How has development agencies’ growing concern with combating global terrorism affected their policies? What impact might this national security focus have on overseas development assistance? This paper from the Journal of International Development argues that development policy which prioritises the security of the global North over the interests of the South will damage the prospects for reducing poverty, and for fighting global terrorism.
Overseas development has long been linked to security, but after the Cold War there was hope that aid would focus on countries most in need, irrespective of political leanings. Since 9/11, though, donor countries – even those with formerly “altruistic” development policies like Canada and Denmark – have proclaimed a shift in priority towards projects perceived as supporting the “War on Terror”.
Since 2001, OECD aid budgets to countries connected to the fight against terrorism, like Pakistan, Afghanistan Iraq and the Philippines, have risen, while total development spending has remained stable, or declined. The US in particular is diverting much of its aid towards the military-related projects of its strategic allies rather than long-term development programmes.
Some commentators see potential for good in this “security-development nexus”:
- Since conflict inhibits development, the promotion of security is instrumental to development.
- The transition in development policy emphasis from liberalisation to security has put more focus on conflict-ridden societies previously overlooked.
- The strategic focus of overseas development will invigorate the urgency of the development agenda, giving aid agencies the leverage to demand larger budgets.
However, this approach is fraught with dangers:
- High-profile, humanitarian projects with a military significance will be prioritised, rather than long-term development initiatives, which seek to reduce poverty and encourage growth.
- Countries with little terrorism, and those whose conflicts differ from US preconceptions about an Islamic terror threat, like Colombia, will be neglected.
- The “War on Terror” has already led to increasing politicisation of humanitarian aid work. Local populations confuse combat troops and aid workers, compromising the security of humanitarian workers and limiting their access to affected areas.
These risks have broader implications for development theorists and practitioners:
- The ‘securitisation’ of aid may be counterproductive. The lack of emphasis on long-term development may undermine security by creating groups of poor, disaffected young men.
- Security considerations have seen a reduction in migration since 9/11. The resultant decline in remittances sent back from the developed world by migrant workers hinders economic growth in the developing world.
- The prevalence of terrorists born in the developed world puts into doubt the wisdom of tackling terror by targeting foreign societies.
- The failure to define “terrorism” confuses aid policy. By denying a political dimension to terrorist struggles, a delusory belief exists that it is possible to “develop our way out of terrorism” without engaging with political grievances.
- By taking on the role of monitoring the effectiveness of the “security-development nexus”, aid organisations may become purely reactive and unable to set the development agenda.
