| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Colin Powell: No Country Left Behind |
| 2005-01-11 |
| Development is not a "soft" policy goal, but a core national security issue, says Colin Powell, as he draws the main lessons of his four years as U.S. secretary of state. However, contrary to what critics say, the best way to lift millions out of poverty is not to increase levels of foreign aid. Instead, the United States must engage in tough love and demand that corrupt, autocratic regimes change their ways. As the first George W. Bush administration moved toward its conclusion, many people asked me to sum up the president's foreign-policy record of the last four years. Almost invariably, their questions focused on September 11 and the war on terrorism, developments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the state of trans-Atlantic relations, or the difficulties of the intelligence craft. Almost invariably, my answers have keyed on distinguishing between issues such as these that tend to dominate the headlines, and issues of equal or greater long-term strategic significance that rarely generate as much interest. Among these latter issues, none is more important than economic development in the world's poorest societies. As the president wrote in the National Security Strategy in September 2002, "A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable." No issue has consumed more of the administration's concern and energy. And now that George W. Bush has a mandate for a second term, he intends to pursue his goals for economic development with the same determination that made possible the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The president has said that he intends to spend the political capital he earned in winning the trust of the American people, and the world can be assured that much of that capital will be spent helping the poorest of its citizens. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #2 Among these latter issues, none is more important than economic development in the world’s poorest societies. If plans are afoot to allow U.S. companies to set up shop in these countries and employ the local labor force, the usual groups are going to do their damndest to either quash the effort or hobble it by making demands that companies adhere to unrealistic guidelines. Whatever the administration has up their sleeve, there's going to be reflexive opposition, and the President and his team had better be ready to counter it. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-11 11:41:27 AM |
| #1 Go Colin. That's a fair statement, especially since it's not about pity or more aid. We've done a good job of managing wealth distribution in our own country, better than any one else has ever accomplished on such a large scale, but the world has become a much smaller place. If Bush can use economic development to improve the standards of living among the poorest of poor - he could be vying for position with leaders such as Alexander. If Bush really arrives, Stone could write a screenplay about him, centering the entire movie on a homosexual-like event that Bush might have had during a Skull and Bones hazing. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-01-11 8:53:54 AM |