Read this wire article on recent congressional testimony by Oxfam and try to determine what Oxfam is actually recommending that Congress do. It's tough. My guess is the author didn't understand what the testimony was saying. But the testimony is well worth a read. They got it right, but probably mixed terms in a confusing way.
As I interpret it, Oxfam is saying that we need development (they call it poverty reduction, which is technically different and a group of wonks could have a fun time tossing it around, but for the rest of us I think we can just call them interchangeable. Anyway, I like the sound of development better). We need development for a llot of reasons – it is morally repugnant for human beings to be so poor, it is dangerous for the international system for humans to be so poor, and it is a good way to get people to like Americans. All of these are reason that we need development, and I’m willing to bet that mainstream thinking at Oxfam is that we should be happy with the first one, but in the testimony they say all are valid.
But the key is that for all these things we need DEVELOPMENT – not foreign aid. Foreign aid is how we get development, not an end in itself. So every time we use our foreign aid to achieve a short-term security aim, we are actually undermining the thing we need, which is development.
I may be reading too much into it, because that is exactly what I think, but I hope I’m right and that Congress listens.
