, 2005). An evidence of the importance of foreign aid to the US foreign policy was the formation to the United States Army Security Assistance Command (USASAC), mandated to oversee all its foreign military and security aid. The aspects of military aid that the USASAC manages are military training, instruction, equipment and the sale of military equipment to qualified foreign nations (Williams, 2005). The other foreign aid agency in the United States is the Office of Foreign Disaster Administration, which manages all disaster and humanitarian aid cases. Mandated to administer economic development aid for projects such as infrastructure construction, technical assistance, small-enterprise loans, and budget support for partner-developing nations is the USAID (Williams, 2005). Currently, the top US foreign aid recipients include Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. However, Israel and Egypt have usually topped the recipient list. It is the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq and the subsequent efforts to counter terrorism and reconstruct and stabilise these countries have brought them to the top of the list. The use of foreign aid in foreign policy by the U.S. has not escaped criticism from those who feel it is not justified and has sinister motives in some cases. For instance, while the U.S gives economic development aid to Israel and Egypt, there is a feeling among some stakeholders that these two states do not fit the in the category of states that need economic development aid. Thus, this aid, and any other U.S. aid, is often viewed as not for development purposes (Oxfam America, 2008). In fact, some assert that such foreign aid from the U.S. is for supporting and installing leaders who support U.S foreign policies and wishes, notwithstanding these leaders’ abilities. There are also cases in which earlier recipients of U.S. foreign aid turn against it, Osama bin Laden, who had been granted aid by the U.S. to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980S being a classic example. Further, there is the belief that U.S aid to developing nations merely seeks to tie these nations to the U.S and to do its bidding without bringing real and sustainable development. Conclusion The post-World War I era led to the emergence of foreign aid as destroyed states such as Germany struggled to reconstruct and stabilise. Consequently, nations such as the United States had to come in and pump billions of dollars into Europe to help in the reconstruction and stabilization. However, behind these efforts to aid other countries, the donor countries often have their selfish political, economic and military/security interests to serve. For instance, in helping developing countries such as Indonesia during the Suharto regime, the United States sought to protect its military, economic and political interests in the Southeastern Asia and the Middle East against communism, propagated by the Soviet Republic. Specifically, the U.S.’s interests in the fight against terrorism have seen it pump billions of dollars in form of military aid, economic development and humanitarian aid to strategic developing countries. References Booth, A., and McCawley, P. (1981) The Indonesian economy during the Soeharto era. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Hill, H. (1994) In Indonesia's new order: the dynamics of socio-economic transformation. Australia: Allen & Unwin. Kahler, M. (1998) “Rationality in International Relations International Organization.” International Organization at Fifty: Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics, 52(4), 919. McGregor, K. E. (2007) History in uniform: military ideology and the construction of Indonesia’s past. Leiden. Oxfam America (2008) Smart development: Why US foreign aid demands major reform. Oxfam America, Inc. Rose, G. (2005) "Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy." World Politics, 51(1), 144. Sogge, D. (2002) Give and take: what's the matter with foreign aid? Zed Books. Williams, M. C. (2005) The realist tradition and the limits of international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . Read More