Obama gave a speech today on national security in which he admired the ideals and effects of the Marshall plan. He spoke, eloquently as usual, on the need for increased non-military aid in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
He is right that development aid is a key tool in revitalizing war torn areas and advancing our national interests in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Our money will help and will hopefully slow the recent "militarization of foreign policy". But the development paradigm constructed in the aftermath of WW II that gave us the Marshall Plan, the World Bank, and later the Washington Consensus has become stagnant as evidenced by the global economic slowdown and ineffectiveness of African aid.
Today, large packages of government money are often lost in corruption and inefficiency. Small targeted solutions work much better. Each political and economic situation today is contextual. There is no blueprint for the Middle East and South Asia like there was for post WW II Europe. Development today occurs in a complex, globalized, Post-America world. It requires innovation and creative practices based in technology and broad social understanding - certainly not a policy framework that leaps back 60 years.
We don't need another Marshall Plan. It helped allocate resources and restock capital but more so, exported a particular ideology. It hinged on creating a global order friendly to the US. It was intended to instill confidence in America's dominance and ability to rebuild. On occasion after occasion in modern times this approach has been shown to fail. Why try the same tired formula? To propose one is a cheap pitch at a type of idealism that is long dead and is certainly not in the vein of pragmatic foreign policy Obama has espoused.
No comments:
Post a Comment