One of the major foreign policy developments of the 20th century was the advent of foreign assistance as a major endeavor of the developed world. Unlike other instruments of foreign policy, including diplomacy, military force, and strategic alliances, all of which are explicitly designed to further a country’s national interest, development aid is normally characterized as a moral obligation to help the poor and feed the hungry in the developing world. Despite this perception by policymakers and the public alike, development assistance is and should continue to be an important tool for promoting U.S. national security interests.

By addressing concerns like poverty reduction, economic growth, democracy and human rights, and good governance, development assistance works to diminish potential threats to our security by addressing their structural causes (poverty leading to extremism, corruption leading to lawlessness, authoritarianism leading to violence). Making the world more prosperous and democratic is a critical means for making the U.S. safer. By giving individuals and leaders in developing countries more opportunities to better themselves and participate in meaningful ways, both economically and politically, fewer will turn to radicalism, violence, and crime.

We see evidence for this all over the world. Because of rampant corruption and a lack of inclusion in national decision making, rebels in the Niger delta have attacked oil pipelines, disrupting an important source of U.S. oil and driving up global prices. Similarly, the brutal authoritarian regime in Sudan has methodically committed atrocities both in southern Sudan and in Darfur, creating a crisis of internally displaced persons and refugees that has the potential to destabilize the region. In Indonesia, however, where American foreign assistance has successfully promoted increased participation and good governance through decentralization and anti-corruption programs, the threat of extremism has diminished, and the violent conflicts in Aceh and Papua are on the road to resolution. The results of sustained development efforts cannot be overlooked, and the consequences of waiting until our national security interests are directly threatened cannot be understated.

Where we face genuine, short-term threats, “traditional” foreign policy tools like military assistance or diplomatic pressure/support will remain important options. We need to be careful, however, to realize when our short-term goals and policies (e.g. providing military support to an authoritarian regime) are working at cross purposes with our long-term development goals (e.g. promoting freedom and human rights, and reducing poverty).

The challenge to the next generation of American policymakers is to acknowledge and balance the tradeoffs between short-term conceptions of national security and long-term ones. Too often in the past have we chosen short-term tactical gains over long-term security. We need to reject this way of thinking, and instead integrate our foreign aid policy into our broader conception of national security by breaking down the unnecessary bureaucratic barriers and tension between the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on the one hand, and the State and Defense Departments on the other. As long as we view foreign assistance as a moral responsibility rather than a tool for promoting our national security, we will continue to focus on the symptoms of poverty, autocracy, and corruption rather than address their causes.