2 ms·

The aide money wasn't there to fix things, it was there for soft power. Once you understand that it makes a whole lot more sense why corruption was never reall

The aide money wasn't there to fix things, it was there for soft power. Once you understand that it makes a whole lot more sense why corruption was never really addressed and things didn't really get better. The way it works was simple "Do what we want you to do OR ELSE we'll pull your aide. It'd be a shame if that happened". That is ultimately the power that allowed the US to keep these countries in check. To make them follow US trade policy in lock step. To sell that to the american public was simply masking the whole thing as giving aide. Now, I think it's wrong to just completely pull the plug. The aide wasn't doing nothing and it wasn't just soft power. The needed reform shouldn't have happened in one big action.

throwaway48476 1y ago
That's how it started but over time the program was captured by bureaucrat insiders to line their own pockets. It won't let me reply, but I agree. I think when organizations are new and shiny the stakeholders are excited and pay attention. Over time attention shifts to the new shiny thing and only inertia and self dealing keep the organization together.
- cogman10 1y ago
  Bureaucrat insiders lining their pockets has been happening from the beginning. That's a part of the soft power. It keeps everyone in line so long as the money pipeline keeps on flowing. One of the most famous scandals was the Teapot Dome scandal of 1923 [1], long predating UAID (1961). It has exactly the same make up of corruption that people critique USAID of having. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal