Human Rights and International Governance

Donor governments in the developed world are often in the unenviable position of having to justify foreign aid expenditures to a sceptical electorate. Although there is considerable evidence to suggest that aid programs have been instruments for furthering the interests of those who are writing the cheques (and not those who are cashing the cheques), there is a school of thought that believes that development assistance is money that could be spent on more useful domestic endeavours. One common rebuttal is that it is in donors’ “enlightened self-interest” to invest in development, especially when the discussion involves fragile and failed states that may pose a threat to industrialized nations. Indeed, several scholars have recently observed that, in the post-9/11 era, aid has become co-opted by the security agenda. Investing in development – building schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc. – is actually part of a larger military agenda, in which confronting extreme poverty, infectious diseases, systemic human rights violations, and state fragility on the other side of the world is part of a larger military strategy to eliminate havens for organized criminal elements and terrorist groups. Afghanistan is a case in point. A useful strategy for convincing voters of the importance of development assistance, this line of reasoning is, however, ultimately of questionable utility.

     There are at least four problems why enlightened self-interest is a poor guidepost for a development assistance program. One, it undermines any moral imperative for assisting those in need; aid is given in exchange for promises of security, not because people are suffering. Two, and perhaps more troubling, it implies that assistance will be withdrawn once the perceived threat has passed, even if the political, social and economic inequities within a particular country have not been rectified; no threat, no need for aid. Three, recipients of aid will be selected based on their strategic importance, not on the severity of their situation. Four, choices will not be based on where donors can have the biggest impact, or, put another way, where they can do the most good.

     Development assistance is a difficult sell to voters on the best of days. This is especially true if there are few tangible signs that the aid is actually making a difference. Unfortunately, moral arguments for transferring wealth from the developed to the developing world have rarely been sufficient on their own; injecting a little realism into the debate – i.e. it is in our own best interest to help the poor – has always been a necessary prerequisite for action.

    As morally deficient as arguments rooted in enlightened self-interest may be, they have at least one thing going for them: they are honest. They make no claim to benevolence or altruism. They do not pretend to be anything more than a defence of national interests. And, at the very least, they force us to answer to the question “Why are we really helping those in need anyway?”

The opinions expressed are the personal views of the author only, and do not represent the views of any organization or institution with which he is affiliated.